Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Sorry, carry on your regular schedule of gay bashing.

Let's see - in one post by one user, I see things like "...We Hate Gays...", "...horrific sexual acts...", "...evil bad gay anal sex...", "...your sex is bad and disgusting...", "...sexually immoral degenerates..." ....

and the poster is NOT inked.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I don't think you are, so I wouldn't include you in that "crowd". ... I would define a homophobe as someone who is afraid of or who hates or dislikes GLB people.

I'm sure glad you can see that I don't fit that definition!

It's terrible to have false things believed and/or said about you I certainly do NOT hate or dislike GLB people, and I'm NOT afraid of them. They're people, just like you and me

[Rían]

(ps - nice to see you, BoP! )

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Let's see - in one post by one user, I see things like "...We Hate Gays...", "...horrific sexual acts...", "...evil bad gay anal sex...", "...your sex is bad and disgusting...", "...sexually immoral degenerates..." ....

and the poster is NOT inked.

Are you now going to attempt to use an out of context quoting strategy to try to paint me as a gay basher? Do you really think that is a wise move Rian?

[Lotesse]

For what it's worth, I get the distinct feeling, DISTINCT feeling that Inked - you sir, inked, may be just a tad bit homophobic. Perhaps I am wrong - but then, you called me racist and uber-liberal for disliking Condoleeza Rice, when here I am literally a card-carrying Republican whose best friend is Mexican, and whose former (he's dead now, R.I.P. Cornell I love U) best friend was a black man.
Truly, inked, perhaps it may be time one checks oneself before one wrecks oneself. It can be terribly damaging to one's credibility when one comes across as biased as you, sir, tend to be able to.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Are you now going to attempt to use an out of context quoting strategy to try to paint me as a gay basher? Do you really think that is a wise move Rian?

No, I am most definitely NOT trying to paint you as a gay basher. I do NOT think you're a gay basher. I do think, however, that sometimes you bash people with different opinions than you have

What I am trying to show is this - someone comes on the thread and makes a comment about gay-bashing, and looking at the recent posts in this thread, the ONLY really emotional and inflammatory (IMHO) dialogue comes from a person that no one would ever say is a gay-basher - you!

I don't think it's right or wise to use language like that, especially when discussing an emotional topic like this, and ESPECIALLY when you can't support your allegations that inked said/thought those things. Please provide quotes when you make those allegations against a person - I think that's only fair, don't you?

I think the only bashing going on here is what I quoted and I wish it would stop and that we can engage in a dialogue that will be helpful to both sides. This issue is tearing many people apart - let's try to repair some of the hurt and make some bridges

[Lotesse]

Tell that to Inked, then.

[Rían]

are you talking to me? Sorry, I"m not sure - we may have cross-posted...

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

Well, do you wear a seat belt - with or without the force of law? Do you get vaccinated for communicable diseases to protect society - voluntarily or by force of law? The fact is that certain risky behaviours are governed by society in a variety of settings (oh, meat packing or purity standards for medicinals or packaging of flammables etc).

But you miss the point completely. Thre are activities the third party effects of which are so great that they warrant public regulation, all the others should not be regulated. I, for instance, wear sit belts and use to wear them even before they became compulsory in Italy, but I think that a law compelling people to wear sit belts is not warranted and deeply immoral

Originally Posted by inked

Why is sexual behaviour so special?

Because there are a lot of sexuophobes that can't think about anything but to forbid it

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think the only bashing going on here is what I quoted and I wish it would stop and that we can engage in a dialogue that will be helpful to both sides. This issue is tearing many people apart - let's try to repair some of the hurt and make some bridges

Wait you have no problem with him posting ridiculous misleading interpretations of data that clearly are an attempt to make homosexuals look EXACTLY as I say above and you give me a hard time for calling him on it? Thats pretty fair of you Rian. Why arent you chewing HIM out for posting such clearly bogus and manipulative articles on homosexuals? If he posted the very same stuff on asians would you ignore it and say we need to talk nice and hold hands when I called him on it? I went over his most recent article line by line showing how absurd it was and how it was clearly misleading and inacurately using data to simply push its own agenda and you completely ignored that and continue to act the cheerleader for him about his wonderful "data". Well sorry but as you know Ill happily tell it like it is even if the truth makes you feel all distressed and fretful.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by IRex

Well sorry but as you know Ill happily tell it like it is even if the truth makes you feel all distressed and fretful.

I don't mind when you tell it like it is, as long as you DO tell it like it is. I"m not afraid of the truth. Truth is very important to me. What I do mind is when you tell it like you only think someone else is thinking. That's NOT necessarily truth; that's only your conjecture, and pretty unfair at that, IMO. I think it's wrong and unfair to attribute thoughts and words to a person when that person has NOT said those things. I hope you would feel the same way. It seems like fairness is very important to you.

I'll repeat : I don't think it's right or wise to use language like that, especially when discussing an emotional topic like this, and ESPECIALLY when you can't support your allegations that inked said/thought those things. Please provide quotes when you make those allegations against a person - I think that's only fair, don't you?


(ps - actually, I should say I don't mind when you "tell it like it is" as long as you don't use abusive language against another person. Not that that matters, I imagine )

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't mind when you tell it like it is, as long as you DO tell it like it is. I"m not afraid of the truth. Truth is very important to me. What I do mind is when you tell it like you only think someone else is thinking. That's NOT necessarily truth; that's only your [i]conjecture

Excuse me, but how else are we supposed to "interpret" what Inked "is thinking," if else by how he expresses himself here, with the words he uses, and etcetera? Are you implying he's possibly incapable of making himself understandable to others? Is THIS a truth you yourself may be afraid of? And what exactly -who exactly is spitting - conjecture, here?

[Rían]

The things I quoted in post #402, inked never said.

That's why I'm asking for quotes.

And I defy IRex to prove inked thinks those things. I don't think people have the right to say in such a definitive manner that someone is thinking something, when they have never said it.

That's what I mean.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The things I quoted in post #402, inked never said.

That's why I'm asking for quotes.

And I defy IRex to prove inked thinks those things. I don't think people have the right to say in such a definitive manner that someone is thinking something, when they have never said it.

That's what I mean.

But if Inked doesn't THINK those things, then why does he choose to express himself with those words? What are we supposed to think he thinks - we are all, after all, using the medium of the English language.

[Rían]

Inked did NOT use those words - that's my point! IREX is the one that used those words! (attributing them to inked, who never used them)

I think you are supposed to think inked thinks what he says.

When did he use phrases like "evil bad gay anal sex", for example?

[Lotesse]

How about let's you & I let those two bitch it out; I refuse to be a cheerleader 4 anyone but my boyfriend - we're both getting too caught up in THEIR little thing.

[Rían]

but I would defend IRex if the tables were turned!

I'm not cheerleading for any particular side; I'm cheerleading for what I think are fair and honest tactics.

But I think I'll leave the thread for tonight - need to keep an eye on that fire situation ...
*prays for her firefighter friends*

[Nurvingiel]

I'm not going to put words in anyone's mouth here.

But I agree with this point, paraphrased: You demonstrate that anal sex is risky, now what are you going to do about it?

I don't think anyone is saying that anal sex isn't risky, what some people are saying is, now that we know anal sex is risky, what do you propose we do?

I have a few ideas (I think I posted them earlier in this thread - maybe even in its first incarnation), but I'll put it to RÃ*an and Inked first: what do you guys propose?

Anyone else can, of course, feel free to chip in.

The reason I'm putting this question to RÃ*an and Inked is because, due to your posts in this thread, you seem to think that anal sex (which is the type of sex most frequently practiced by gay men) is a bad idea. If you do not think it's a bad idea, then never mind. But if you do think it's a bad idea, what do you propose people do to mitigate the risks?

[The Gaffer]

Hats off to IR for calling a spade a spade.

I could very well point out, in a dispassionate and academic manner, that men of african origin have a higher rate of prostate cancer, or that mountaineers have a higher rate of calling in the goddam air ambulance than the rest of the population and therefore they are a burden on the rest of us.

But the real point, and one that I'm disappointed you don't seem to get behind, Rian, is that gays are the way they are, there is value in who they are and how they love, in and of themselves just like everybody else, and they have a RIGHT to express themselves sexually.

This is particularly the case when one starts from a first principle of equality. Were this NOT the case, the implication is that we do not have equality between people of different sexual orientation and therefore we have grounds to discriminate against them.

The purpose of all this unseemly data trawling and spin is to undermine that essential proposition of equality, and that's why it's homophobic.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(ps - nice to see you, BoP! )

Gosh I guess we all imagined that she posted in here... wonder how that happened...