The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[merseyxshore]

I know this board is only a microcosm of society, and we still have a long way to go, but reading the first few pages of these old threads is a great reminder of how far we have come since 2003.

 

[UKMikey]

I know this board is only a microcosm of society, and we still have a long way to go, but reading the first few pages of these old threads is a great reminder of how far we have come since 2003.

It looks like intolerance was the problem that needed to be cured.

LOL at the chap who thought homosexuality was being "shoved down his throte (sic)". Sounds like one of those Archer phrasing jpgs might've been an appropriate response.

 

[NotThePrez]

 

[maikoheart]

God I love girls...

 

[TexRex]

 

[Daniel]

Pack it up, everyone. Time to stop being gay.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

"Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it." Is a pretty disgusting article.

It's ok if a kid knows Billy has two daddies. But no kid needs to know what Billy's daddies do in their basement dungeon.

 

[TexRex]

"Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it." Is a pretty disgusting article.

It's ok if a kid knows Billy has two daddies. But no kid needs to know what Billy's daddies do in their basement dungeon.

I just knew this was a moral panic trigger.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I just knew this was a moral panic trigger.

So did Tom Nichols.

 

[TexRex]

So did Tom Nichols.

That's why I was compelled to post it and the predictable response by right-wing propagandists.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Methodist Church allows same-sex marriage in 'momentous' vote​

 

[NotThePrez]

"Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it." Is a pretty disgusting article.

It's ok if a kid knows Billy has two daddies. But no kid needs to know what Billy's daddies do in their basement dungeon.

Then, don't take your kids to a kink-friendly pride parade, pretty simple solution I'd say. Plus, from what I understand (never been to a pride parade, but know a few people that have), the website/FB page/whathaveyou for it will be pretty straight-forward on whether or not kinks are welcome, so a little bit of research will help make an informed decision.

Also, it's a freakin' pride parade. There's going to be at lease some weirdness involved, no matter what (and that's a good thing overall).

Methodist Church allows same-sex marriage in 'momentous' vote​

I was very confused by the use of "significant minority" when talking about the number of church members who would leave because of the vote. I couldn't tell if they were trying to insult them or if they were alluding to their rank within the Church. 😕

Good news in any case, though.

 

[Brett]

Then, don't take your kids to a kink-friendly pride parade, pretty simple solution I'd say. Plus, from what I understand (never been to a pride parade, but know a few people that have), the website/FB page/whathaveyou for it will be pretty straight-forward on whether or not kinks are welcome, so a little bit of research will help make an informed decision.

Also, it's a freakin' pride parade. There's going to be at lease some weirdness involved, no matter what (and that's a good thing overall).

I was very confused by the use of "significant minority" when talking about the number of church members who would leave because of the vote. I couldn't tell if they were trying to insult them or if they were alluding to their rank within the Church. 😕

Good news in any case, though.

I have been to one Pride Parade. It was a good time. I do not remember anything particularly weird. However, my tolerances for weirdness is pretty high and generally see little need to judge people for what makes them happy or helps them. I also saw a significant amount of empathy for people; that was awesome.

Significant minority sounds like a bunch of people huffing and puffing about allowing same sex marriage and many of them threatening to leave the church. I wonder how many actually follow through.

 

[TexRex]

I have been to one Pride Parade. It was a good time. I do not remember anything particularly weird. However, my tolerances for weirdness is pretty high and generally see little need to judge people for what makes them happy or helps them. I also saw a significant amount of empathy for people; that was awesome.

I've observed Pride in a few cities and it varies. Los Angeles was the weirdest, but it wasn't over the top. Of course it was also a number of years ago. Actually...good grief...the last one was Austin in 2015. I definitely need to remedy that and show my support.

The key is that the views of the one journo responsible for the WaPo op-ed aren't necessarily widely held. I'd wager they're actually not likely to be. But that doesn't matter when outlets are so keen to portray folk devils to get their base outraged.

 

[NotThePrez]

I have been to one Pride Parade. It was a good time. I do not remember anything particularly weird. However, my tolerances for weirdness is pretty high and generally see little need to judge people for what makes them happy or helps them. I also saw a significant amount of empathy for people; that was awesome.

I use "weirdness" in a "general audience" sense. My threshold for the unusual is pretty high, or at least not high enough to make a big deal about it. For a random passer-by, that might be a different story, but they should at the same time know better given the type of event in question.

I just think it's silly that people still make a big deal about something that is both A) an established part of modern society (and is a good example of 1A at work), and B) doesn't actually effect their daily life unless the want it to. Granted, considering who the "victims" are, it's not a big surprise.

That being said, after skimming the WaPo article, I feel like the author was writing the article in an attempt to help normalize said behavior, but did a poor job of it, hence the Fox News article.

 

[Danoff]

Part of gay pride is being comfortable with sexuality that others consider to be abnormal or deviant. I can see how this bleeds over into areas outside of homosexuality. One could almost see it being re-branded as a sexual pride parade.

 

[TexRex]

One could almost see it being re-branded as a sexual pride parade.

I can just imagine how that would go over with the fornication-is-distasteful-and-should-be-limited-to-necessity set.

 

[McLaren]

"Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it." Is a pretty disgusting article.

It's ok if a kid knows Billy has two daddies. But no kid needs to know what Billy's daddies do in their basement dungeon.

Lul, you're literally called out in the article.

But kinksters at Pride are not engaged in sex acts — and we cannot confuse their self-expression with obscenity. Co-opting the language of sexual autonomy only serves to bury that truth and muddies the seriousness of other conversations about consent. If this all sounds familiar, it’s because anti-kink rhetoric echoes the same socialized disgust people have projected onto other queer people when they claim that our love is not appropriate for public spaces. It’s a sentiment that tolerates queerness only if it stays within parameters — offering the kind of acceptance that comes with a catch. The middle-aged, White men who I grew up with said they were “fine” with gay people as long as they wouldn’t be subjected to PDA — as long as all signs of queer love could be outwardly erased. Queer people’s freedom to be themselves is, according to this logic, contingent on non-queer people’s freedom from exposure to it.

 

[TexRex]

Lul, you're literally called out in the article.

Hey, come on. He just doesn't want it...[cough]...shoved down his throat.

 

[McLaren]

Hey, come on. He just doesn't want it...[cough]...shoved down his throat.

It's such a weird stance to have. I wasn't alive during the era, but did hair metal bands ever get brought up for the way they dressed and the sexually suggestive content they sang about? Or was it accepted because the bands were straight & singing about women?

Because, as one of my favorite bands, Motley Crue was still out dressing up in skin tight leather pants, fishnets, high heels, tons of make-up, lots of skin at times, etc. Stuff that would easily be seen as fitting in at a Pride Parade.

 

[TexRex]

It's such a weird stance to have. I wasn't alive during the era, but did hair metal bands ever get brought up for the way they dressed and the sexually suggestive content they sang about? Or was it accepted because the bands were straight & singing about women?

Because, as one of my favorite bands, Motley Crue was still out dressing up in skin tight leather pants, fishnets, high heels, tons of make-up, lots of skin at times, etc. Stuff that would easily be seen as fitting in at a Pride Parade.

I'm certain they had their critics, because that sort of toxic conservatism is probably bordering on mental illness, but it's important to remember flamboyance was typically part of the act. I don't know for certain, but you might not have recognized a Marc Bolan or Ian Hunter out in public. Bowie, on the other hand, was quite literally something else.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Lul, you're literally called out in the article.

That article in no way calls me out, except for the middle aged white part. I've got no problem with gay PDA. Especially if the guys are cute.

In the article, they talks about they's elementary school child watching a guy wearing only sunglasses, a leather thong, and suspenders being flogged by another guy.

Call me old fashion, but I don't think S&M is an appropriate topic for young kids.

 

[McLaren]

That article in no way calls me out, except for the middle aged white part. I've got no problem with gay PDA. Especially if the guys are cute.

In the article, they talks about they's elementary school child watching a guy wearing only sunglasses, a leather thong, and suspenders being flogged by another guy.

Call me old fashion, but I don't think S&M is an appropriate topic for young kids.

It in fact does. This:

But no kid needs to know what Billy's daddies do in their basement dungeon.

Is directly called out by this.

But kinksters at Pride are not engaged in sex acts.

It’s a sentiment that tolerates queerness only if it stays within parameters

You literally set a parameter because of what you perceived as a sex act.

@NotThePrez also had a valid answer.

Then, don't take your kids to a kink-friendly pride parade, pretty simple solution I'd say.

 

[NotThePrez]

Call me old fashion, but I don't think S&M is an appropriate topic for young kids.

Now, I'm not a parent, and don't plan on being one for quite a while, but I generally have the thought process of "at some point, the kid's gonna find out." Considering how connected people are, how little kids can work smartphones and tablets almost instantly (which is a tad frightening imo), and how easy it is to access the internet and look up literally the world's knowledge on a whim, it's very much within the realm of possibility that a minor is going to be exposed to something "bad" (for lack of a better term) at some point, at likely no real fault of their own. At which point, the question becomes do you A) explain the concept at least somewhat objectively in a way that they can understand, or B) pretend that it doesn't exist, which may cause issues down the line?

Now, I have a hard time seeing myself showing my (or any else's) hypothetical (or non-hypothetical) child BDSM, but if they do come across it, and if they're mentally mature enough to at least understand new information, I'd hopefully be able to talk to them about it, explain what it is, why people do it, and why it's important that it happens between consenting adults. I think that's what the WaPo author was trying to convey in her article, that by exposing her kid to Homosexuality and kinks somewhat early, they can talk with them about it, tell them that it's ok that adults are into that kind of thing, and hopefully normalize it for their later life.

Again, I probably won't do that (at least not that aggressively), but I hope that I won't pretend that it doesn't exist. Also, my earlier suggestion of not taking your kid to a pride parade is still valid.

 

[ryzno]

That article in no way calls me out, except for the middle aged white part. I've got no problem with gay PDA. Especially if the guys are cute.

In the article, they talks about they's elementary school child watching a guy wearing only sunglasses, a leather thong, and suspenders being flogged by another guy.

Call me old fashion, but I don't think S&M is an appropriate topic for young kids.

Don't waste your finger tips.
I wouldn't've wasted my time even responding.
They called you out to mock you and circle .. themselves.

 

[TexRex]

Don't waste your finger tips.
I wouldn't've wasted my time even responding.
They called you out to mock you and circle .. themselves.

"Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it." Is a pretty disgusting article.

It's ok if a kid knows Billy has two daddies. But no kid needs to know what Billy's daddies do in their basement dungeon.

Ah, the perils of not paying attention.

Rod Dreher of The American Conservative called it demonic. Demonic. This is moral panic. It's another aspect of the conservative victim complex. These mother****ers actually call others snowflakes.

 

[Joey D]

Hey, come on. He just doesn't want it...[cough]...shoved down his throat.

===

I've been around the SLC Pride Parade and whatever, sure there are people dressed up like the Village People but it doesn't really bother me. Maybe the Utah brand of gay is less kinky than other places?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Rod Dreher

Who?

demonic

I am an atheist so... That means demons too.

My concern is for the children. If you guys are so ok with kids being exposed to such things, maybe call your local library and see if they can put up a St. Andrews cross, and set up a single tail demo in time for the next drag queen story hour.

 

[ryzno]

Ah, the perils of not paying attention.

I paid attention to you calling out someone who hasn't posted in this section much less this thread in months...
He responded and y'all do what you do best and gang up on him.

You already knew the answer...


You:
I just knew this was a moral panic trigger.

Hey, come on. He just doesn't want it...[cough]...shoved down his throat.
-----'
This new site update sucks...

 

[TexRex]

Who?

Someone from The American Conservative. Hard to imagine one not understanding that.

I am an atheist so... That means demons too.

Presumably Rod Dreher of The American Conservative is not. Others swepped up into a moral panic presumably are not either. This is the sort of rhetoric typically employed to sweep people up into a moral panic. Observers of the phenomenom actually refer to subjects as "folk devils" because their portrayal is as something to cause outrage.

My concern is for the children.

If you guys are so ok with kids being exposed to such things,

They're not my kids, and if public exhibition of such things--whatever those things may be--is permissible by law, and it likely is, who am I to say kids for whom I'm not responsible shouldn't see it?

maybe call your local library and see if they can put up a St. Andrews cross,

I don't know what that is or why I would expect my local library to put one up. Would that not be more of a church thing if it pertains to saints?

and set up a single tail demo

I gather that's having to do with one individual whipping another individual. I suppose my local library may put on such a demo if that library had an interest in demonstrating aspects of this country's uncomfortable history with slavery, but I'd hope it was purely for show and didn't involve physical harm.

in time for the next drag queen story hour.

What's wrong with drag queens reading stories? Obviously the story chosen may be subject to parental discretion but that seems pretty ****ing wholesome to me.

I paid attention to you calling out someone who hasn't posted in this section much less this thread in months...

Are you...lost? I didn't "call him out" in this thread. What I did was solicit a response from him on the subject of a social media platform's policy regarding content moderation because I recalled a previous exchange during which he expressed contempt for a social media platform's policy regarding content moderation. I quoted him as having done so. I did this in the Free Speech thread on this site because a social media platform's policy regarding content moderation is the beneficiary of protections enshrined in the United States Constitution, specifically the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

He responded and y'all do what you do best and gang up on him.

He responded to a post I made in this thread, and in that post I did not solicit a response from him. I don't have a problem with him responding, mind you, as I never post with the expectation that discussion won't follow.

He responded and others engaged in discussion. Is...is the number of people who engaged in discussion the problem? How many would have been appropriate? Why that many? What if there are more interested parties than the number deemed appropriate?

This is a peculiar grievance.

["Swepped"?]