"Homophobia" - The True Meaning

[Flatearther]

Vortex, mate - we're both singing from the same songbook. I'm not exactly prone to be accused of any 'subtlety'. Rest assured, if I was going to insult someone, they'd be just as aware of it as they would be if they'd been run over by a tractor. I like your style. Cheers!

 

[Vortex]

Vortex, mate - we're both singing from the same songbook. I'm not exactly prone to be accused of any 'subtlety'. Rest assured, if I was going to insult someone, they'd be just as aware of it as they would be if they'd been run over by a tractor. I like your style. Cheers!

I aim to please....(perhaps i should rephrase that)...

but not to much ticks me off anymore....other than random idiots that pass me by......but not enough to go blogging about it that much or what have you....

Salute!

 

[Flatearther]

Just remember - things have a tendency to be the way they are. Cheers!

 

[Vortex]

Just remember - things have a tendency to be the way they are. Cheers!

Too bad we are powerless to change much of anything beyond those that are directly around you!

 

[Flatearther]

Too bad we are powerless to change much of anything beyond those that are directly around you!

Couldn't disagree more. John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" was a milestone in changing laws against human exploitation. The photographer who captured the public execution of the Vietcong prisoner in a Saigon marketplace set officials scurrying to shorten the war worldwide. Whistleblowers get things done in spite of the dangers to themselves and their families. If you're not brave enough to spell out what you want, you'll have others spelling out what you're allowed to have. Troublemakers - unite!. Cheers!

 

[hugo]

Couldn't disagree more. John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" was a milestone in changing laws against human exploitation. The photographer who captured the public execution of the Vietcong prisoner in a Saigon marketplace set officials scurrying to shorten the war worldwide. Whistleblowers get things done in spite of the dangers to themselves and their families. If you're not brave enough to spell out what you want, you'll have others spelling out what you're allowed to have. Troublemakers - unite!. Cheers!

Exploitation? That's a liberal word. Which specific laws were changed?

 

[Vortex]

Couldn't disagree more. John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" was a milestone in changing laws against human exploitation. The photographer who captured the public execution of the Vietcong prisoner in a Saigon marketplace set officials scurrying to shorten the war worldwide. Whistleblowers get things done in spite of the dangers to themselves and their families. If you're not brave enough to spell out what you want, you'll have others spelling out what you're allowed to have. Troublemakers - unite!. Cheers!

Thats all good and fine..and i have no problem being a whistle blower...i Do it constantly (weather at work...granted now im the one people whistle blow too becomming a manager...or even at play seeing a fight or something and telling how it "really went down")...

But to change everyones opinions of everything is a hard thing to do....I suppose if i wrote a great novel like the bible in the time that it was written life would have been different...

Shrug i cant really judge anyone in what they do in their free time...as long as im not the one suffering the consequences i could care less (nor if anyone is getting hurt either)...

People now just cant leave good enough alone...they have to meddle in everyones business....I have a problem with that...what works for one person doesnt work for another...

apparently that isnt a universal opinion

 

[Flatearther]

Exploitation? That's a liberal word. Which specific laws were changed?

Just take your finger off the 'Communist" or "Socialist" trigger and put the hardware down. I'm actually on your side. The quality of your comment, hence the quality of the reply it deserves rests on the assumption that either:

a: You have not read John Steinbeck's book "The Grapes Of Wrath" and are ignorant of the labor laws (esp in California) and in particular the things that could be and were done to the itinerant workers and the dispossessed of Oklahoma. In which case you might find it beneficial to dig out and compare the lot of people after publication of Steinbeck's work.

b: You have read Steinbeck's novel, are familiar with the differences in the labor laws before and after publication and couldn't give a fig except as a cheap excuse for a cheap jibe and even cheaper argument. Failing that, you could actually check out the story behind my headline comment.I'd just love it if you concluded that Steinbecks whistleblow changed nothing. Crow tastes just fine with humble pie. I do look forward to your deep analysis and the investigative potency of your sincere inquiry. Cheers!

 

[Flatearther]

Vortex wrote:

But to change everyones opinions of everything is a hard thing to do...

Not just hard - impossible. Even Hitler didn't try a takeover in a single day. Smart operators change the course of a large ship one degree at a time. Try it - one opinion, then another. It gets better each time. Cheers!

 

[hugo]

Just take your finger off the 'Communist" or "Socialist" trigger and put the hardware down. I'm actually on your side. The quality of your comment, hence the quality of the reply it deserves rests on the assumption that either:

a: You have not read John Steinbeck's book "The Grapes Of Wrath" and are ignorant of the labor laws (esp in California) and in particular the things that could be and were done to the itinerant workers and the dispossessed of Oklahoma. In which case you might find it beneficial to dig out and compare the lot of people after publication of Steinbeck's work.

b: You have read Steinbeck's novel, are familiar with the differences in the labor laws before and after publication and couldn't give a fig except as a cheap excuse for a cheap jibe and even cheaper argument. Failing that, you could actually check out the story behind my headline comment.I'd just love it if you concluded that Steinbecks whistleblow changed nothing. Crow tastes just fine with humble pie. I do look forward to your deep analysis and the investigative potency of your sincere inquiry. Cheers!

Never answered my question. There are only two Marxists here and you definitely ain't one of them.

 

[Flatearther]

Never answered my question. There are only two Marxists here and you definitely ain't one of them.

Well, if you're the other one, you're the lazy one. You avoided my question as well. The comment I made to Vortex , in this thread about 'homophobia' was in response to his saying "you can't do much as an individual" - to which my response was, 'yes you can', - Steinbeck being the example among others. You then avoided committing yourself to a common page to sing from, being "Have you read "The Grapes of Wrath"?. If you have, then we can discuss the differences in the California labor laws between the periods before and after Steinbeck's publication. I am not prepared to sift through days of minutiae and legal statistics just to have someone like you playing me like a fiddle. The fact that the labour system changed slowly and over a period of many years is also a serious factor in the equation. Steinbeck's contribution is acknowledged even by his critics and adversaries. Are you saying that Steinbeck had no effect whatever? The evolution of those regulations happens to be a matter of record. You are free to chase up the jots and tittles of that specific legislation. I am not prepared to do free research, not so I can avoid your question (which I find hard to believe is genuine) but because to do justice to my comment would take far more space than would be sensible or appropriate in a 'bits & pieces' forum. I do not form serious opinions based on simplistic and piecemeal scraps of material - neither should you. I am quite prepared to debate in a separate forum thread the merits or otherwise of the California labor laws. This just doesn't seem the appropriate or sensible place to do so. Cheers!

 

[hugo]

Just seems to me them Okies were traveling a long way to be exploited.

 

[Flatearther]

Just seems to me them Okies were traveling a long way to be exploited.

Well, it's not as if they (Okies) switched their options and declined a free lixury stay in Florida, is it? Even Eskimos and Mexicans in the same position could reasonably claim a fair-sized rip-off. Whether you regard Okies (or Mexicans) as people, of course, is another matter. Could be the Californians of that day were just practising their old form of traditional folk entertainment: "Okiephobia?" And Timothy McVeigh wasn't even born yet! Cheers!

 

[Vortex]

Vortex wrote:



Not just hard - impossible. Even Hitler didn't try a takeover in a single day. Smart operators change the course of a large ship one degree at a time. Try it - one opinion, then another. It gets better each time. Cheers!

Duh....thats how i operate....

Salute!

However.....[last minute side note].....a subject like this has too many overzealous pro's...and too many undereducated con's working against it...the uphill battle is far too steep. The best way is to lead by example in EVERY case of every situation, and every walk of life (reguardless of their situation, sexuality, color of skin, particular faith, and social status...and ect). Unfortunately people now-a-days are far too stupid to realize that and expect some sort of resolution just because of what they are (or do etc) and fail to claim any sort of responsibility for their actual "actions" rather than what they cannot help....It doesnt matter what you are or who you are..

bottom line...if you are a model example of a negative stereotype then you should accept the negativity that comes along with it...

a stereotype always has truth in it.....but it can always be broken...

 

[snafu]

I’m all for gay people to get benefits from their partner. They do desirve the same as married couples but am I reading this wrong?

Joannides also said the state must allow the same-sex partners of state employees to take personal leave if medically disabled or if the employee dies. The judge also ordered the state to direct death benefits to the same-sex partner if the employee had failed to designate anyone to receive the payment.

They want to give benefits to someone that hasn’t been designated as the beneficiary? And then they want to drop the criteria for long term relationship from 12 months to 6 months. I really think this can open up a Pandora’s box of litigations. Especially when I believe most gay people have more than one partner.

This is for Alaska State Employees.
http://www.queery.com/q-item2.php?category=News&idx=100644

 

[Jhony5]

I

 

[Ctrl]

The entire (long) schpele is a horror show as far as understanding, etymology, logic, research, and society as a whole is concerned. The kernel of this thing is sound... just a horrible way to get there. Kind of like saying "you shouldn't rape women." and then listing the reasons why as "they are demons and will burn your pee-pee, raping men is more satisfying, and rape babies come out black". It actually defeats its purpose in its bleak obtuse understanding of the subject.

 

[Vortex]

No ****! Hey if I get sick and I don't have insurance, could I pretend to be gay with my buddy Jim so his insurance could knock out that bill for me?

Abosotlutely...and since you dont have to worry about those things you probably skipped over that form...or you dont even work in a job that pays any sort of insurance....so I wouldnt worry about it......Most credible jobs that offer insurance at least give some sort of 'class' that teaches you alllllllll about this stuff........

I remember my first 'class' that explained our insurance bennefits slightly touched on the "domestic partner" issue and some ignorant bitch who was (sorry to say) OBSCENELY overweight white trash girl got SOO upset that 2 guys could get insurance and her and her "boyfriend" couldnt.. because they had lived together for 2 months...wound up getting written up on her 3rd day with company before she was even trained...actually attempted to sue for discrimination.....SOOOO i say..**** you to her! She can actually LEGALLY get married..i have ZERO compassion for her...and ANYONE who thinks even remotely like her...

How the **** are they going to prove that? Gay rights have come a long way. Now that they have secured their rights, it would seem special rights are in-line for the gay agenda.

Explain how they are special?!?!?!? Straight people get married, get tax bennefits, can have children, "beat the system" CONSTANTLY.....gay people just want the same EXACT things you want.....so im confused what is special...seriously...

Your complaining that gay people want the exact same rights that you have, interesting..

...You want to deny us of getting divorced?!?!? Seems to be your problem...not ours..

....you want some sort of ugly custody battle because you are upset with the other parent for some childish issue(ultimately hurting the kids)..again your issue...

....want to bang any chick that is hot...butthe girl cant seem to to understand why you dont like her the next day (guess thats universal).we will just say "my bad" to both of us

....you want to deny us of kids being born into unfit families because procreation is natural...fine you have us there, but we arent the ones who are "naturally" creating unfit siturations because we had a one night stand (unless you consider a sexually transmitted disease...but then again..you hav e that too)

Jhonny...im pretty much done clocking you on your double standards to gay issues...I am drawing the line......I can see peoples opinions from both sides.....but im tired of "accepting your apologies" for it...

Either get educated on the ****...or shut the **** up on the subject....seriously!!

 

[Jhony5]

Allow me to clarify my use of the word "special".

By definition :Special : being other than the usual.

In the real world, homosexuality IS special. Its different enough to warrant that title. I'm sorry, but whether you were born gay, or just chose this lifestyle, its special in the respect that it differs greatly from the norm.

Two men or women getting married is, by all practicality, a special request.

Your complaining that gay people want the exact same rights that you have, interesting..

Heres the trick. Your not asking for the same rights as me. I'm a man, I ask and I am granted, the right to marry a woman. A woman might ask, and shall be granted, the right to marry a man.

Now gays want to create a specialized form of marital union, the civil union.

That is by definition, special treatment.

One thing I'm sick and ****ing tired of hearing. When gays point to the overall failure of heterosexual marriage and family construct. Yes, you're correct. Hetero marriages are bleak on the performance issue. Does this mean we should open the floodgates unto a litany of "special" marital arrangement requests? Should we just concern ourselves with granting the marital request of gays and not, now that we have stepped foot onto the slippery slope, the rights of polygamist and the like? Why tamper with the laws concerning homosexuals and not all the other request of various groups that wish for differing marital arrangements? Because.........gays want special privilege, THATS WHY! They don't want 2 men and 5 women to all get married. They don't want one man to be able to marry 30 women. NO!. They want the right of marriage extended to their interest group ONLY.

Thats ****ing special buddy.

Jhonny...im pretty much done clocking you on your double standards to gay issues...I am drawing the line......I can see peoples opinions from both sides.....but im tired of "accepting your apologies" for it...

I offer no apologies for my opinion. I don't hate gay folk because I harbor this opinion. I just wish they'd shut the **** up and get on with their ****sucking and leave it in their bedroom and off the legislative floor.

 

[Vortex]

Allow me to clarify my use of the word "special".

By definition :Special : being other than the usual.

who defines the term "Usual" in relationships?

Is it the adoring republican party? Is it the crazy cat lady down the block? Is i the young lovebirds who are gleefully getting married because she is pregnent? is it the stout woman who puts up with her husbands infedility?, is it hollywood?, Who....i really want to know???!?!?!?! Because i really didnt mean to bring up straight peoples woes...as they are a close guarded secret...i didnt mean to bring them up as "usual"...i truely didnt...

In the real world, homosexuality IS special. Its different enough to warrant that title. I'm sorry, but whether you were born gay, or just chose this lifestyle, its special in the respect that it differs greatly from the norm.

In the real world, as opposed to the 'fantasy land' i live in day by day?

Special...again the term.....I dont quite understand.....So if we were born that way or chose that way its different from say a person who gets their legs amputated due to an accident as apposed to someone who chops them off intentionally.......special like that?!?!?!

Two men or women getting married is, by all practicality, a special request.

Why is that special? Isnt the ones who can ONLY get married actually getting special treatment?? Why shouldnt 2 grown adults get the same request? If you went to a gay bar with your wife or girlfiriend and they didnt think you were gay and you couldnt get in wouldnt you think that is some sort of discrimination?!?! wouldnt you throw some kind of fit?!?! Trust me it happens all the time. The bar i used to work at wont let any typical bachelorette garmets into the club (like the sucker bouquet, or the veil)...and they threaten to sue EVERY SINGLE TIME because they cant wear them in the club and they feel they are being discriminated against....(i chuckle EVERY SINGLE TIME...because they can **** themselves for having the ability to get married)..... back on subject.....who is anyone to judge, even you, about what 2 grown adults do with eachother?!?!

Heres the trick. Your not asking for the same rights as me. I'm a man, I ask and I am granted, the right to marry a woman. A woman might ask, and shall be granted, the right to marry a man.

Your abosolutely right....im not asking for the right to marry a woman...im asking for the right to marry a man.....both are human....who has the right to dictate the difference?!?!?! Im asking for the same rights as in the same benefits....because it shouldnt matter.....but since your oddly defending the fact that there is a difference you are insecure of that simple fact??!!?! Why? If it was open to man on man or woman on woman would that change your mind? would you marry a man? Im guessing NO.....so why is this even an issue in the first place? What are you defending something you wouldnt even do even it it was open to you?!?!?!I wouldnt marry a woman...and thats open to me!?!?!

Now gays want to create a specialized form of marital union, the civil union.

Yep..beacuse we cant get married and have the same legal rights as straights...since they have a problem with it being called marriage it seems logical to change the name so everyone is happy........but apparently straights are still clingly to their special rights.....

That is by definition, special treatment.

Ok then call it marriage...then everyone is equal and noone is special?!?! Again where is the argument?

One thing I'm sick and ****ing tired of hearing. When gays point to the overall failure of heterosexual marriage and family construct. Yes, you're correct. Hetero marriages are bleak on the performance issue. Does this mean we should open the floodgates unto a litany of "special" marital arrangement requests? Should we just concern ourselves with granting the marital request of gays and not, now that we have stepped foot onto the slippery slope, the rights of polygamist and the like? Why tamper with the laws concerning homosexuals and not all the other request of various groups that wish for differing marital arrangements? Because.........gays want special privilege, THATS WHY!

What exactly are you worried about....honestly? are you worried that gay people might have a lower divorce rate? Gay people do alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the same things you ignorant straight people do...They just dont have a piece of paper that goes along with it, or the ease of having children (not that straight people usually care for them good enough...but thats another story). Now if your so sick and ****ing tired of hearing the overall failure of heterosexual marriage....then why are you holding so tight on it, protecting it......its not like the attacks are lies...or even slightly fabricated....But straights are SOOO bent on protecting the "man and woman" marriage thing but yet do absolutley nothing to fix it until other humans who want the same "privliage"(see also "special"). Most just move on to the next marriage......ironic huh?!

They don't want 2 men and 5 women to all get married. They don't want one man to be able to marry 30 women. NO!. They want the right of marriage extended to their interest group ONLY.

Now you just smashed any sense of logic with this sentence.....Poligamy is a straight thing.....or at least a Utah thing....An adult human should get to marry an adult human...regardless of gender....one on one....If you dont understand that then i dont know what else to tell you.....

It doesnt matter who you love but that you love.....(well it matters if they are under 18 years old...then it matters that the law gets involved...)

Thats ****ing special buddy.

far as im concerned I didnt ask to be gay, i didnt ask to be attracted to men, i didnt ask for the world to hate it, i didnt ask for any of this. But I am gay and i say **** anyone who thinks i want anything different then they have....and what is special is YOUR rights...not mine....YOU can get married, I cant, YOU can contest a gay man/womans will to take everything from their partner because they are family, YOU can hold your lovers hand in public and not get verbally attacked or physically attacked for it, YOU dont have the burden to having to come out and potentially lose your family just because you want them to actually know who you are, YOU dont have to worry about getting your ass beat just because you 'bone chicks', YOU dont have to sign document after document, or answer phone call after fone call just to prove the one going on your insurance is your lover...after all you have that piece of paper, YOU dont have to fear the christian right................oh wait...you might, YOU dont need a parade just to justify your worth as a human being to the world, YOU just get to be ****ing normal you..........aint that grand!!!!!1

I offer no apologies for my opinion. I don't hate gay folk because I harbor this opinion. I just wish they'd shut the **** up and get on with their ****sucking and leave it in their bedroom and off the legislative floor.

and i wish i hadnt stayed away from wypo because of the post i posted in response to this....I also do not apologize......I dont hate straight folk...I just wish they would shut the **** up and get on with their marital destructive ways and those that they think i want special rights(such as yourself)....when after all i just want EQUAL rights....Nothing more nothing less.....

after all right now YOU have the special rights..not me....lets get that clear

SO there you go.....Suck on that