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

[Sum Dum Gai]

Nevertheless, like any other group of people, I'll bet you'd find more commonalities between any given group of people than simply their sexuality.

The larger the group gets the fewer commonalities they'll all have in common.  For a group as large as every gay person in the country, you'd be hard pressed to find anything more than they're all gay, and they're all human.  Even something simple like they all have two eyes, is probably wrong, because there's probably at least one gay person that really did shoot their eye out with a bb gun as a child or something.

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 19:44:13 GMT -5 Pants said:

Oct 29, 2013 19:20:57 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Interesting, bsbound.  I hadn't read that and will have to research it.  Again, though, the difference here is the difference of consent vs lack of consent.  A child cannot consent to sexual activity.  An adult can.  That's my major objection.

Again - not condoning pedophilia, merely pointing out that new research suggests that there is a genetic component.

Oh, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.  I'm one who tends toward nature over nurture.  I do find it interesting that studies are indicating a possible genetic component and will definitely look for articles on the subject.

[Value Buy]

Oct 29, 2013 19:44:53 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Actually, laterbloomer, we're talking about a couple at a restaurant who left a nasty note for someone they decided was gay.  The rest of this is just icing on the original subject.  Nevertheless, like any other group of people, I'll bet you'd find more commonalities between any given group of people than simply their sexuality.  

And here I thought it was because the Christians were too cheap to leave a tip and the note was an excuse for stiffing the attendant.

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 19:48:42 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Nevertheless, like any other group of people, I'll bet you'd find more commonalities between any given group of people than simply their sexuality.

The larger the group gets the fewer commonalities they'll all have in common.  For a group as large as every gay person in the country, you'd be hard pressed to find anything more than they're all gay, and they're all human.  Even something simple like they all have two eyes, is probably wrong, because there's probably at least one gay person that really did shoot their eye out with a bb gun as a child or something.

Nah.  No matter how large the group, they all have to take in nourishment, take in fluids, and excrete wastes.  Those three are off the top of my head.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

You said homosexuality isn't all about sex. And I keep saying it is.

No it isn't - neither is a heterosexual relationship "all about sex".

Many couples (either heterosexual or gay, or bi), live a loving and close relationship with their partner, with little or no physical intimacy (intercourse) - yet still share the emotional intimacy of the relationship/union.

Maybe instead of labeling it "sexual orientation", it should be pigeon-holed as "gender preference" when referring to people's lifestyle choices - since it ISN'T all about the sex.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

And here I thought it was because the Christians were too cheap to leave a tip and the note was an excuse for stiffing the attendant.

Exactly, ValueBuy - that's precisely what I've said a couple of times now - they sure didn't complain about the server or the meal while they enjoyed dining there. If it was such an affront to their beliefs, they could have left before even ordering once the waiter approached their table. But they didn't. They just used their "religion" as an excuse to be cheap on the tipping.

The note they left on the tab was just confirmation of what bigoted ass-hats they are too.

[Sum Dum Gai]

No matter how large the group, they all have to take in nourishment, take in fluids, and excrete wastes.

Great, so they're all living organisms.  Big deal. 

The point is the larger the subject group gets the less it has in common.  Take two green tree frogs from the same species.  They have tons in common.  Now add a turtle that lives in the same climate, still lots in common, but less now.  Now add a bird that lives on the other side of the planet in a completely different climate.  Even fewer commonalities.  By the time you're looking at a group as large as say, every animal that weighs under 50 pounds, they have very few commonalities, except characteristics that all animals share.

[Deleted]

Actually, laterbloomer, we're talking about a couple at a restaurant who left a nasty note for someone they decided was gay.  

The only thing that couple objects to is who they think he is having sex with.

Nevertheless, like any other group of people, I'll bet you'd find more commonalities between any given group of people than simply their sexuality.

That is actually the sentiment that promotes bigotry, thinking that being gay is more than just who you are sleeping with and that "they" are different. This is a situation where there are more commonalities between subsets of each sexuality than homogeny within the sexuality.

[mmhmm]

Did I not say "like any other group of people", laterbloomer?  I don't see any difference between a gay person, a straight person, a blond person, and/or a blue-eyed person.  They're all people to me.  That's all.  No more, no less.  Just people.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 20:36:28 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

They're all people to me.  That's all.  No more, no less.  Just people.

That like to have sex with people the same gender as themselves.

[Deleted]

I agree with you, laterbloomer.

I understand why mmhmm and others are defending their stance on it. I agree with you: we're all just human beings who find this or that thing attractive. Sociologically, we define some forms of attraction as normative within a culture; by definition, all the others become 'paraphilias.' In my opinion, we take the wrong tack when we assume that arbitrary division represents something real - and we certainly do when we falsely present it as scientific fact, and a few people here seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that genetic gayness is a thing (even Richard Dawkins balks at that idea).

For me, it's the same thing as assuming that the latent racism of all whites justifies the actual racism of affirmative action, although there is at least some basis to that (that argument rests more on the decades of evidence that affirmative action doesn't actually help, laid up against the decades of evidence that says that it does; the "born this way" debate is of a fundamentally different character).

Again: what is so controversial about saying the difference between a gay identical twin and his straight identical twin brother is purely in terms of their sexual preference? What is so wrong about laterbloomer's uncontroversial and uninflected assertion that we have to resort to absurd generalities ('we all poop' - really?) to avoid accepting it?

The vehemence of the denialism bespeaks a cryptic intuition of homophobia that is the agent and helper of actual homophobes. You won't agree, but you legitimize the people who despise homosexuals as Other when you lionize them as Other. The only difference between a gay man and me is that I don't find men attractive, and he does. There is no other reason to identify him as a 'gay man.' And, honestly, that doesn't say anything about the level to which he acts upon that preference. If you really must, fine, he could be a 'gay man' who isn't physically sexual with other men. But his contextualization of the sex acts he isn't performing as being between males makes him gay; not anything else. And that did not happen when he was born, when he was preverbal, when he was presocial, when he didn't recognize himself in a mirror, when he had no developed autobiographical memory. It was a response to his experiences in the world. And it was as legitimate as any other response that does not harm anybody else.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

The only thing that couple objects to is who they think he is having sex with.

That's just it - they DON'T know who he might or might not be having sex with - and he didn't TELL them. And who the Hell are they to cast stones - let alone based on assumptions?

For so-called "Christians" they're being very prejudgmental - and behaved ignorantly. I'd be embarrassed to know or be associated with them - or whatever "religion" they're practicing. It sure isn't the one I was raised under.[/font

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 20:36:28 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Did I not say "like any other group of people", laterbloomer?  I don't see any difference between a gay person, a straight person, a blond person, and/or a blue-eyed person.  They're all people to me.  That's all.  No more, no less.  Just people.

Do you forebear to hint at the straightness of third parties lest you offend their sense of privacy?

Do you vehemently assert that their sexual orientation is nothing to do with their straightness?

Do you call them "your straight uncle," "your straight friend?"

Perhaps. Or perhaps you mark "gay people" as different, but not worse, than other people. And perhaps it's possible to genuinely acknowledge them as "people who find people of the same gender sexually attractive" without disagreeing with you. And perhaps it's possible to accept "people who define 'gay' in a technically different way" as much as "people who you define as 'gay'."

The punctuation at the end confused me.

I don't get what's so offensive in laterbloomer taking a definition to mean what it means. I really don't. Are we so politically correct that we really can't see people-as-people unless we first slice and dice them into special interest groups?

[Deleted]

Laterbloomer's just saying gay people are same-sex oriented.

So does the law. So does the dictionary. So do gay people.

I'm astonished we have yet to turn up a gay person on this thread. Their perspective on this question would be illuminating, I'm sure.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

That like to have sex with people the same gender as themselves.

And that's a problem to you why? Does it impact your life? Cause you financial or emotional distress? Is what 2 strangers do behind closed doors impact YOU in any way?

You can still live the lifestyle you choose - yours doesn't affect them any more than theirs impacts yours. If you don't agree with their choices fine - but -

"Live and Let Live". They're not pilllaging and raping and overthrowing countries - or robbing banks/murdering.

They want to live peacefully in a happy relationship - just like you or me.

[mmhmm]

I don't hint at anyone's straightness, gayness, bisexualness, or otherwiseness, Mojo.  I find no interest in doing so.  It's that person's life, not mine.

I don't vehemently assert anything about others' sexual orientation or what it might involve.

I don't apply qualifiers to my relatives/friends.  They're uncles, brothers, sons, daughters, friends ... that's it.

I don't get why you think I've found what laterbloomer has posted offensive.  I haven't.  I simply don't agree with it.  It's nothing to do with being correct, politically, or otherwise.  What's correct to me may not be correct to laterbloomer.  That's cool with me.

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 20:50:11 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

Laterbloomer's just saying gay people are same-sex oriented.

So does the law. So does the dictionary. So do gay people.

I'm astonished we have yet to turn up a gay person on this thread. Their perspective on this question would be illuminating, I'm sure.

Yes, it would.  I certainly agree.  Sadly, we've not heard from one.  I've got my own ideas as to why we might not have heard from one, but they'd only be guesses so I'll leave them to sit quietly.

[Deleted]

And that's a problem to you why?

Actually I'd say I'm the one that has no problem with it. At least I can say it without doing cartwheels to rephrase and reframe it.

[Value Buy]

Oct 29, 2013 20:54:03 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oct 29, 2013 20:50:11 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

Laterbloomer's just saying gay people are same-sex oriented.

So does the law. So does the dictionary. So do gay people.

I'm astonished we have yet to turn up a gay person on this thread. Their perspective on this question would be illuminating, I'm sure.

Yes, it would.  I certainly agree.  Sadly, we've not heard from one.  I've got my own ideas as to why we might not have heard from one, but they'd only be guesses so I'll leave them to sit quietly.

I think we all realize there have been gay people who have posted here on this thread. There have been too many different posters on this thread to not have a homosexual poster on the thread, based on the percentage of gay people in the general population.
As to why they have not come out and admitted they are gay, I do not know.
I remember on the MSN boards we had several openly gay posters of both genders in debate, and we had very open and constructive discussions.

[mmhmm]

I recall that on the MSN boards, as well, Value Buy.  We had some good discussions - minus the trolls, of course.

[Deleted]

As to why they have not come out and admitted they are gay, I do not know.

Why would they need to? I haven't made a point of "admitting" I'm heterosexual.

[Value Buy]

Oct 29, 2013 21:11:02 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

As to why they have not come out and admitted they are gay, I do not know.

Why would they need to? I haven't made a point of "admitting" I'm heterosexual.

No need to, but as discussed, on MSN we did have gay people who were not afraid to shoot straight, so to speak from their perspective.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 21:11:02 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

As to why they have not come out and admitted they are gay, I do not know.

Why would they need to? I haven't made a point of "admitting" I'm heterosexual.

Are you heterosexual?  Maybe you are gay but just don't know it yet.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 21:22:02 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Oct 29, 2013 21:11:02 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

Why would they need to? I haven't made a point of "admitting" I'm heterosexual.

Are you heterosexual?  Maybe you are gay but just don't know it yet.

I wish!! Living with a woman would be so much easier!

[Value Buy]

Oct 29, 2013 21:06:12 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I recall that on the MSN boards, as well, Value Buy.  We had some good discussions - minus the trolls, of course.

I like a good troll every once in a while, especially this time of year.
Keeps you sharp.

[Deleted]

Oct 29, 2013 21:25:43 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

Oct 29, 2013 21:22:02 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Are you heterosexual?  Maybe you are gay but just don't know it yet.

I wish!! Living with a woman would be so much easier!

yeah right....   have you ever met another woman??

[Value Buy]

Betty Boop is looking a little long in the tooth.

[mmhmm]

Oct 29, 2013 21:26:52 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Oct 29, 2013 21:06:12 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I recall that on the MSN boards, as well, Value Buy.  We had some good discussions - minus the trolls, of course.

I like a good troll every once in a while, especially this time of year.
Keeps you sharp.

ROFL!  I find them dull as dirt, Value Buy, but to each his/her own. 

[Deleted]

Don't get personal VB

[Sum Dum Gai]

Why would they need to? I haven't made a point of "admitting" I'm heterosexual.

You just did.  You could have made the same point by saying you feel no need to admit your sexual preference and left that preference ambiguous, but you chose to rub our noses in your straightness.  I for one am slightly offended.  I don't give a damn what you do, and with whom, behind closed doors but don't go pushing your sexuality on me.