|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 150 responses total. |
cross
|
|
response 117 of 150:
|
Jul 28 21:16 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 118 of 150:
|
Jul 29 02:15 UTC 2003 |
on marijuana, just my two cents-- I haven't seen anything that proves
it to be medicinally redeemable (you feel less pain because you're
stoned; that's about it), but it is one of the more benign drugs out
there. Tobacco is nasty-- and it's legal.
On the marches-- damn dude, you're actually attending them or
something? Leave it alone! I mean, fuck, I don't think most people
see this stuff unless they go out looking for it or the occasional
time it pops up in the media. Now I will admit they do cavort about
in lascivous ways at a lot of these events, but no one forced ya to go.
I do have my opinions about sexuality-- that often there is a lot of
mingling emotional and abuse issues that are in the way. Yeah, I'm
one of those twerps that believes in reparative therapy and all that.
But I definitely don't go around condemning the community about
their 'sinful ways.' They made their choice, and I made mine. I hope
there will be mutual respect, then. In other words, you're preaching
to the choir, here-- but you're not the music director.
There is a time to be principled and a time to be diplomatic. I
suggest diplomacy.
resp:116 Ironically, the relentless commercialism of the Fall/Winter
season turns off some of the mainstream religious. It seems like a
big long profit campaign. As far as tolerance and respect, we've
adopted so many 'heathen' traditions thanks to the Catholic church (in
the name of assimilation) that people should be more understanding in
light of this knowledge.
To boot, so many are casually religious that the notion is pretty
hypocritical.
|
bru
|
|
response 119 of 150:
|
Jul 29 03:13 UTC 2003 |
I am refereing to the media and its hype of certain sexually expressive
events.
I also should not ignore the entertainment media which has found the new
"reality" tv a means to further stimulate the audience. Commercials and
advertizing are also to blame. I realize sex sells, but does it have to sell
everything?
Okay. So I am a prude. i learned to live with it a long time ago. No,
nudity does not bother me. You could walk naked into my living room and I
would not be particularly bothered nor excited by it. Yes, I have read
playboy. (but just for the articles, really.) It is the focus on sex that
bothers me. I have never enjoyed bachelor parties, nor the watching of porno
flicks with my buddies. I don't watch them with my wife either.
On the otehr hand, I also don't call people names because they disagree with
me.
|
beeswing
|
|
response 120 of 150:
|
Jul 29 04:32 UTC 2003 |
Well, I am a heterosexual female who is not in a relationship at the
moment. And I get sick of straight couples constantly flaunting their
couple-ness... holding hands, making out, or squeezing each others'
butts as they walk in the mall. The whole world gives a message of "If
you're single, there's something wrong with you." But no one complains
about that.
Meanwhile, I know a gay male couple and a lesbian couple who both keep
clean and presentable homes, don't molest kids, treat their pets like
gold, don't go anywhere naked, don't really go to pride marches, don't
do drugs, don't go to bars or bathhouses. They pay taxes, volunteer for
civic projects, and don't flaunt their homosexuality in front of anyone,
whether at home or in public. And these couples both have stable,
committed, monogamous relationships.
I know people who smoke pot regularly for recreation. They do it in
their homes, alone. They don't have kids. They don't sell drugs to kids.
They do not go out in the streets if they've smoked. Nor do they drive.
The people I know who smoke it are otherwise law-abiding people whom I
know would not harm me or any other living creature. They hold down
steady jobs and pay bills.
They don't go to bachelor parties or watch pornos-- not to my knowledge,
anyway.
|
pvn
|
|
response 121 of 150:
|
Jul 29 06:04 UTC 2003 |
And they are probably a small minority of a small minority.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 122 of 150:
|
Jul 29 06:40 UTC 2003 |
Yo, men, i was at a "killer" rave the other night (see how that word
just, offsets the others of its '''ilk'''?) and all the pot heads were
not there but the people instead were methkiddies, you know, the ones
who stay up all night killing bugs? yeah, them ones. well, anyway,
here i were and they was there too-- right next to me-- and i shouted in
their faces,
-- drugs support terrorism!
-- nah, pulling like a pendulum some girl's underwear.
and then they all started circling 'round me, rubbing their arteries, as
methkiddies learn to do, until their hearts were all in sync. now, as
you would believe, a reverberation started,
-- ow, man,
-- crack, said his bones
and then all the E crew started biting and knawing on me.
|
pvn
|
|
response 123 of 150:
|
Jul 29 06:48 UTC 2003 |
As far as "natural law" or something being a violation of it, currently
and cross culturally the best science (aka "natural law") can come up
with is that homosexuals represent a constant 2.5% of the population or
so currently. Be it totalitarian regimes where it is a capital offense
to tolerant regimes that value "diversity" the constant currently and
generally remains about 2.5%. If it were genetic then how does it
breed? If it is nurture (-v- nature) then how come the statistic is
generally constant irrespective of the "tolerance" of the particular
society?
As for marriage, personally I have a problem with it being a state
sanctioned activity in the first place. I would much rather have paid
individual taxes based on my individual income offset by dependant
support (which is socially a good idea) over the past years than the
current situation where not only could I not get married without state
approval (fundamental violation of constitutional rights it seems to me)
but both I and my spouse were taxed *more* because we chose to do so.
(the "child" deduction is a wash because you can claim that being
"single"). I have yet to see any gay activist calling for the "right"
to be "married" by the state address the tax issue - perhaps they
suggest they should have it both ways? There is no legal benefit of
state sanctioned marriage that cannot be legally attained by a gay
couple today anywhere in the US legal juristiction. Social acceptance
is another issue and one cannot legally demand it any more than one can
force orthodox jews to eat pork - or force orthodox jews to accept as
co-religionist pork eaters. (You can't teach a pig to sing, and whats
more, it tends to irritate the pig.) Side note: Even state required
marriage doesn't automatically bestow legal benefits, in the country
where I live lacking specific legal intructions to the contrary when I
die my "estate" doesn't automatically descend (less death taxes
naturally) to my spouse and children but is split evenly amongst them,
my siblings, and my parents.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 124 of 150:
|
Jul 29 07:07 UTC 2003 |
I look upon marriage as a contract between two persons that is underwritten
and then enforced by the state. It is therefore not possible to "get married
without state approval" because marriage is that state-sponsored contract.
If you don't want the state sponsored one, which we call marriage, then you
can enter into a private contract. It's like choosing a roofing company for
your house. Different contracts have different costs, benefits, warranties,
etc. If you don't like the terms of the state one, choose another.
I recognize that historically there were two government entities, the state
and the church, which made marriage a three-way contract. This, however,
added a lot of unnecessary strings to what is the fundamental interest of the
state in offering benefits in echange for the contract - some degree of
regulation of reproduction.
|
keesan
|
|
response 125 of 150:
|
Jul 29 14:09 UTC 2003 |
Marriage can save one of the parties thousands of dollars in health insurance.
|
twenex
|
|
response 126 of 150:
|
Jul 29 14:18 UTC 2003 |
Bruce - okay i accept i probably went a bit too far there, so having done i
can only sincerely apologise; you got my back up (my fault as much as yours)
and when that happens i have an unfortunate tendency to respond in kind.
I accept that you don't feel comfortable with homosexuality, but i think
perhaps you might be more comfortable in yourself if you just ignored it. I
have experience myself of being pissed off that some people can act in certain
(to my mind unreasonable) ways; i just had to accept that i can't individually
lay down the law on what people do in their private lives; i hope that at
least we can agree to disagree and accept (anybody got a thesaurus) that we
have different views on this.
I don't by any means wish you "shut up" because you have views different from
mine, or despise your position in law enforcement. What I *do* think is that
perhaps you are preaching to the unconvertible by making your views known in
such a forthright manner here on Grex; it is a fact of life that, whilst Grex
and systems like it try to be "a meeting of people with nothing in common",
as i think someone else put it earlier, there will in any community be a core
of like-minded members. That doesn't mean you should shut up, it just means
that you might get less of a favourable hearing than you would in other, more
conservative fora. I believe it was George Washington who as President made
it known that he was opposed to "factions", but he had the fortune/misfortune
to live his life in what was then a very young country, which due to its
history was still in the process of defining itself, and whose people
presumably were more concerned with what they were *not* (i.e. British) as
with what they were. In such circumstances it is easier for a community to
pull together than it is for Americans (or indeed Brits) today. Case in point
- myself and my Irish friends *never* discuss politics, because
Hiberno-English history is *very* divisive. (And yes, they are true friends).
I don't believe however that Grex or its members are in any way trying to
censor your beliefs; and if i thought it wee doing this to anyone, i wouldn't
be so supportive (spiritually) of Grex as I am. I don't see anyone deleting
threads.
A last word on my "coming out", if i may.
I believe this has been misinterpreted. It wasn't an attempt to shove anything
down anyone's face, but I am saddened that people feel that Grex has a
"party-line" culture. It was, therefore, an attempt to kickstart a process
of frankness - and it seems to have backfired.
I hope that we can agree (or agree to disagree) that people have a
*constitutional* right to express their (divergent) opinions, and behave in
amanner of their choosing *insofar as it does not injure other people*. I
think sometimes people just find it hard to judge where the line between one
and the other is, and that most of the fighting is on these fringes. It
saddens me.
Finally, i hope we can put this thread to rest - soon!
|
edina
|
|
response 127 of 150:
|
Jul 29 14:40 UTC 2003 |
Re 111. But there is a show called "Black Men Teaching White Men how to Play
Basketball". It's just marketed as "The NBA".
|
twenex
|
|
response 128 of 150:
|
Jul 29 15:43 UTC 2003 |
Re #127 - yes, but it *isn't* marketed as "Black Men Teaching White Men How
to Play Basketball". which i believe was the point alluded to
|
slynne
|
|
response 129 of 150:
|
Jul 29 15:56 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, if you had a show called "Designer's eye for the hopeless guy",
it would be quite a different show. this would be true *especially* if
a person's sexuality werent an issue to be either the designer or
the "hopeless guy"
|
twenex
|
|
response 130 of 150:
|
Jul 29 17:00 UTC 2003 |
Is there a show showing Asians showing White guys how to get to get good
grades? what is it marketed as? I presume you mean Japanese or Chinese, or
Indians; In Thailand kids get good grades by getting their parents to come
thru exam room windows with the answers (no, I'm not joking; it happened).
|
rcurl
|
|
response 131 of 150:
|
Jul 29 17:13 UTC 2003 |
That show is called "school".
|
cross
|
|
response 132 of 150:
|
Jul 29 18:41 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 133 of 150:
|
Jul 29 19:53 UTC 2003 |
So Don't Do That Then! ;-)
|
cross
|
|
response 134 of 150:
|
Jul 29 22:20 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 135 of 150:
|
Jul 30 05:13 UTC 2003 |
resp:119 The media tends to soar down to the lowest common denominator
for advertising and such. That's also why I tend to laugh when people
gripe about pop music. (There's always been this kind of drivel
around.)
I still believe we live in a sexually obsessed but very touch-deprived
society. The fact that a school suspends a first grader for kissing a
girl is pretty ludicrous, and teachers aren't really allowed to hug
their students anymore for fear of sexual harassment charges. I think
that's rough going for elementary and early childhood educators,
because I think young children need tactile response.
Things have changed-- it's true. The adult film industry is much more
mainstream than it was in the past; insiders say they don't cater to a
trenchcoat customer anymore. It's much more widely available and some
sources (PBS Frontline was one) suggested the Clinton adminstration
may have loosened things up in that regard (I forget what the politics
was called involving it). Playboy isn't scandalous anymore.
resp:132 Where... i.e. which West and East side?
|
cross
|
|
response 136 of 150:
|
Jul 30 13:50 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 137 of 150:
|
Jul 30 17:13 UTC 2003 |
Jim taught daycare for a while and he hugged all the kids. Nobody filed
charges against him. The kids liked being hugged by a man.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 138 of 150:
|
Jul 30 17:20 UTC 2003 |
Most teachers wouldn't hug these days for fear of charges being filed.
Jim didn't get slapped with a charge, but it could have happened.
(Sometimes it doesn't matter if the kids like it or not, it's what the
parents perceived that is the determining factor)
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 139 of 150:
|
Jul 31 03:24 UTC 2003 |
Oh shit yes. They discuss this in the Schools of Education for a
reason.
|
gull
|
|
response 140 of 150:
|
Aug 12 21:27 UTC 2003 |
Re #70: "If God exists, he has stated that such behavior is immoral and
wrong."
You mean, "if my particular God exists, and I'm interpreting his
writings correctly, such behavior is immoral and wrong."
I also think it's pretty circular to fault homosexuals for not having
stable relationships when society denies them the tools to recognize and
reinforce those relationships.
Re #119: It amazes me that you seem to somehow blame homosexuals for
everything sexually explicit in the world. Do you really think that
only lesbians buy those "Girls Gone Wild" tapes that are advertised
incessantly on TV? ;>
Re #123: Actually there are lots of legal benefits you can't get except
through marriage. If you don't believe me, try to get your employer's
health insurance to cover someone you're not married to. Also, getting
the legal benefits of marriage involves a lot of effort and lawyer time
for homosexuals, while heterosexuals don't have to go through the hassle.
Re #138: No kidding. And it's not just teachers. Given all the
high-profile cases there have been I'd never open a day care center in
today's world; it seems to almost guarantee a sexual abuse lawsuit. And
once you're accused of that, your reputation is ruined. It doesn't
matter if you're found not guilty or not.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 141 of 150:
|
Aug 12 22:54 UTC 2003 |
1-2). Once again, all sides never really come out. We have one side
saying, "They are sinners and will rot in hell for what they do," and
the other saying, "It's natural, and they are wrongly oppressed."
Nothing in between.
'recognize and reinforce'... hmmm, somehow, in my experience, and in
those many others that I have talked to, it hasn't been about love,
it's been about deep, sometimes unconscious emotional traumas that
never get satisfied by a 'relationship.' Of course others' mileage
may vary. Of course, we have to have steel balls sometimes, because
we get so much grief from the one side who still regards us as sinners
(especially when we stumble on the way) and the community that
apparently regards us as traitors.
3) is a rather poor example because if I remember right, women don't
go ga-ga that way when they happen to be lesbian. They are a much
more emotional sort from what I remember and porno usually isn't the
schtick. In general, the example doesn't hold because women in
general just aren't super big on pornography. Now men's gay
counterparts... well, I seem to remember most enjoying gay porn to a
degree. Maybe you could find a difference there.
4) last time I checked, many day care providers were considered early
childhood educators-- but I could be wrong. Some preschools are
considered day care centers as well. Maybe it's just an overlap, but
I was making that implication.
|