|
Grex > Glb > #37: gay bashers in the news again (long -- 163 lines) |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 261 of 404:
| 
Nov 9 06:45 UTC 1998 |
Other people's pride in self and self esteem is totally the business of
those other people. You really are acting in an overbearing manner to
think that you have an iota of judgement to make about that. If you would
keep out of it, there would be less intended damage to the pride of
others. People with your (and that Croatians') attitude are the cause of
other people's misery - and solely for the sake of pleasing their personal
ego.
Yes, perversion is by defintion "abnormal", but who is to say what is
normal? At one time *democracy* was a perversion. Thinking of giving women
the right to vote was a perversion. Calling things a perversion primarily
reflects poorly upon the caller, not upon the victim. Claiming
perversions is just another way of subduing minorities. In Afghanistan,
women not wearing the chadur or wishing to have an education education are
offical perversions punishable by cruelty if not death. Your decrees are
just as nonsensical and dangerous.
The incident at your daughter's school might show the prevalence of
intolerance at that school - or it could show that most students are
actually tolerant, but don't want to take "sides". Gays would not need
"pride" days if everyone else just treated them with the respect due
individuals.
No one should rub anyone else's noses in their own private preferences.
However, how do you recommend that gays obtain full and total acceptance,
if not to at least raise the issue of the existence of intolerance (which
you seem to interpret as rubbing people's noses in it). I do rub peoples
noses into the expression of their own intolerance (consider your nose
rubbed).
|
brighn
|
|
response 262 of 404:
|
Nov 9 06:51 UTC 1998 |
In the paragraph beginning: My son in law... you refer to an individual who
was beaten to death, in part because of his sexual orientation.
In the next paragraph, you say: "The most harm done to any individual through
homosexual practices is done to those who practice these perverted actions."
I don't see a large number of gays beating each other to death. Apparently,
loss of self-esteem, which you claim to be a result of practicing
homosexuality, is more harmful than death. Hm.
Wow.
At any rate, you're quite right, "pervert" is someone who practices *abnormal*
sexuality. So you're determining what is considered normal and abnormal. We
could do that. The APA removed homosexuality from its Diagnostics Manual (I
believe DSM-III was the first that didn't list it, some 10 years or so ago).
In so doing, the American Psychiatric Association deemed homosexuality to be
within the realm of "normal" human behaviors.
Hence, according to the predominance of the experts on human behavior in this
country, homosexuality is normal, and hence, it isn't perverted.
In contrast, Masochism is, I believe, in the DSM-IV(R) as a personality
disorder, so us BDSM folks are, in fact, perverts.
Ain't life grand?
|
lumen
|
|
response 263 of 404:
|
Nov 9 08:03 UTC 1998 |
re #253: :P I already deal with my manic-depression in a good way by seeing
a psychiatrist, so fuck off-- you're starting to annoy me.
|
maeve
|
|
response 264 of 404:
|
Nov 9 16:43 UTC 1998 |
so much to object to, so little time..
kenton, what is your goal when interacting with people? Do you want to
be able to understand them, or are you more interested in being able to
feel superior to them and their ways of life?
at any rate, I can think of far worse habits than homosexuality, among
them such diverse behaviors as: -drinking strawberry soda -wearing
clothing circa the 70s -using the words 'perverted' 'pervert' 'fag'
more than once in any post and the list goes on..
|
brown
|
|
response 265 of 404:
|
Nov 9 18:18 UTC 1998 |
I'll just agree with Katy's first line and quit there.
not too sure this is worth it
<bob ponders>.
|
brighn
|
|
response 266 of 404:
|
Nov 9 22:14 UTC 1998 |
of course it's pointless, bob, but tricksters don't care about points, we care
about how much fun we're having, and hooooooodoggy, this is entertainin'. =}
|
mdw
|
|
response 267 of 404:
|
Nov 10 00:16 UTC 1998 |
Kenton would have been considered a sexual pervert by the average
ancient greek.
|
lumen
|
|
response 268 of 404:
|
Nov 10 01:20 UTC 1998 |
re #264: Well, not all clothes in the 70's were so over the top. I like
paisely somewhat, and my dad had some real boss clothes when I was a tot.
Leather armbands are cool-- so are big black leather belts. My good colors
were popular then-- brown, black, sandstone, ecru, etc.
It's disco and the Brady Bunch that really ruined fashion, and even then, the
movie re-make characters wore clothing even more exaggerated than the cast
in the TV series.
You don't like strawberry pop? :(
re #267: Marcus, what's your reference source? I'm curious. My understanding
was that it was acceptable but not necessarily the norm. Your statement is
echoed a number of places here, and I had never read about it.
(Book, author, and year will suffice :) )
|
brown
|
|
response 269 of 404:
|
Nov 10 03:22 UTC 1998 |
I can't give a reference offhand Jon .. but the greeks were
'perverted' enough to the point that the GOVT made it manditory to
marry and procreate.... they were not getting enough soldiers on
account of the guys hooking up.
they were kept together pretty much since birth to be trained as
soldiers etc, and lived together a good hunk of their adult life.
many only married and had kids out of duty
|
joe
|
|
response 270 of 404:
|
Nov 10 03:43 UTC 1998 |
You know, I orginally began writing this with the intention of establishing
a counterargument to the idea that gays and lesbians are perverts, but then
I thought to myself, "I don't really give a rat's ass what kenton or mother
superior thinks", and said the hell with it.
|
mdw
|
|
response 271 of 404:
|
Nov 10 04:32 UTC 1998 |
I'm afraid my office library doesn't contain much on the ancient greeks.
I'll try to find something when I go home.
|
senna
|
|
response 272 of 404:
|
Nov 10 05:18 UTC 1998 |
Hmm. Katy's first line works for me too. Kenton, your arguments are silly
and nonsensical, your "data" is anecdotal and not even gathered as a primary
source, and your outlook is not the standard by which all people appear.
See, you're not the only person who takes his or her view of the world and
applies it to everybody. On this system or otherwise. But you're by far the
most blatant and the least sensible about it. Your opinions are just that...
your own. Whether or not they are correct, your method of presentation leaves
a great deal to be desired. I most likely agree with some of your beliefs
(ones you haven't been talking about) more than the average grexer, but I
cannot identify with where you stand. Your persistence at ignoring sensible
reason simply does not convince or even justify yourself to anyone.
|
janc
|
|
response 273 of 404:
|
Nov 10 05:26 UTC 1998 |
I find that I learn a lot from attempting to explain things that I
consider obvious. I've been participating in on-line discussions like
this on all sorts of topics for about 15 years now. I may not have
changed the minds of the people I talked to all that much, but I've
changed *my* mind on almost everything just from the exercise of
attempting to construct solid arguments to support what I thought I
believed.
So on the use of the word "prevert" to describe gays:
All that dictionary definition says is "perverted" means "abnormal" in a
negative sense (debased, degraded). That's certainly what it means.
You seemed to think that clinched the argument, though obviously lots of
people don't think homosexuality is any more abnormal or debased than
other sexual practices. But it isn't the logical weakness of the
argument that offends people. You have lots of choices for which words
to use. You could say any of the following:
homosexuality is perverted
homosexuality is odd
homosexuality is different
homosexuality is unfamiliar
homosexuality is exotic
All these words convey that the practice is not one that fits
comfortably with your personal ideas and experiences. And you could find
a dictionary definition to support the use of any one of them. But they
differ in the value judgements they carry. They also differ in the
degree to which they reflect personal viewpoints as opposed to absolute
judgements (that is, "unfamiliar" has a implicit "to me" after it, while
"perverted" does not). There are a hundred other words you could pick
that would fit the facts as well as "perverted" does (which isn't
necessarily very well). But "perverted" is the most absolute, and the
most negative. When people object to your use of the that word, they
are rejecting the condemnation it carries. You need more than a
dictionary to support such a broad and strong condemnation of a very
large set of people.
|
maeve
|
|
response 274 of 404:
|
Nov 10 11:54 UTC 1998 |
(no, sorry, not strawberry soda for me, but I see no reason why you
shouldn't drink it, as long as you do it in your own home, with a
consenting glass, and in the dark with the curtains drawn) ;)
look how easy that was
|
cyklone
|
|
response 275 of 404:
|
Nov 10 13:58 UTC 1998 |
Interesting that when Kenton was challenged to define "perverted" he could
not. He was challenged to explain how "poor mental" health led to
"perversion" and he could not (he merely stated that it must result from
"low self-esteem", which totally ignored the fact that many well-adjusted
Grexers enjoy the acts he condemned). So, rather than address these
issues, he falls back on the "more with me than thee" argument that is
(a) highly suspect in terms of whether it proves the point he claims it
proves, and (b) totally irrelevant in terms of explaining his previous
statements. In other words, the best he could come up with is "UM students
didn't support a special day for gays, therefore, all acts of
non-missionary sex are perverted and the result of poor mental health."
A few items back there were some statements about the Wizard of Oz.
Kenton, you're not in Kansas anymore, or Pleasantville, or anywhere else
where everything exists in black and white. You need to get a heart and a
brain. At the very least, get a clue . . . .
|
headdoc
|
|
response 276 of 404:
|
Nov 10 18:08 UTC 1998 |
There is a remote (?) possibility kenton is putting us all on. . . .
|
janc
|
|
response 277 of 404:
|
Nov 10 20:10 UTC 1998 |
There is always that possiblity, but I'm happy to take people at face
value. I'd much rather be occasionally fooled than to be distrusting
everyone.
|
lumen
|
|
response 278 of 404:
|
Nov 10 23:43 UTC 1998 |
re #276: now *that* would be interesting
|
mta
|
|
response 279 of 404:
|
Nov 11 00:19 UTC 1998 |
Well, if so kenton has done Grex a great service. There have been some
fascinating posts in this item! (Re resp:276)
|
bookworm
|
|
response 280 of 404:
|
Nov 11 00:26 UTC 1998 |
No, judging from the information and the rate that it continues to appear,
I'd say he's serious.
I think you said something at the beginning of this about being open minded,
didn't you? (or am I just imagining things) If that is so, why do you continue
to use words like "fag" and "pervert" etc when you know (at least I assume
you know) that they are offensive. I hope you're not trying to convince us
to stop being gay/bi/lesbian or whatever. A lot of the people who post on
this conf. have been the way they are most if not all their lives.
Homo- and bisexuals are people. I agree that they shouldn't "rub it in
people's faces. I'm not altogether fond of Hets who do that (and they do,
did you notice that?) I think that one's sexual orientation should be kept
private, except in circustances such as these. I don't mind discussing it
if people ask me about it. I'm not ashamed to say I'm bisexual, even if I
haven't had any physical experience with a MOTSS. If people asked me about
it, I would tell them flat out how I felt (in as far as I was able to do so)
Just as parentss are supposed to explain to interested children, how babies
come about. I would try to be circumspect.
I think that, if hets want to have a het pride day, I would probably support
that, just as I'd support gay pride if they had a gay pride day here. I think
that open-mindedness refers more to the acceptance of people regardless of
who they are or might be and regardless, further, of what they do or don't
do in the privacy of their homes or out in public for that matter.
I do have to agree that those who sleep around are worse, but more because
I think that people who do that, needlessly put themselves and others at risk
for dangerous, even fatal diseases.
Jon has promised me he will get tested before we get married. Just to be
safe, I may get tested myself. I have a lot of respect for Jon because he
loved me enough to be up front with me about the experience he mentioned to
you and because he still loves me enough to get tested.
Maybe we should abandon this conversation and talk about something worthwhile
for a change.
|
lumen
|
|
response 281 of 404:
|
Nov 11 00:30 UTC 1998 |
Hrm..still, it has always fascinated me that the naysayers have more of the
traits they so condemn than they'd like to admit, in some cases.
|
i
|
|
response 282 of 404:
|
Nov 11 02:17 UTC 1998 |
Real or pseudo, kenton's a pretty interesting character. He seems willing
to expose his views to an audience that does not agree with them, interested
in learning from their reaction, and good-humored in the face of a rather
hostile reception. I suspect that many of "us" wouldn't fare as well in
his shoes.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 283 of 404:
|
Nov 11 03:12 UTC 1998 |
He does try to put many of us in his shoes, by responding stubbornly and
in nearly total disregard for the opinion of others.
|
i
|
|
response 284 of 404:
|
Nov 11 03:57 UTC 1998 |
To be "in his shoes" as i meant it would mean that you were alone in an
item where everyone else more-or-less held kenton's views, and felt free
to let your know how wrong you were....
|
jazz
|
|
response 285 of 404:
|
Nov 11 17:03 UTC 1998 |
There's a bit of confusion here regarding the idea of sexuality - in
terms of that an individual is a sexual being and has a sexual drive - and
what Edward Hall calls (somewhat confusingly) bixsexuality - the division of
the two biological sexes into different roles and assigning sexual meaning
to those roles. The two don't overlap completely.
That's one reason that homosexuality (and especially bisexuality) isn't
something that'd be eliminated by natural selection - sexuality has a far
broader use among humans and recent homonids than just reproduction!
|