No one holds that Mardi Gras in generally appropriate for children either.
Duck Dynasty star canned for homophobic remarks
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
No one holds that Mardi Gras in generally appropriate for children either.
Again with the think of the children argument.
Straight people who bump and grind in Mardi Gras do not face the prospect of arrest. Gay people who may do it during the gay pride parade do face arrest. One is considered lewd and worthy of threats of arrest and the other is not. Do you understand why that is?
Again, children are not typically in attendance at an after hours adult event, while they are at daytime parades.
Bells
Staff member
When people make such comparisons, when there is a push to deny you any equal rights because people believe in such comparisons, then your personhood becomes nothing. It means nothing. You are then defined solely by your sexuality. Who you are as a person no longer matters. Heterosexual people never face this distinction. You will only ever be identified by your sexuality and there will be a portion of the population who will identify you as a sexual deviant and who will fight to deny you any rights.
I hope that one day, Syne, you will look back on this statement and feel embarrassment. To even compare bestiality or "animal marriages" or have it in the same sentence as gay or even polygamous marriage is shameful and disgusting and is the whole point of this argument.
I think we all know your words Syne.
Now, imagine the comparison the continued and repeated comparison that homosexuals are akin to those who have sex with animals and you might, just might, see how that affects homosexuals or anyone who is not heterosexual. Gay marriage is only a very recent event, Syne, after decades of fighting. Then we have people like you whining that you are being forced to recognise and accept it.
Sadly, the facts and the figures disagree with you. The issue of this very thread contradicts you.
Have you ever been threatened with arrest for kissing your wife or girlfriend in the street? Yes or no?
And once again, gays are being warned about facing arrest for how they dance and even if they kiss. The Mardi Gras never face such threats. Get it yet?
The LGBT community were facing threats that anything that emphasized or identified their 'gayness' could result in arrests for lewd behaviour and they could lose sponsorship and funding. Surely your own bias against homosexuality and homosexuals hasn't blinded you of that much? "Sexiness" is never threatened with arrest if it's straight people but gay people are threatened with arrest for it. Get it yet?
Of course. Anything that portrays gays and lesbians in a favourable light is propaganda. And anything that points the finger at homophobia is propaganda, because heaven forbid homophobes feel offended.
And as has been explained to you, straight people aren't threatened with arrest if they dress sexily or kiss each other in Mardi Gras. Gay people are threatened with arrest if they do it.
Your comments in this thread, applying Russia's homophobic laws and threatening homosexuals with arrest for portraying homosexuality in a favourable light to children as an example and citing that they may not be crazy after all, your comments to another member in the Religion forum, the start of which was linked above. Want to try again?
The issue, Syne, is that homosexuals are singled out in the first instance. They are being defined by it and their human rights reduced and questioned the very moment they come out. There shouldn't be a need for separate marriage laws or adoption laws. It is an us and them situation. The reason they fight for equal rights is so this distinction never affects their rights. Their sexuality should never be the issue.
From your own wiki link:
On 4 March 2013 Jorge Fernández Díaz, the Spanish interior minister said that due to same-sex marriages the survival of the species is not guaranteed.[30] He also thinks that gay marriages shouldn't have the same protection under the law as heterosexual ones.
Attitudes like that remain.
You define your own identity. Ask a homosexual how others see their identity the moment they come out.
It might bring you comfort to believe that I lied, but I did not.
Why are gays being warned about behaviour that straight people are not warned for?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Which again raises the question: when exactly did you see this "bumping", "grinding" (now called twerking as per Miley Cyrus on national television). Do you recall seeing some gay people twerking in public at a gay parade? I haven't. Here's a suggestion for ya: before damning gay parades as obscene and lewd displays that might give our children naughty ideas, why don't you actually attend one and see if that what happens? Or is it that you wouldn't be caught dead at a gay parade?
The Quarter
True story: I was walking through the Quarter with friends one night, about five years before the flood, and saw a rather curious thing. On the far side of the street was one of the bars with a famous balcony, and girls were doing their tease show up high. Meanwhile, in the street was a knot of people, surrounding god knows what act of depravity.
On my side of the street, a hundred feet ahead, two parents stood, horrified, pressing their twelve year-old daughter against the wall; the girl was trying to peek over their shoulders in order to see what was going on. With them, however, was the Clearly Lesbian Aunt, who simply caught my eye, shrugged and smiled, and we shared a joke during that moment before my party wandered on to the next sight—which, incidentally, was someone nearly being run over in the street, and my education into the notion that cars have the right of way through crosswalks in N'O'leans.
Why, oh why, did the parents think the Quarter was a good place to wander with their child?
To the other, that episode is no reason in anyone's minds to prevent heterosexual couples from raising children.
Thus, what the fuck are people talking about gay pride parades for?
Who the fuck takes a kid to a gay pride parade if they're not sympathetic to the gay community? My kid? My friends' kids? Yeah, they do okay at the Fremont Solstice parade. But knowing that hetero- and homo-sexual people alike are going to be riding around nude on bicycles? That glitter and body paint are more popular than clothing? Who the fuck would take their kid down there? Well, sure, I would. But then again, I'm not one who's going to complain about the sequined g-strings or pasties with tassles.
But beyond the shock of seeing people enjoying their sexual selves, what is the difference, to you, between heterosexuals and homosexuals behaving in such a manner?
No, really. We in Seattle celebrate debauchery every midsummer; it's called the Solstice Parade. There is no line between gay and straight unless you're getting sexual gratification, which is its own issue. But how is it that when two groups of people behave in similar manners one group should be demonized while the other remains a bastion of family virtue?
Syne said:
True story: I was walking through the Quarter with friends one night, about five years before the flood, and saw a rather curious thing. On the far side of the street was one of the bars with a famous balcony, and girls were doing their tease show up high. Meanwhile, in the street was a knot of people, surrounding god knows what act of depravity.
On my side of the street, a hundred feet ahead, two parents stood, horrified, pressing their twelve year-old daughter against the wall; the girl was trying to peek over their shoulders in order to see what was going on. With them, however, was the Clearly Lesbian Aunt, who simply caught my eye, shrugged and smiled, and we shared a joke during that moment before my party wandered on to the next sight—which, incidentally, was someone nearly being run over in the street, and my education into the notion that cars have the right of way through crosswalks in N'O'leans.
Why, oh why, did the parents think the Quarter was a good place to wander with their child?
To the other, that episode is no reason in anyone's minds to prevent heterosexual couples from raising children.
Thus, what the fuck are people talking about gay pride parades for?
Who the fuck takes a kid to a gay pride parade if they're not sympathetic to the gay community? My kid? My friends' kids? Yeah, they do okay at the Fremont Solstice parade. But knowing that hetero- and homo-sexual people alike are going to be riding around nude on bicycles? That glitter and body paint are more popular than clothing? Who the fuck would take their kid down there? Well, sure, I would. But then again, I'm not one who's going to complain about the sequined g-strings or pasties with tassles.
But beyond the shock of seeing people enjoying their sexual selves, what is the difference, to you, between heterosexuals and homosexuals behaving in such a manner?
No, really. We in Seattle celebrate debauchery every midsummer; it's called the Solstice Parade. There is no line between gay and straight unless you're getting sexual gratification, which is its own issue. But how is it that when two groups of people behave in similar manners one group should be demonized while the other remains a bastion of family virtue?
Bells
Staff member
I live in a State where it is not unusual to see people walking around down the street in swimwear in the coastal areas. It isn't unusual to see guys topless with swimming pants on walking down the street or into shops, just as it isn't unusual to see women dressed in bikinis walking down the street and into shops. Granted, the worst was one elderly lady who was butt naked under a very see through sarong in the local supermarket near my parents house (they live 10 minutes from the beach), and the 80 or so year old guy parading around a beach frequented by locals, dressed in a g-string with a smiley face on the crotch, no, really, why and how. While some may consider it lewd, I just see it as tacky. My kids and children here in general don't have the reaction to nudity that many of our neighbours in the US have. Sporting events here are not complete without at least one person streaking across the field butt naked. Children don't have a meltdown and don't resort to pornography if they see a nipple or naked butt. Instead it would (and has) elicit screams of "LOOK MUMMY, A BUTT!!"..
Last edited:
Something, Something, Burt Ward
It's the weirdest thing. To the one, there are the idiots like I saw in N'O'leans. To the other, there are the people who are prudish but, at least, smart enough to figure out that the the French Quarter is not a place to take a child unless you're cool with everything that goes on—and, I suppose, also prepared to offer responsible explanations to the child of what one has witnessed.
To yet another, though, like Zaphod's third arm for ski-boxing, seems a larger-than-acknowledged body of people who just don't care. My kid acknowledges cussing and nudity with demonstrative shame or ... ye gads, what's the word ... is demurity a word? ... because it's expected from other people. After all my subversive efforts to make that sort of shit no big deal, she's still making a big deal out of things because, well, like you noted ....
To the other, I suppose it's a better place to be than some alternatives.
I think of C and T, daughters of a friend of mine; Em would probably respond positively if we did the Solstice Parade with them this year. Next year. Whatever. Summer. Knowing that she is not the only person her age who would rather just shrug it off and enjoy the atmosphere—seriously, C, the older daughter, would roll her eyes at the, 'Look, Mommy, a butt!' from T, and Em, who is T's age, could easily figure the two and two—would probably be healthy. There is the schoolroom, of course, and the schoolyard, but that's hardly the sort of place to be breaking those unhealthy notions. And there are her cousins, raised in the prudish, Edwardian, Lutheran, Seattle way. It's funny, though, because I'm also gratified in a way; she tells me sometimes when people around her are saying stupid things. This is rewarding because it's part of the reason I am a subversive parent; I was fascinated with all things sex and cussing and dirty and wrong. Turns out, most of them weren't that big a deal. When her peers are going gaga for the latest GTA rage, Em will be able to say, "Been there, done that. Hell's wrong witchoo?" Indeed, I see hints of it already. But there is still that ridiculously prudish tang about how she tells the story. That is, I get why she disclaims, "I'm just telling you what someone said", when talking to her grandmother. But I've raised her intentionally so that she doesn't have to say that to me.
Win some, lose some. My kid's alright.
Some sort of closing note goes here, but I forget what it is since the young lady just walked into the room.
Bells said:
(Sorry, that time the correction seemed really necessary, given context and all.)
It's the weirdest thing. To the one, there are the idiots like I saw in N'O'leans. To the other, there are the people who are prudish but, at least, smart enough to figure out that the the French Quarter is not a place to take a child unless you're cool with everything that goes on—and, I suppose, also prepared to offer responsible explanations to the child of what one has witnessed.
To yet another, though, like Zaphod's third arm for ski-boxing, seems a larger-than-acknowledged body of people who just don't care. My kid acknowledges cussing and nudity with demonstrative shame or ... ye gads, what's the word ... is demurity a word? ... because it's expected from other people. After all my subversive efforts to make that sort of shit no big deal, she's still making a big deal out of things because, well, like you noted ....
To the other, I suppose it's a better place to be than some alternatives.
I think of C and T, daughters of a friend of mine; Em would probably respond positively if we did the Solstice Parade with them this year. Next year. Whatever. Summer. Knowing that she is not the only person her age who would rather just shrug it off and enjoy the atmosphere—seriously, C, the older daughter, would roll her eyes at the, 'Look, Mommy, a butt!' from T, and Em, who is T's age, could easily figure the two and two—would probably be healthy. There is the schoolroom, of course, and the schoolyard, but that's hardly the sort of place to be breaking those unhealthy notions. And there are her cousins, raised in the prudish, Edwardian, Lutheran, Seattle way. It's funny, though, because I'm also gratified in a way; she tells me sometimes when people around her are saying stupid things. This is rewarding because it's part of the reason I am a subversive parent; I was fascinated with all things sex and cussing and dirty and wrong. Turns out, most of them weren't that big a deal. When her peers are going gaga for the latest GTA rage, Em will be able to say, "Been there, done that. Hell's wrong witchoo?" Indeed, I see hints of it already. But there is still that ridiculously prudish tang about how she tells the story. That is, I get why she disclaims, "I'm just telling you what someone said", when talking to her grandmother. But I've raised her intentionally so that she doesn't have to say that to me.
Win some, lose some. My kid's alright.
Some sort of closing note goes here, but I forget what it is since the young lady just walked into the room.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Hey look everybody. The Sci Forums Religion Moderator has compared gay love to bestiality just like that redneck asshole Phil Robertson did. Wonder if it will be noticed here too? If only there was some kind of AE Network for moderators that could preserve it's reputation by disassociating itself from such hate speech.
On Issues, Discussions, and Offices
We've maintained moderators with controversial views, before. Indeed, on prior occasions we've even deliberately elevated them in order to fulfill a need for ideological "fairness".
The coincidence between a person being a moderator and disdaining the notion of consent in sexual intercourse is hardly shocking. Indeed, there are many people of respectable position in society with such beliefs, and many of them don't even bother to hide behind the façade of homophobia.
In the end, we cannot reconcile with those we feel are on the wrong side of reality if we do not allow the expression and subsequent examination of their beliefs. It does not really matter if, in the end, our neighbor ever reconciles himself to the idea of not worrying about other people's sex lives. Rather, it is easy enough to put the implications of those beliefs in the spotlight.
And, see, that's where the moderator point comes in. To the one, it's true we have some sense of obligation to conduct ourselves in a certain manner; to the other, as long as that is better than the community at large, it's a low bar. But I've never been sympathetic to people who swipe after moderator status; the number of times people have tried to make that relevant to their disagreements with me is ... um ... er ... somewhere between ridiculous and plain stupid. To the other, mods can be backed into corners. That is to say, Syne can believe and express in discussions such as he does, but he will have to find a way to answer the response; it's an abstract obligation, since it emerges from juxtaposition with extreme outcomes, such as jackbooting. Still, though, people have been trying to corner me on my beliefs versus my moderator status for years, and the only consistent factor is that they keep trying. Sometimes I wonder if they're daring me to jackboot.
I'm far less unsettled by Syne's opinion than, say, a moderator espousing racism against his own heritage because it is politically convenient. Now that is something I would hope to never witness again.
Magical Realist said:
We've maintained moderators with controversial views, before. Indeed, on prior occasions we've even deliberately elevated them in order to fulfill a need for ideological "fairness".
The coincidence between a person being a moderator and disdaining the notion of consent in sexual intercourse is hardly shocking. Indeed, there are many people of respectable position in society with such beliefs, and many of them don't even bother to hide behind the façade of homophobia.
In the end, we cannot reconcile with those we feel are on the wrong side of reality if we do not allow the expression and subsequent examination of their beliefs. It does not really matter if, in the end, our neighbor ever reconciles himself to the idea of not worrying about other people's sex lives. Rather, it is easy enough to put the implications of those beliefs in the spotlight.
And, see, that's where the moderator point comes in. To the one, it's true we have some sense of obligation to conduct ourselves in a certain manner; to the other, as long as that is better than the community at large, it's a low bar. But I've never been sympathetic to people who swipe after moderator status; the number of times people have tried to make that relevant to their disagreements with me is ... um ... er ... somewhere between ridiculous and plain stupid. To the other, mods can be backed into corners. That is to say, Syne can believe and express in discussions such as he does, but he will have to find a way to answer the response; it's an abstract obligation, since it emerges from juxtaposition with extreme outcomes, such as jackbooting. Still, though, people have been trying to corner me on my beliefs versus my moderator status for years, and the only consistent factor is that they keep trying. Sometimes I wonder if they're daring me to jackboot.
I'm far less unsettled by Syne's opinion than, say, a moderator espousing racism against his own heritage because it is politically convenient. Now that is something I would hope to never witness again.
You do know the Onion article is a spoof, don’t you?
To assume gay simulated carnality to be perverted implies that corresponding straight examples are as well. When delusional is used to describe relationships with space aliens, then it applies equally to relationships with spiritual beings. Like I said before, if it walks like a duck…?
When children acquire the physiological capacity for arousal they usually have no problem finding stimulating material in the mainstream media or their personal associations. Images of homosexual activity would be be relatively rare in that mix.
As far as fetishes go, they can be rooted in practically any aspect of human experience, so life in general becomes indecent from your particular point of view. What cloistered environment do you inhabit where the children in your life (if there are any) aren’t exposed to examples of suggestive dance or allusions to sexual behavior?
Yet you see fit to distinguish matrimonial partnerships on the basis of sexual identity.
What do you have against alternative concepts of social partnership? Polygamy, which is a traditional form of marriage, could potentially find a suitable niche in our modern society. And there’s no denying that people form strong emotional bonds with animals that could easily rival those of human couples. The degree of dysfunction that’s endemic to monogamous heterosexual marriage would make some of these alternative examples appear wholesome by comparison.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I guess you don't have a soulmate then cuz when you do that relationship very much DOES define who you are and your values in life. Oh but then youre talking about just nasty old sex now and not love. As if gay people weren't capable of any of these higher feelings that so fully define heterosexual couples.
I'm not sure he does, actually. Wellwisher did not seem to get it when I linked to the same article in this thread back in July:
Randwolf said:
There is no such thing as a united typological demographic. The only "unity" involved is the label itself, which in this case is meaningless. I can tell you right off the cuff that the self-identified "liberals" favoring concealed carry gun rights are not "united" with the self-identified "liberals" favoring confiscation of handguns in major cities whether they all voted for a Democrat last election or not, that a great many self-identified "liberals" also label themselves "Independent" rather than "Democrat" regardless of who they voted for, and so forth.syne said:
1) Even if we take that goofy bs at face value, it says less than half of all Democrats are "liberals" - and we know the percentage varies by profession etc. So you can't count "liberals" by counting "Democrats". When in addition you haven't even screened your counted subset for concentrations of the 11%, the error grows to folly.syne said:
2)The whole thing is irrelevant anyway - the wrong stats for your argument. You were trying to assert that self-identification as a "Democrat" identified a journalist as a "liberal", and from this conclude that the efforts of the said journalist would reflect "liberal bias". That would be the wrong direction of logical implication for support of your claims - if Dem then Lib is not the same as if Lib then Dem, and if Lib then Lib bias on the job is just the shiny red nose on that clownbox argument.
3) Opposing the ignorant and delusional incompetents that have been running for office as endorsed Republicans in the US is evidence of information and common sense, not ideology.
If you want to establish "liberal bias" in the US media, you need to give up on trying to make inferences from exit polls at elections and such muddle, and analyze the actual media output you claim is biased. If you can't find the bias in the media output, no characterizations of the media employees are going to make it appear there.
The media I see is mostly folks like the Kardashians, Duck Dynasty types, Murdoch frames and affiliations, sports guys, titillations for suburbanites and fundies, and a parade of incompetent "pundits" who seem to have no qualifications for their roles other than willingness to toe the Koch Brother/Murdoch/Heritage Foundation line. When David Brooks is taking up the kind of space he is, all over the exact forums where liberal bias should be most evident, there's not much "liberal" anything happening - including trenchant analysis via reasoning from evidence even in the face of tradition or convention, which is both a "liberal" activity and a matter of competence in punditry (there's a large area of overlap).
Nice pics there Syne. One was even from the US! Way to go. Of course you had to venture to Amsterdam and Greece for the other two, but hey, if you look hard enough...
http://theothermccain.com/2013/07/0...-pride-day-is-jailbait-rights-now-mainstream/
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a9f_1381124076
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amsterdam_Gay_Pride_2004,_Canal_parade_-017.JPG
http://theothermccain.com/2013/07/0...-pride-day-is-jailbait-rights-now-mainstream/
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a9f_1381124076
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amsterdam_Gay_Pride_2004,_Canal_parade_-017.JPG
Bells
Staff member
Syne should never ever leave the West or watch any documentaries for that matter. Probably have a meltdown if he ever went to countries like Vanuatu, or some parts of Africa and South America.
Best be careful Syne, you can actually see men's doodles in those pics.. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! The children must be removed from their care because they see the other people in the tribes naked! AMG!!
Syne should never ever leave the West or watch any documentaries for that matter. Probably have a meltdown if he ever went to countries like Vanuatu, or some parts of Africa and South America.
Best be careful Syne, you can actually see men's doodles in those pics.. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! The children must be removed from their care because they see the other people in the tribes naked! AMG!!
Gay or not gay they should obey the law.
So, no uncovered backsides, no doodles out, and preferably wear a shirt.
I'm sure most of the carnival behaved themselves and just had a good time,
but those pictured dancing on the float should be arrested.