"Christian" couple leaves anti-gay rant instead of tip

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 14:54:33 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

The law that recognizes the right and responsibility of loving who you choose is better for society than the law that just says do as you feel. That's my point.

Who in the Seven Halls of Hell has said anything about "do as you feel" being a desirable attitude, Mojo?  I don't recall reading that post.  We're tilting at ideas that haven't been presented, I think.

If I could be so bold as to try and post what I think Mojo is saying (because GOD has a hard time knowing what he is saying, and whether he is gay or straight or in between)... 


I think his point is that the argument for gay rights (if I can wrap up all of the discussion into that) that is based on gay people being born that way and needing to love who they want to love, is a flawed argument because that can then open up a society to other people who are born the way they were born and should be allowed to love what they want  to love.

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 14:57:40 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

Who in the Seven Halls of Hell has said anything about "do as you feel" being a desirable attitude, Mojo?

If you see a meaningful distinction between that and "be who you were born to be," that's a product of your greater experience. I can't.

The important thing is, we all want gay people to be happy. Screw the fundies.

One can be without doing, Mojo.  I can be hungry, but I may not eat.  I can be angry, but I need not strike out.

As to fundamentalists, I don't see any value in denigrating them by calling names.  They have their beliefs and I have mine.  We disagree.  I'd like to see all people able to find happiness, regardless of their differences.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Oct 29, 2013 14:56:23 GMT -5 @joey said:

Can we get back to the cheap Scottish Wiccans please.

You rang??


<And don't call me cheap.>

[zibazinski]

Amen

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 14:48:06 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

Oct 29, 2013 14:26:49 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Nobody said that.  You're extrapolating information that isn't there.  Children can, and do, know they're different.  They know they're attracted to different things, and in different ways, than other children.  For crying out tears, it's not all about sex!  

Actually homosexuality is all about sex. I know some extremely straight men that are very effeminate and some gay men that are very macho. Sexuality is about who you want to have sex with.

No, it's actually not.  There's more to it than just sex, just as there is more to heterosexual relationships than sex.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 14:59:47 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

Actually homosexuality is all about sex. I know some extremely straight men that are very effeminate and some gay men that are very macho. Sexuality is about who you want to have sex with.

And there are also straight or gay people who are celibate or lack the desire for the act of physical sex.

I dated that guy,   it was weird.

We certainly had some great conversations, went for lots of walks and worked out together. I wondered if he was gay and didn't know it but apparently he just had zero sex drive.

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 15:00:31 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Oct 29, 2013 14:54:33 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Who in the Seven Halls of Hell has said anything about "do as you feel" being a desirable attitude, Mojo?  I don't recall reading that post.  We're tilting at ideas that haven't been presented, I think.

If I could be so bold as to try and post what I think Mojo is saying (because GOD has a hard time knowing what he is saying, and whether he is gay or straight or in between)... 


I think his point is that the argument for gay rights (if I can wrap up all of the discussion into that) that is based on gay people being born that way and needing to love who they want to love, is a flawed argument because that can then open up a society to other people who are born the way they were born and should be allowed to love what they want  to love.

Again I say, I have no problem with people loving "what they want to love", as long as what they want to love wants to be loved by them.  If what they want to love doesn't want to be loved by them and/or cannot give that permission, a victim is created.  With that, I have a problem.

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 14:33:15 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

it's not all about sex!

Actually, sexual preference really is all about sex.

It's not necessarily preference.  I've known several gays who would have given anything to have "preferred" something else.  Unfortunately, their orientation made that impossible for them.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 15:02:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oct 29, 2013 14:48:06 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

Actually homosexuality is all about sex. I know some extremely straight men that are very effeminate and some gay men that are very macho. Sexuality is about who you want to have sex with.

No, it's actually not.  There's more to it than just sex, just as there is more to heterosexual relationships than sex.

There is more to a relationship maybe but not to sexuality in this context. The only thing that every homosexual has in common is their physical desire for people of their own gender.

[Deleted]

Because you, as a child, do not yet have adequate brain development to make that decision unequivocally, Mojo.

You're not a Freudian, are you?

I agree with you. I just also think at that age you can't possibly have the information necessary to have decided your orientation.

I further think that if you have one, you have both. You either know what you want, or you don't know what you want. It's too messy to know what you want - unless it's inconvenient for some reason. I am this close to expanding my circle of controversy into the still-murkier shadows of date rape at this point, so I will stop before I really offend people with views I don't personally hold.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 15:08:45 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

Because you, as a child, do not yet have adequate brain development to make that decision unequivocally, Mojo.

murkier shadows of date rape

The murky shadows are the best place for date rape.

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 14:56:23 GMT -5 @joey said:

Can we get back to the cheap Scottish Wiccans please.

That would be two floors up, in EE, Apple. 

[Deleted]

And there are also straight or gay people who are celibate or lack the desire for the act of physical sex.

I'm always entertained by people who so identify. Brett something-or-other, the lead singer of Britpoopers Suede - Anderson? Possibly - anyway, he always used to claim to be a "bisexual who hadn't had a homosexual experience;" savvy marketing, in the context of his androgynous appeal, although it ended up backfiring on him somewhat.

The correct term for people who don't feel sexually attracted is "asexual," and they exist too. I can't really buy into the idea that they have an orientation.

"I'm a vegetarian, but the meat I don't eat is chicken." What?

[zibazinski]

Well, it was still a mean and hateful thing to do.

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 15:08:45 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

Because you, as a child, do not yet have adequate brain development to make that decision unequivocally, Mojo.

You're not a Freudian, are you?

I agree with you. I just also think at that age you can't possibly have the information necessary to have decided your orientation.

I further think that if you have one, you have both. You either know what you want, or you don't know what you want. It's too messy to know what you want - unless it's inconvenient for some reason. I am this close to expanding my circle of controversy into the still-murkier shadows of date rape at this point, so I will stop before I really offend people with views I don't personally hold.

Of course these children haven't "decided their orientation".  At a very young age, that's the last thing on their minds.  However, as they get older they realize the orientation has been there from the very beginning.  That was the difference the felt in themselves before sexuality even presented as an idea in their minds.  It's that difference between feeling and doing again.

No, I'm not a Freudian.  Is anyone at this juncture?  Really?

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 15:10:57 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oct 29, 2013 14:56:23 GMT -5 @joey said:

Can we get back to the cheap Scottish Wiccans please.

That would be two floors up, in EE, Apple. 

Darn, wrong floor again.

[kittensaver]

Oct 29, 2013 15:14:49 GMT -5 @joey said:

Oct 29, 2013 15:10:57 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

That would be two floors up, in EE, Apple. 

Darn, wrong floor again.

You mean - you went to the Freudian floor instead - again?

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 15:07:56 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

Oct 29, 2013 15:02:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

No, it's actually not.  There's more to it than just sex, just as there is more to heterosexual relationships than sex.

There is more to a relationship maybe but not to sexuality in this context. The only thing that every homosexual has in common is their physical desire for people of their own gender.

That's true of heterosexuals, as well, laterbloomer.  Sexuality still isn't the whole of their relationships and we're not strictly talking about sex, in and of itself.  We're talking about the differences found among human beings and why those differences seem to be causing so many problems for people.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 15:16:05 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Oct 29, 2013 15:14:49 GMT -5 @joey said:

Darn, wrong floor again.

You mean - you went to the Freudian floor instead - again?

What do you mean by that? 

 I want my mommy.

[Deleted]

One can be without doing, Mojo

Again, agreed; however, I don't think any gay rights advocate would be content with that as a position for the law to take (indeed, that is the position the law did take, historically: be as gay as you like, just don't practice sodomy).

In practice, being gay in society means being able to actively take a same-sex partner. Being gay by yourself is kind of a meaningless thing: gayness necessarily takes an object, even a notional object, of attraction.

As to fundamentalists, I don't see any value in denigrating them by calling names.

I was just summarizing. I believe in calling a spade a spade, even if Benjamin Jealous takes it out of context.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 15:17:40 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oct 29, 2013 15:07:56 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

There is more to a relationship maybe but not to sexuality in this context. The only thing that every homosexual has in common is their physical desire for people of their own gender.

That's true of heterosexuals, as well, laterbloomer.  Sexuality still isn't the whole of their relationships.

No but sexuality is a pretty important part of most relationships regardless of sexual orientation.

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 15:18:59 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

One can be without doing, Mojo

Again, agreed; however, I don't think any gay rights advocate would be content with that as a position for the law to take (indeed, that is the position the law did take, historically: be as gay as you like, just don't practice sodomy).

In practice, being gay in society means being able to actively take a same-sex partner. Being gay by yourself is kind of a meaningless thing: gayness necessarily takes an object, even a notional object, of attraction.

As to fundamentalists, I don't see any value in denigrating them by calling names.

I was just summarizing. I believe in calling a spade a spade, even if Benjamin Jealous takes it out of context.

A spade is a spade, not a "spadey".

[kittensaver]

Oct 29, 2013 15:18:03 GMT -5 @joey said:

Oct 29, 2013 15:16:05 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

You mean - you went to the Freudian floor instead - again?

What do you mean by that? 

 I want my mommy.

Nothing mean, Apple .

[And I want my dad(dy) - after 37 years I still miss him  But we "the big we" seem to be unable to talk about our attachments without joking about them being unhealthy, right?]

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 15:19:21 GMT -5 @joey said:

Oct 29, 2013 15:17:40 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

That's true of heterosexuals, as well, laterbloomer.  Sexuality still isn't the whole of their relationships.

No but sexuality is a pretty important part of most relationships regardless of sexual orientation.

Unless you are asexual, or married to the Eiffel tower. At least I hope there isn't any sex in that relationship.  If there is, I hope maintenance uses lots of bleach wipes.

[Deleted]

Sexuality still isn't the whole of their relationships

It is the whole of their identity as homo- or hetero-sexuals though.

And that identity is a social construct, like all other components of identity. And it doesn't develop at birth, for reasons that were obvious to Piaget decades ago and are uncontroversial tenets of developmental cognitive science today.

It's fascinating to me how reluctant we are to just say: gay people like to have sex with people of the same biogender. Shrug. So what? Why does it have to be some great defining struggle to have sex with people of the same biogender?

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 15:17:40 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oct 29, 2013 15:07:56 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

There is more to a relationship maybe but not to sexuality in this context. The only thing that every homosexual has in common is their physical desire for people of their own gender.

That's true of heterosexuals, as well, laterbloomer.  Sexuality still isn't the whole of their relationships.

I know. But none of this is the point. You said homosexuality isn't all about sex. And I keep saying it is. The stuff you are saying about there being more to relationships than sex is completely irrelevant to someone's sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is all about who you want to have sex with. Having sex is about the only thing that distinguishes my romantic relationships from my relationships with close friends or family.

[Deleted]

A spade is a spade, not a "spadey".

Yes, and "screw the fundies" is what's being said, however prettily it's dressed up.

That's my point.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 15:22:17 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

Sexuality still isn't the whole of their relationships

Why does it have to be some great defining struggle to have sex with people of the same biogender?

It is only a struggle if you use dollar store lube. 

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 15:18:59 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

One can be without doing, Mojo

Again, agreed; however, I don't think any gay rights advocate would be content with that as a position for the law to take (indeed, that is the position the law did take, historically: be as gay as you like, just don't practice sodomy).

In practice, being gay in society means being able to actively take a same-sex partner. Being gay by yourself is kind of a meaningless thing: gayness necessarily takes an object, even a notional object, of attraction.

As to fundamentalists, I don't see any value in denigrating them by calling names.

I was just summarizing. I believe in calling a spade a spade, even if Benjamin Jealous takes it out of context.

LOL!  One CAN be without doing.  When what one is doing causes harm to nobody, no problem exists.  However, when what is doing involves and unwilling victim, the picture changes.

While society may define being gay as actively taking a same-sex partner, it isn't necessarily true that every gay person will do so.  That doesn't make them "not-gay".  It makes them partnerless by choice, or otherwise.

[kittensaver]

: "In practice, being gay in society means being able to actively take a same-sex partner. Being gay by yourself is kind of a meaningless thing" :

----------------------------------------

Well the exact same thing could be said about a celibate heterosexual, so again . . . . I don't get your point.


ETA:  mmhmm beat me to it.