"gay" - split from "for tesafilm"

General Stuff about Armagetron, That doesn't belong anywhere else...
Post Reply
User avatar
Lucifer
Project Developer & Local Moonshiner
Posts: 8610
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

"gay" - split from "for tesafilm"

Post by Lucifer »

As a rule, paniq, you probably want to avoid using the word "gay" except in it's original meaning of "happy" or when you are referring to someone who is actually homosexual. Otherwise, you're dancing a fine line. On my server, I'll kick people for saying "that is gay" or "that color is gay". You may want to give all homosexuals everywhere equal rights and be willing to lay down your life to do it, nevertheless, if you use the word "gay" in a derogatory fashion, you are contributing to the problem. Why do you think black people turned a certain word that starts with "n" into complement?

Besides that, Angel's not someone you want to screw with around here. She's the community sweetheart. We all love her and we all feel bad when anything bad happens to her.

This is all out of character for you, though. You've been cool when I've played with you. What's up? Did you just hit broken cog in your brain or something? Forget your medication? Had ants in your pants? Come on, spill it.
Image

Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden

Raoul Duke
Core Dumper
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:22 pm

Post by Raoul Duke »

lucifer. dude.

that post was totally gay.




I sorry. I troll. =D

oh and gay people use the word gay.

just watch that queer eye show.

oh and people shouldn't get special treatment for who they like to have sex with.

Straight pride parade!

User avatar
Phytotron
Formerly Oscilloscope
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
Contact:

Post by Phytotron »

When Group A—unjustly and for no rational reason—has, by law, more rights than Group B, it is not a matter of implementing "special treatment" to equalize the rights of Group B with Group A. This is simple logic. As it stands, Group A is the one receiving special treatment.

GLBT people use the word "gay" to refer to other gay people in a value-neutral sense. Heterosexual people of good sense use the word "gay" to refer to gay people in a value-neutral sense. Neither use it as a derogatory, defamatory, belittling, dehumanizing insult. Same for the words "queer" or "***." There is a clear distinction here that shouldn't be difficult to comprehend, though for some it apparently is.

When Matthew Shepard was tied to that fence, tortured mercilessly, and left for dead, his killers weren't shouting "***" and "gay" out into the night out of courtesy for what gay people call other gay people.

Finally, the idea of having a straight pride parade is tantamount to having a white pride parade.

paniq303
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:03 pm

Post by paniq303 »

lucifer: yup, that's it, just less elegant ;)

for everyone else discussing the "gay" term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

stop the crap. you wouldnt be able to use half of the words of today because of their heritage.

User avatar
Lucifer
Project Developer & Local Moonshiner
Posts: 8610
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

Post by Lucifer »

Give gay people equal rights under the law and in society and I don't give a shit what gay means, to be honest. ;) For me, it's not about political correctness. I'm as politically correct as a, hmmmm, not thinking of a good metaphor for that that won't get censored. Ok, anyway, point is, homosexuals are the group Bushie has decided everyone will hate so he can use them to get elected (which he did), and that's not cool. That sort of politics needs to be fought on all fronts, and defeated. And using gay in a derogatory fashion feeds and encourages tht sort of politics. So it's a question of what you want from your leaders.
Image

Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden

User avatar
dlh
Formerly That OS X Guy
Posts: 2035
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 12:05 am
Contact:

Post by dlh »

Lucifer wrote:Give gay people equal rights under the law and in society and I don't give a shit what gay means, to be honest. ;) For me, it's not about political correctness. I'm as politically correct as a, hmmmm, not thinking of a good metaphor for that that won't get censored. Ok, anyway, point is, homosexuals are the group Bushie has decided everyone will hate so he can use them to get elected (which he did), and that's not cool. That sort of politics needs to be fought on all fronts, and defeated. And using gay in a derogatory fashion feeds and encourages tht sort of politics. So it's a question of what you want from your leaders.
A "The Daily Show" clip on gay marriage in Massachusetts

It is odd how anti-gay activists are called pro-family :|

Zortiander
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Southern Germany
Contact:

Post by Zortiander »

There is something about the "gay" thing to be considered. Now I know this will earn me a lot of flaming and a lot of bad blood. And I'd also like to quote beforehand the signature of someone here on the forum (I write it in plain):

Arguing on the internet is like the special olympics... even if you win, you're still a retard.

While the phrase in itself might not be political correct, I agree to the content.

Now, to the point:

Homosexual people and marriage
This is only about the question of marriage, not about the question of equal rights. All people deserve equal rights before the law.

Marriage is not the simple connection of two people in eternal love. This might be the foreground reason, that is clear to everyone. However, marriage is a legal institution, an institution that has a place within society and has a reason to be there. Why? Let me explain:

A state needs people to govern. A state is nothing without people. In order to give people a context in which to raise children, and in order to give them an incentive to have children (many, preferably), the state had to create some sort of regulation, some sort of promotional program. This is especially true in European countries, where retirement pays are payed by the state; the whole system there is based on later generations (the children) paying for older generations (their parents). How such a system goes to waste when there are no more children, can actually be seen in Germany.

Now, homosexual merriages do nothing about the children. Since they are homosexual, by defnition they can not have their own children. (I lay aside the case of a lesbian couple with artificial insemination.) As such, they are not entitled to the benefits the society gives to those married, since they can not fulfil the underlying assumption of the state about marriages: Marriages are intended for people who have children.

Marriages (at least in Germany) give you tax reductions, open possibilities for reduced loans (for house building) etc., and in general tend to make your life a) easier and b) less costly. While the first is ok, for homosexuals, too, the second is not. It makes life less costly, for you to have children! To pay for the children with the money you save.

So, I do not think, that homosexual marriages are a good idea, for the reasons stated above.

We can start arguing now whether heterosexual couples fulfil their marriage duties any better than homosexual ones. I have two things to say about this:
a) It is country dependant. In France they do, yes. In other countries less.
b) It is not important. They can have children, so they have to be given an incentive to having children.

Possible counter-arguments I see immediately and wish to respond to, would be:
Lesbian couples having children through artificial insemination.
Point taken. So we'd have to distinguish between male homosexuals and female homosexuals. I agree, that female homosexual couples fulfil the biologic requirements of having children, and as such, should be entitled to marriage.

Marriage is a right of Group A, so group B needs the same right
I object. Marriage is nothing important for life, if only for your wallet. And your mind, perhaps, but then you can just declare yourselves married, the paper doesn't change it. Marriage is not a right per se, as I see it, but a privilege granted by the state to its population with the goal of inciting birth. As such I see above argument as not valid.


Marriage is not about having children, but about...
This is true in the general meaning of the term, but not if you watch the evolution of marriage rights in society, especially with tax systems and so on. The term of marriage might have a platonian meaning, but the reality is, in my opinion, that in society marriage is a legal institution, a privilege. I have come to this conclusion, by the way, after talking to politologists and sociologists and a demographic centre in Germany and doing some research in reliable sources (not Wikipedia for instance), such as major encylopedias and so on.



OK, so far. Just my two cents to the problem of "gay".

User avatar
Lucifer
Project Developer & Local Moonshiner
Posts: 8610
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

Post by Lucifer »

There is a lot more to marriage than children. In healthcare, for example, your spouse makes the call. If you get into a wreck and find yourself in a coma, you can't make medical decisions for yourself. You can't even decide whether or not they'll keep you alive on a feeding tube! Your spouse, however, makes that call. If there is no legal institution of marrige for you, then your "spouse" can't make that call. For example, your girlfriend. When you consider how many families deal with homosexuals in their midst, it is a Bad Thing to turn over medical decisions of a homosexual to his alientated family, especially when his/her loving, caring spouse is right there.

There are also property rights to be considered. In a typical, traditional marrige, the woman is expected to devote her life to her man and is supposed to adopt the career named "homemaker". Now, I realize we hve working women now and that's a Good Thing, but many of the opponents of gay marriage also (coincidentally) oppose women's rights. Consider that for a minute. Now let's continue. In this setup, the man promises to the woman that he will spend the rest of his life with her, taking care of her, and she doesn't need to go get a job or anything like that. If she does, she doesn't have to worry too terribly about income because her man will provide. Right? So what happens when they get a divorce? The man owns most/all of what they have, he paid for it, he worked for it. But morally, she gets half (or some reasonable fraction, an argument could be made in some situations that she deserves most/all of the property). If he promised to take care of her forever, and then reneges, he owes her the standard of living he promised her, whether or not he ever sleeps with her again. If homosexuals aren't able to get married, they don't have this protection under marriage law.

There's a lot more to it, but it all revolves around to some words originally penned by Locke and restated by Thomas Jefferson. That the government needs to protect certain natural rights, such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Well guess what? Marrige is "pursuit of happiness". And if you deny marrige to homosexuals, you are denying them a great deal of the pursuit of happiness. And then you turn around nd make all sorts of media shows, movies, books, etc., stressing the importance of the lifetime bond between two people, pressuring people into making that bond.

I didn't get married to have kids, to be honest. I married my wife because she was a 15-year old girl who lived in a house where she thought her parents hated her, she was running away from home, getting locked up in treatment centers whenever she stepped out of line, and all the stuff that goes along with that. I married her because I felt that I could give her a happy home where she could heal from her experiences and grow up to be the wonderful woman that was being beat down inside her. I figured if we only stayed together for 2-3 years and she went out on her own after that, that was fine. As long as she left as a full-grown woman capable of vanquishing the demons of her past. Under the circumstances, there was no other legal institution in the state of Texas that would have allowed me to take action for her benefit. Child protective services? Right, there's nothing actually considered abuse going on, at least not legally. Call a social worker? She already had that. Psychological counseling? What were the treatment centers for? Nope, for someone who wasn't blood related, the only option was to become related through marriage, and due to her age that also made me her legal guardian.

As it happens, we've stayed married since then, had 3 kids, and we're blissfully happy with one another. She is right now going grocery shopping, and she told me she'd bring my daughter home from school. :)

Edit: I forgot to add the marriage is biological in origin. The drive to have a lifelong bond of love or whatever is an evolutionary trait exhibited by many animals, including dogs, apes, and humans. The legal institution ultimately derives from that, and in the wild, nature doesn't discriminate. Homosexual marriage is legal in the jungle.
Image

Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden

User avatar
philippeqc
Long Poster - Project Developer - Sage
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:55 am
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Post by philippeqc »

Some short comments about marriage:
- My father remarried last summer. He is well over 65. So is his wife. The youngest of their kid is my brother. He is now 26. They are living in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Their nearest living kid is living in North Carolina. I've never met anyone who would ever contest their mariage, but according to your definition, they really dont qualify for the "raising kids". Are you sure this argument is not build to exclude homosexuals from mariage?
- I've rencently met many married people that are considering adoption as an alternative. While they are still pursuing artificial insimination or similar methods to help nature, for most of them, it is now "the first thing to give result" that will count, what ever the form. Should we disban their marriage as they fail your procreation requirement?
- Me and my girlfriend cannot have biological children. No amount of new development in medecine will ever remedy this. I want to marry her. You say:
...Now, homosexual merriages do nothing about the children. Since they are homosexual, by defnition they can not have their own children.
By definition, me and my girldfriend cannot have our own children. Should we be forbidden to get married?
- We happen to have started the adoption process because we beleive that while we cannot have a children from us, that a children of ours would be able to grow and flourish and be loved. What makes a same sex couple unable to do the same thing?

:: and now some venting ::

Some other arguments I've heard agains same sex marriage:
* Children will grow anormal because of having 2 same sex parent.
Yes, because different sex mariage only produce well balanced childrens.
* Children will become homosexual themself:
Yes, well all know that you catch tallness from hanging around tall people and that not a single homosexual has ever been born from a 2 sex couple.
* The children will have a difficult life.
Yes, because we all know that divorce and separation and reconstructed families only occur in same sex relationship.

:: end of venting ::

So according to your standards, I shouldn't have the right to marry. Did I read you right?

-ph
Canis meus id comedit.

User avatar
Lucifer
Project Developer & Local Moonshiner
Posts: 8610
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

Post by Lucifer »

Heh, I'll throw a little more wood on the fire, eh? ;)

I recently learned about an interesting condition called CAIS. It occurs to 1 in 30,000 people. Basically it works like this:

All babies start as girls in the womb. Their DNA determines if they will grow gonads or ovaries. For some people, their DNA causes gonads to be grown. However, a condition exists which prevents certain hormones produced by their gonads from working (I forget the technobabble, sorry). So, at the point in the womb where the gender organs are grown, instead of growing a penis and scrotum, these people will grow a vagina because the hormones signalling the growth of a penis and scrotum didn't work. But it will not grow a uterus, fallopian tubes, or any of that junk.

Now fast forward, the child is born a girl (because "girl" is the default gender). When puberty hits, the girl doesn't have ovaries to trigger the growth of all the other sexual parts. She won't have puberty! No onset of menses, none of that stuff.

Now, they have drugs so she can still go through puberty, but she will never be able to produce children. She has no eggs, and none of the plumbing required anyway. She cannot produce children. Most of these girls are attracted to men, however their DNA says they are men. Some of them are attracted to women (I recall the rate being higher than normal, but still a minority).

What are their rights as far as marriage goes?

What further complicates the matter is that here, in a particular condition, we see that just forming complete and healthy gender is a very complex process which can break down at any point. CAIS is the "complete" form of the condition called AIS, which results in a partially-grown man. A man with a penis, but no scrotum, for example. Or everything except testicles. Sterile, to be sure. but I digress. The point is that forming a complete, adult gender is very complex and if any of the steps break, you don't have a complete, adult gender. Just gender by itself! This isn't even talking about what things will turn a person on and get them horny.

Considering how complex forming a gender is, and how many biological and environmental factors play into it, it seems like a no-brainer that building a sexuality on top of it all would also be pretty complex and contain many biological and environmental factors that play into it. Bottom line? It's not a choice, it can never be a choice. If you think it's a choice, it's because you yourself are bisexual.
Image

Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden

User avatar
Phytotron
Formerly Oscilloscope
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
Contact:

Post by Phytotron »

In the United States there are over 1,000 legal rights and benefits bestowed upon heterosexual married couples. Check this list of only a handful: http://www.fairness.org/marriage/marriage_benefits.pdf

Count how many are specifically related to children.

My soon-to-be-wife and I have decided never to reproduce. No incentive will change our minds. Shall we also be denied all other marriage rights and benefts? Or perhaps we should argue that it's incorrect for married couples that do have children to get any "special treatment" under the law.

Zortiander's arguments are nothing but shallow apologetic.

As far as I can tell, no matter what specious arguments are given for popular consumption, opposition to gay marriage is fundamentally based in bigotry. It is essentially no different than laws that barred whites from marrying "coloreds." And unsurprisingly, many of the same arguments are used.

Walking Tree
Match Winner
Posts: 641
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:14 am

Post by Walking Tree »

Firtsly, I must admit that I was too lazy to read all of the thread.

Today, our hirstory teacher was talking about imerialism and coburg and austria, and got to tell us the original reason of marriage:

In early days, man could not survive in small groups. The primary reason for marriage was to enlargen the family groups. so, for one, there are of course children, but the new bit was: to connect two families, so that the family group is larger and has more chance to survive.
this concept evolved into the concept of love (and/or was based on it).
With this we have 2 ancient sences of marriage (family is a different matter) : love and children. In my opinion these should be given equal rights and acception.
In an interview for RadioTux, Richard Stallman talked a little about himself and his way of life. He manages to live without certain luxuries. one of these (the greatest ?) luxuries is children. He said that there is no need for everyone to produce children, as there are far too many children being born all the time and the chance that they once become important is minimal.
In my opinion, it may be even good if less people in Europe and (Norh) America have children (at the moment) because this may improve the chances of children from the 3rd world. there are far too many poor children.
on the grid as ~free::zombie~

User avatar
Phytotron
Formerly Oscilloscope
Posts: 5041
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:06 pm
Location: A site or situation, especially considered in regard to its surroundings.
Contact:

Post by Phytotron »

Which reminds me to add: Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

User avatar
SuPeRTaRD
Round Winner
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:53 pm
Location: bedlam
Contact:

Post by SuPeRTaRD »

french couples have better marriages?

because of french maid outfits?

I'm lost.

homosexuality is wrong. because women look better in french maid outfits. ;)
ŠüþéRTàRÐ

User avatar
radian
Core Dumper
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: http://myspace.com/tonysaxbones
Contact:

Post by radian »

Ime not (GAY) myself but do have some (gay) freinds and when i am with them we often use the word gay in a dirogatory (did i spell that right) fashion n we laugh about it cause it dosent bother us one bit ,but i can see lucifers point ,,because ,,while we are in the pub talkin and somtimes using the word gay to describe a poor pool shot ..or a naff shirt that someone has put on ..hehe..last friday...its the fact we are in the pub and not on a platform like the web where anything you say gets seen by all....... that is the point ..... some homosexuals might find it offencive and they have every right to play tron.. as do we all.......at this point i must hold up my hands and say that i have refered to the winzone as the gayzone without any thought.. but from now on will be refering to the winzone as the zone of dis honor or naff zone .. .....so to sum up..... remember people we are on the web and there are some young people out there and young gay people who are probably not as thick skinned as we are........thats all i have to say on the matter.........oh one more ...thing...........thanks .lucifer
i just love it

Post Reply