The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[PeterJB]

There was an LGBT support group type thing a while back, but it's been inactive for years.

 

[Daniel]

There was an LGBT support group type thing a while back, but it's been inactive for years.

LBGTPlanet! I totally forgot about that. Can't remember why it quietened down - I think it had something to do with the switch from groups to conversations?

 

[UKMikey]

It's not really the OP that is being outdated here, they are simply setting up a thread and asking questions, but rather the view of the member they are quoting (who has not been active since 2010).

I don't know whether it's even that member's view since they later described their own post as slanderous.

 

[TexRex]

I think we need a proper gay thread for the gay people here. One where gay media, culture and most importantly, those with issues, like coming out, can come for support. Coming out is something you straight people never had to face. It can be terrifying.

Gosh, that sounds an awful lot like what's frequently referred to and derided as a "safe space."

If you want a safe space, then why are you here?

Oops.



Aaaaanywaaaaay...

I'm beginning to think I'm not getting a response to this.

You (@TexRex) said I don't know.

To what did I respond "I don't know" and what was my full response? Post numbers or direct quotes so that I can refer to the remarks myself, please.

I'd wager the reason I'm not getting a response to the above solicitation is that my remarks were misrepresented (or rather fabricated entirely) in an attempt to weaken my position. I framed the solicitation as I did because I recognized it as a bad faith tactic necessitated by the weakness of one's argument against my own. This sort of bad faith tactic is deceitful.

My argument has always been from reason, that public exhibitions during Pride festivities are unlikely to be in violation of existing statute and that parents should decide whether their own children are fit to observe public exhibition that has been deemed permissible by law, whereas the argument against has always been from emotion, indeed the initial response to the article by the quoted individual was that it's "pretty disgusting"; yeah, disgust is an emotion.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Gosh, that sounds an awful lot like what's frequently referred to and derided as a "safe space."

Oops.



Aaaaanywaaaaay...

I'm beginning to think I'm not getting a response to this.

I'd wager the reason I'm not getting a response to the above solicitation is that my remarks were misrepresented (or rather fabricated entirely) in an attempt to weaken my position. I framed the solicitation as I did because I recognized it as a bad faith tactic necessitated by the weakness of one's argument against my own. This sort of bad faith tactic is deceitful.

My argument has always been from reason, that public exhibitions during Pride festivities are unlikely to be in violation of existing statute and that parents should decide whether their own children are fit to observe public exhibition that has been deemed permissible by law, whereas the argument against has always been from emotion, indeed the initial response to the article by the quoted individual was that it's "pretty disgusting"; yeah, disgust is an emotion.

So I was like what are you going on about.

This is from September, and I did answer you.

Article: Kids should be exposed to kink at pride events

Me: NO!

you:

I don't know if I agree,

I wasn't trying to weaken your position, you took no position.

 

[Com Fox]

LBGTPlanet! I totally forgot about that. Can't remember why it quietened down - I think it had something to do with the switch from groups to conversations?

I remembered being a freakin' edgelord on that thing, truly sorry about that.

Maybe something like that can pick up traction again with enough activity

 

[TexRex]

So I was like what are you going on about.

This is from September, and I did answer you.

Article: Kids should be exposed to kink at pride events

Me: NO!

you:

I wasn't trying to weaken your position, you took no position.

The author stated a belief that children observing kink at public Pride festivities is a part of learning from their experiences at Pride. I don't know if I agree with that belief. You quoted from a post in which I stated as much, except you removed relevant context and placed my words in new context to justify an entirely unveiled allegation that I'm a "typical wishy-washy liberal," incapable of taking a side...as if there are "sides" relevant to this topic. No evidence to support the belief was provided in the article and I haven't seen any evidence to contradict it. As such, I don't know if I agree or disagree with it. It's really as simple as that.

This belief is ultimately separate from the position that whether children should be permitted to observe public exhibitions of kink when those exhibitions are permissible by law is one that rests solely with the parents/guardians of those children. I have held this position consistently even as you've attempted to suggest through misrepresentation that I don't have a position.

Is there something wrong with the position that I've taken? You claimed that parental discretion is sufficient and that no new laws applied specifically to Pride festivities are necessary, and yet you've been compelled to paint the position I've taken--a position that is consistent with those claims--as wishy-washy.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

The author stated a belief that children observing kink at public Pride festivities is a part of learning from their experiences at Pride. I don't know if I agree with that belief. You quoted from a post in which I stated as much, except you removed relevant context and placed my words in new context to justify an entirely unveiled allegation that I'm a "typical wishy-washy liberal," incapable of taking a side...as if there are "sides" relevant to this topic. No evidence to support the belief was provided in the article and I haven't seen any evidence to contradict it. As such, I don't know if I agree or disagree with it. It's really as simple as that.

This belief is ultimately separate from the position that whether children should be permitted to observe public exhibitions of kink when those exhibitions are permissible by law is one that rests solely with the parents/guardians of those children. I have held this position consistently even as you've attempted to suggest through misrepresentation that I don't have a position.

Is there something wrong with the position that I've taken? You claimed that parental discretion is sufficient and that no new laws applied specifically to Pride festivities are necessary, and yet you've been compelled to paint the position I've taken--a position that is consistent with those claims--as wishy-washy.

How can you say your not being wishy-washy here? What, are you waiting for a study?

If I were a parent, walking with my kid, and I see some drag queen with his ass hanging out twerking, you'd better believe I'm gonna be grabbin' my kid and walking the other way.

 

[TexRex]

How can you say your not being wishy-washy here?

With every bit of the confidence of one who understands its meaning.

Do...do you know what it means? Is this an example of conservatives demonstrating a propensity to reject accepted definitions of words and attribute to them definitions that satisfy their needs and narratives?

What, are you waiting for a study?

I mean...a study may or may not be evidence. It kind of depends on methodology; some studies are better than others regardless of what they purport. But evidence needn't be a study, either. I'd be willing to consider evidence short of one. There's currently a lack of evidence either way.

Try as you may to deflect, this is still distinct from the original context in which you alleged I'm wishy-washy:

@TexRex, The author said yes, It is ok for children to watch a bare assed man get flogged. And more children should see it.

I said no, it is not ok.

You (@TexRex) said I don't know. Isn't that the definition of wishy washy?

I said I didn't know if I agree with the author's belief that a child observing kink at public Pride festivities is a part of that child learning from their experiences at Pride. You attributed that response to the question of whether it's okay for children to watch a bare-assed man getting flogged.

Do you see how attributing my remarks to something other than the context in which they were originally offered is deceitful? I can't imagine how you could not. Should I instead be considering Hanlon's razor here?

If I were a parent, walking with my kid, and I see some drag queen with his ass hanging out twerking, you'd better believe I'm gonna be grabbin' my kid and walking the other way.

Great. Your discretion.

Absent any legitimate harm, and thus absent any statute prohibiting public exhibition thereof, is it wrong for a parent to remain in place with their child provided the child hasn't shown or expressed aversion to the spectacle? If so, why?

It's hard to say with certainty when I don't find myself in such a situation, but I think I'd probably remain in place with my child and observe my child's reaction to the spectacle. I think a child may be likely to find humor in a man dressed as a caricature of a woman behaving so erratically. It's almost clown-like. Of course not all kids appreciate clowns, and so I'd be watching mine like a hawk for signs of discomfort.

As for the bare-assed man getting flogged, I wouldn't want to see that myself, regardless of whether public exhibition is permissible, and so I'd probably see fit to find somewhere else to be with my child.

That said, I don't recognize any legitimate harm in either situation provided they aren't in violation of statutes regarding sexual conduct referred to earlier (and that's important), so these situations are subject to parental discretion.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

With every bit of the confidence of one who understands its meaning.

Do...do you know what it means? Is this an example of conservatives demonstrating a propensity to reject accepted definitions of words and attribute to them definitions that satisfy their needs and narratives?

I mean...a study may or may not be evidence. It kind of depends on methodology; some studies are better than others regardless of what they purport. But evidence needn't be a study, either. I'd be willing to consider evidence short of one. There's currently a lack of evidence either way.

Try as you may to deflect, this is still distinct from the original context in which you alleged I'm wishy-washy:

I said I didn't know if I agree with the author's belief that a child observing kink at public Pride festivities is a part of that child learning from their experiences at Pride. You attributed that response to the question of whether it's okay for children to watch a bare-assed man getting flogged.

Do you see how attributing my remarks to something other than the context in which they were originally offered is deceitful? I can't imagine how you could not. Should I instead be considering Hanlon's razor here?

Great. Your discretion.

Absent any legitimate harm, and thus absent any statute prohibiting public exhibition thereof, is it wrong for a parent to remain in place with their child provided the child hasn't shown or expressed aversion to the spectacle? If so, why?

It's hard to say with certainty when I don't find myself in such a situation, but I think I'd probably remain in place with my child and observe my child's reaction to the spectacle. I think a child may be likely to find humor in a man dressed as a caricature of a woman behaving so erratically. It's almost clown-like. Of course not all kids appreciate clowns, and so I'd be watching mine like a hawk for signs of discomfort.

As for the bare-assed man getting flogged, I wouldn't want to see that myself, regardless of whether public exhibition is permissible, and so I'd probably see fit to find somewhere else to be with my child.

That said, I don't recognize any legitimate harm in either situation provided they aren't in violation of statutes regarding sexual conduct referred to earlier (and that's important), so these situations are subject to parental discretion.

So you would put your child in an adult situation and watch the child for a negative reaction? And why do you keep bringing up what is legal, there are plenty of things that are legal that children should not be exposed to. Ever heard of the term "age appropriate"?

Here are a couple of videos I would like for you to watch. And I want you to tell me, you would be ok if these were your kids.

Spoiler: Literally a Drag Queen Twerking in Front of a Child

I am not ok with that. And I have no reservations about saying that.
Drag queen story hour needs to end.

Here is a drag queen who gets it.

This really is harmful to the gay community in general (me). There is going to be a backlash. And I fear that may affect me.

You know I was all in for the fight in the '90s and 2000's, but then we won. We got gay marriage and for me the fight was over.

All of the talk about the 'gay agenda' back in the 90s, I thought was just a right wing conspiracy theory. But now I see that it was not, it was true.

I am going to leave you with this video. It was brought to my attention by a friend. While I do not agree with many of the conclusions or opinions here, there are a lot of quite disturbing facts.

 

[TexRex]

So you would put your child in an adult situation and watch the child for a negative reaction?

What's the adult situation? What makes it an adult situation?

Drag queen story hour needs to end.

I love conservative bitchfits. God damn. You're just broken beyond repair and I am ****ing here for it.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

]

 

[LeMansAid]

This really is harmful to the gay community in general (me).

It's not that I necessarily agree with the points you're making but it does remind me that I think we should be well past the point where gay is so synonymous with camp, and "faaaaabulous", and all of the other "positive" and "neutral" stereotypes that are continually reinforced. Being gay should be an uninteresting detail about a person and these old stereotypes are, to me, incredibly juvenile and ultimately harmful. Every scared-to-death little gay kid in a backwards, redneck town has such an unnecessarily worse uphill battle for fairness and acceptance because of all that "lighthearted" "fun" that's flippantly perpetuated.

I feel like there's probably plenty of issues that you and I would disagree on - but if nothing else, I appreciate that you're not a stereotype. That's valuable.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

]

What's the adult situation? What makes it an adult situation?

I love conservative bitchfits. God damn. You're just broken beyond repair and I am ****ing here for it.

Wow those are some really compelling augments there. You know you got nothing.

but if nothing else, I appreciate that you're not a stereotype.

The thing is, very, very, very few gay guys do fit that stereotype. I am gay. I am not queer. The vast majority of gay guys, that I have met over the years are just normal guys, that happen to be attracted to guys.

It is the media creating this gay hysteria.

 

[TexRex]

Wow those are some really compelling augments there. You know you got nothing.

You can't point to legitimate harm. After repeated solicitations, you still can't explain why parents should not exercise discretion and instead should shield their children from spectacle of which public exhibition is permissible by law becuse there is no legitimate harm. All you have is moral panic.

[Edit] Here's the relevant section of the Texas Penal Code:

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 21. SEXUAL OFFENSES

Sec. 21.07. PUBLIC LEWDNESS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly engages in any of the following acts in a public place or, if not in a public place, the person is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed by the person's:
(1) act of sexual intercourse;
(2) act of deviate sexual intercourse; or
(3) act of sexual contact.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Sec. 21.11. INDECENCY WITH A CHILD.
(a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years of age, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex and regardless of whether the person knows the age of the child at the time of the offense, the person:
(1) engages in sexual contact with the child or causes the child to engage in sexual contact; or
(2) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person:
(A) exposes the person's anus or any part of the person's genitals, knowing the child is present; or
(B) causes the child to expose the child's anus or any part of the child's genitals.

Sec. 21.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Deviate sexual intercourse" means:
(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or
(B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object.
(2) "Sexual contact" means, except as provided by Section 21.11 or 21.12, any touching of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
(3) "Sexual intercourse" means any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ.

Only legitimate harm is covered therein.

 

[Scaff]

Drag queen story hour needs to end.

Don't ever come to the UK and watch a Christmas panto, your going to be shook to your moral core.

I mean it's a traditional event for parents to take kids to...

This really is harmful to the gay community in general (me). There is going to be a backlash. And I fear that may affect me.

Aside from the moral hysteria the religious right has made-up it's not.

You know I was all in for the fight in the '90s and 2000's, but then we won. We got gay marriage and for me the fight was over.

'You' winning didn't signify the end of hate-crimes and discrimination, and it's naïve to actually believe that's the case, and lest you forget, right now people are attempting to wind-back what you have won!

All of the talk about the 'gay agenda' back in the 90s, I thought was just a right wing conspiracy theory. But now I see that it was not, it was true.

I am going to leave you with this video. It was brought to my attention by a friend. While I do not agree with many of the conclusions or opinions here, there are a lot of quite disturbing facts.

If they know you're gay and they shared that with you then they are not your friend. However well done for sharing the rabidly inaccurate views of the British far-right.

The thing is, very, very, very few gay guys do fit that stereotype. I am gay. I am not queer. The vast majority of gay guys, that I have met over the years are just normal guys, that happen to be attracted to guys.

What does it matter? Do you think that those who wish to remove gay-right are going to care about that in any way?

It is the media creating this gay hysteria.

The right-wing media is! They are creating a problem were none exists, or at the very least operating a double standard.

 

[Daniel]

]


Wow those are some really compelling augments there. You know you got nothing.


The thing is, very, very, very few gay guys do fit that stereotype. I am gay. I am not queer. The vast majority of gay guys, that I have met over the years are just normal guys, that happen to be attracted to guys.

It is the media creating this gay hysteria.

I'm pretty sure queer is mainly used nowadays as an umbrella term to essentially refer to anyone 'not cis or straight'. You can identify as gay and certainly choose not self-identify as queer, but you'd still be under the umbrella.

 

[TexRex]

I'm pretty sure queer is mainly used nowadays as an umbrella term to essentially refer to anyone 'not cis or straight'. You can identify as gay and certainly choose not self-identify as queer, but you'd still be under the umbrella.

If I use it, it's not in this context at all. To me it means weird, but a very special kind of weird befitting that John-C.-Reilly-looking-askew gif.

Like this. I don't even know what this is.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

What? One can not help who they crush on. And 2 am me after a bunch of wine...

You bring up posts I made years ago. No one has paid that much attention to me in ages.

 

[Danoff]

You know I was all in for the fight in the '90s and 2000's, but then we won. We got gay marriage and for me the fight was over.

Don't you live in Texas? If the supreme court overturns obergfell like they did Roe (and there are definitely justices who want to and will try shortly), then you've lost that fight at the federal and state level. Didn't abbott and paxton just fire a shot across your bow? Didn't DeSantis just put in place a way to penalize gay teachers if they slip up about their marriage circumstances?

What is this "fight is over" nonsense?

 

[TexRex]

If the supreme court overturns obergfell like they did Roe (and there are definitely justices who want to and will try shortly), then you've lost that fight at the federal and state level. Didn't abbott and paxton just fire a shot across your bow?

Obviously that Obergefell may be overruled is a concern, but the more pressing concern for me (not me personally, mind--rather my concern is for the rights of others) is that Lawrence has been targeted. Same-sex unions absolutely should be permissible and recognized, but absent rights recognized in Obergefell, there is no threat of prosecution that the holding in Lawrence protects against.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Don't you live in Texas? If the supreme court overturns obergfell like they did Roe (and there are definitely justices who want to and will try shortly), then you've lost that fight at the federal and state level. Didn't abbott and paxton just fire a shot across your bow? Didn't DeSantis just put in place a way to penalize gay teachers if they slip up about their marriage circumstances?

What is this "fight is over" nonsense?

Oh my god, three left wing news outlets who use even farther left wingers as sources, even suggesting they are going to ban contraceptives... I can't even.

Besides, as long as I have @TexRex doting over me, I'll be fine.

 

[TexRex]

Modern American conservatism is mental illness.

Texas AG Ken Paxton suggests defending sodomy law if SCOTUS revisits

The state’s Attorney General Ken Paxton said he would “defend state law” if the Supreme Court overturned other precedents — including Lawrence v. Texas.

nypost.com

 

[Famine]

Oh my god, three left wing news outlets who use even farther left wingers as sources, even suggesting they are going to ban contraceptives... I can't even.

Didn't Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently specifically say in his concurring ruling overturning Roe vs Wade that "we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell"?

Obergefell being the constitutionality of gay marriage, Lawrence being the constitutionality of homosexual practices, and Griswold being the constitutionality of access to contraception - with any overturn of any allowing for the States to make their own legislation on the subjects?

Or did I dream that?


Odd he missed off the similar due process ruling of Loving, being the constitutionality of interracial marriage...

 

[Danoff]

Oh my god, three left wing news outlets who use even farther left wingers as sources, even suggesting they are going to ban contraceptives... I can't even.

Besides, as long as I have @TexRex doting over me, I'll be fine.

Focus less on the outlet and more on what is actually being reported. Thomas and Alito hate gay marriage so much, they wrote an entire essay about it. I am very concerned that they have the votes to overturn it today.


Edit:

Just FYI, I searched for the statements, clicked one of the first articles I saw, skimmed it to make sure it had the relevant facts, and posted it. It's not like I was on any of those sites just reading and clipping articles. I knew what had been said, and when I needed to cite it, I cited the first article I found that included what I needed you to see.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Didn't Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently specifically say in his concurring ruling overturning Roe vs Wade that "we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell"?

Obergefell being the constitutionality of gay marriage, Lawrence being the constitutionality of homosexual practices, and Griswold being the constitutionality of access to contraception - with any overturn of any allowing for the States to make their own legislation on the subjects?

Or did I dream that?


Odd he missed off the similar due process ruling of Loving, being the constitutionality of interracial marriage...

You are correct. But he is only one out of nine. He is my favorite justice, and he is probably right. But, even if the court did overturn those things, sentiment has changed so much over the past several year, and there are lots of married gay Republicans, I doubt much would change.

 

[Danoff]

He is my favorite justice, and he is probably right.

Not even a little bit. No.

But, even if the court did overturn those things, sentiment has changed so much over the past several year, and there are lots of married gay Republicans, I doubt much would change.

Oh my god. Your own state is looking to fight the legality of homosexuality AT ALL! Jesus tapdancing...

 

[TexRex]

Broken. Beyond. Repair.

 

[Danoff]

Broken. Beyond. Repair.

The idea that if the supremes overturn gay marriage that Texas is going to pass a law allowing it is just completely divorced from reality.

 

[Famine]

But he is only one out of nine.

He is one of six who will vote against all of these things.

He is my favorite justice, and he is probably right.

So... you think that States should be allowed to create their own laws on whether you can marry someone of the same gender, whether you can have sexual intercourse with someone of the same gender, whether you can take contraception, and whether you must surrender your bodily autonomy, and that none of these things are in fact none of any state or government's business?

I doubt much would change.

Cool. It took literally zero time (due to the overturn of Roe vs Wade triggering existing legislation) for 11 states to reintroduce restrictions on abortion. How long do you think it'll take many of these same states to reintroduce legislation against contraception, same-sex marriage, and anal sex?