|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 20, 2013 21:12:38 GMT -5
Deb, being gay has nothing to do with "sex playtime". You seem to be fixated on the sexual aspects of homosexuality. Gay people are born gay. It has nothing to do with what they do in bed (and they don't do anything that straight people don't do). A person can be celibate and gay. A person with autism is no less likely to be gay than a person who isn't autistic. It isn't something people do, it's something people are. And all those groups you mentioned - people with Alzheimer's, disabled people - are just as likely to be gay as people without those conditions. So when gay people demand equal rights, they are also demanding equal rights for gay people with autism, gay people with Alzheimer's, gay blind people, gay paraplegics etc. You seem to think having a disability means being straight.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Dec 20, 2013 21:24:51 GMT -5
Dear Zak:
Ah...gay people with autism??? Generally speaking, they don't like to be touched. Aspberger's -- maybe in a very few cases, but probably not as a rule -- for the same reason.
No, I don't think that having a disability means being straight. But I can guarantee you that a person with severe disabilities is far less interested in a focus on sex than in ways to make the day to day things you take for granted easier.
Alison told me a story about a fellow she knew at university that had Cerebral Palsy. Yes, he had a romantic interest in someone. But of far more imperative concern, was the fact that every time he needed to go to the toilet, he had to hope that one of the other male students would help him to wipe himself.
Alison told me that NONE of the guys were particularly charitable in this respect. I will grant that this is a rather uncomfortable thing for someone to do for a non-family member. Still...these same people were very passionate about gay rights and had all sorts of "compassion" for the cause. Yet, they couldn't find enough compassion to help this guy out with something very basic for living. That's the rub right there. Basic living skills that people do every day without a single thought. And they (who considered themselves to be "good people" because they support "gay rights") couldn't find the goodness in their heart to help him.
It's all about the passion Zak. And I want to see that PASSION applied where it really counts. And I know I never will.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 20, 2013 21:36:09 GMT -5
There ya go with the sex again.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Dec 20, 2013 21:57:11 GMT -5
Dear Zak:
I really don't know if sex was the reason. Some people are uncomfortable dealing with feces. I suppose some of the women in the group would have less of an issue with this (given that most women babysit at some point in their lives and have done diaper duty). Still, this wouldn't be an issue if sufficient funding were available for aides and specialized facilities.
What was more interesting (and sad) was that according to Alison -- the guys in the group developed a venomous hatred of this man because he asked for help with this issue. Now whether it was actual awkwardness over the fact that they were same sexed adults or not -- I am not sure.
Still, that raises an interesting point -- given that these fellows were all "pro gay" it would be interesting to find out if their objection was because he was a same sexed adult asking for help.
I don't know. I doubt Alison does and I don't think she'd want to ask them either.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 20, 2013 22:00:12 GMT -5
When it's straight couples, it all about love. When it's gay couples, it's all about sex and body parts. Whose minds are where exactly, if that's all certain folks can think of? And don't tell me gay sex is all over the media. If it is, then those folks are looking for it. So again, whose minds are where exactly? I suggest coming up for air now and then. Not true, Lily. It's just not true and you know it. I have a female best friend who I love. You're supposed to marry your best friend. I could NEVER marry my best friend though I truly love her because I am human, I like sex and unfortunately, she is not equipped with what I'm attracted to. Being gay is a sexual preference and so is being straight...no matter how you spin it, it DOES come down to "body parts".
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 20, 2013 22:02:34 GMT -5
There ya go with the sex again. Okay, so being gay isn't about sex. Please tell me why you would not marry or have a relationship with another man. It's not about sex, so what would be the problem?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 20, 2013 22:04:16 GMT -5
Complete rubbish. Being gay "comes down to body parts"? Are you serious?? Good grief.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 20, 2013 22:06:35 GMT -5
Complete rubbish. Being gay "comes down to body parts"? Are you serious?? Good grief. You didn't answer my question....but I've noticed when you don't have an answer you just don't give one.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 20, 2013 22:11:21 GMT -5
Which question are we talking about?
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 20, 2013 22:11:38 GMT -5
Somebody also might wanna let them know before the next Gay Pride Parade that it isn't about sex...ever watched or been to one? Seems to me that's what they're celebrating but hey, I could be wrong about that. I guess being half naked, groping each other and emulating sex acts in the street isn't really about the sex. It's more for rights. WHAT rights they're speaking of that they don't have, I'm not sure, but I'm sure it's for rights.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 20, 2013 22:12:27 GMT -5
Which question are we talking about? The one I asked you above. I'm quite sure you have a better chance of coming up with an answer for that one than for the other.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 20, 2013 22:27:30 GMT -5
"Please tell me why you would not marry or have a relationship with another man. It's not about sex, so what would be the problem?"
Because I'm not gay? I'm not attracted to men? I would have thought that was fairly obvious. Are you saying that relationships are all about sex? Well, of course you are. Which is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 20, 2013 22:30:22 GMT -5
"Please tell me why you would not marry or have a relationship with another man. It's not about sex, so what would be the problem?" Because I'm not gay? I'm not attracted to men? I would have thought that was fairly obvious. Are you saying that relationships are all about sex? Well, of course you are. Which is ridiculous. No, they aren't ALL about sex but that's a BIG part of it isn't it...if it weren't we wouldn't even be having this debate.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 20, 2013 22:31:52 GMT -5
PS-I already KNEW that would be your answer because it's the easy answer. Better than no answer at all I guess.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Dec 20, 2013 22:36:52 GMT -5
Dear Zak:
That's not what she's saying. She's saying love isn't the same thing as sex.
I'll give you an example:
This is what I consider to be an outstanding example of love.
My ex fiancé called me on the phone shortly after we reconnected after not having contact for several decades. We caught up on various aspects of our lives. At one point, he said:
"I wish that Jim was my son. I would give anything to have been there to be the one to help you with this, so it could have been our problem".
See...no sex involved. There's a real understanding of the difficulties I went through and a desire to have "been there" to support me and share the burden. If that's not love, what is?
I know that if I was in serious trouble (and my husband was for some reason unable to be there) I could pick up the phone, make a long distance call, and my ex fiancé would on his way to Heathrow on his way back to Chicago a few seconds after we hung up.
Love is security in knowing that another person will always be there for you when the chips are down. You don't need sex, if love is real.
Edited to add: And that's why the issue of body part preference is about sex.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 20, 2013 22:45:53 GMT -5
Of course sex is a big part of it (or even a BIG part of it), but you can't separate sex from the context. Gay men have gay relationships. Lesbians have lesbian relationships. The sex is a feature of the relationship; the relationship isn't a feature of the sex. I think your views on this are warped.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 20, 2013 22:47:57 GMT -5
"My ex fiancé called me on the phone shortly after we reconnected after not having contact for several decades. We caught up on various aspects of our lives. At one point, he said: "I wish that Jim was my son. I would give anything to have been there to be the one to help you with this, so it could have been our problem". See...no sex involved."
And you're saying what - that a gay person wouldn't be capable of showing concern because all they're interested in is sex?
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 20, 2013 22:52:46 GMT -5
Okay, listen, as someone used to tell me all the time "You've lost the plot".
I don't CARE if someone is Gay. My very dear friend Tony was gay and I loved him to death until the day he died. What I DO care about is someone saying that *I* or *anyone* has to say they agree with something that they don't agree with. It doesn't mean you HATE someone because you don't agree with their lifestyle or what they are.
There's a fast food chain here in Chicago called Chick Filet. The owner was opening a new store downtown and somehow, for whatever reason, it came out that he didn't support gay marriage. The Alderman downtown tried everything to pull his permits etc..so that he couldn't open his new store simply because the owner didn't support gay marriage. He never said he didn't like gay people, he never said he wouldn't hire them, he simply did not support gay marriage due to his religious beliefs. He also closes all of his stores on Sundays due to his beliefs. Here's a fact...He doesn't HAVE to support gay marriage and who cares if he doesn't? This Alderman who was going for the gay vote tried hurting this man's business because the man wouldn't lie to please the mainstream and go along with it. THAT is bullshit. He shouldn't be able to have a business because he doesn't agree with them? It's so irritating.
If you're gay...BE GAY. Who gives a shit?! Not everyone has to agree and tell you how wonderful it is for you. You don't deserve special rights and you aren't denied any rights. Just go be gay and shut up. If you're straight same goes for you...go be straight and shut yer yap. Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Dec 20, 2013 22:57:03 GMT -5
The sex is a feature of the relationship; the relationship isn't a feature of the sex. Dear Zak: Exactly. The sex is a feature of the relationship -- and that particular feature involves combining body parts. The issue is one of preference . Love can be present without sex. People can love one another without being married. So no -- this "gay rights" hasn't a damn thing to do with Love or marriage. I would however, concede that for medical reasons some legal arrangement should exist. Whether one calls it marriage or not is only important to someone who wants people to applaud their lifestyle. --Debutante
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Dec 20, 2013 23:08:14 GMT -5
"My ex fiancé called me on the phone shortly after we reconnected after not having contact for several decades. We caught up on various aspects of our lives. At one point, he said: "I wish that Jim was my son. I would give anything to have been there to be the one to help you with this, so it could have been our problem". See...no sex involved." And you're saying what - that a gay person wouldn't be capable of showing concern because all they're interested in is sex? Dear Zak: No -- I'm saying there is love and there is sex. They are NOT the same thing. I gave you an example of love that doesn't have anything to do with sexual attraction (and hasn't since the late 70's). You see, I don't care about anybody's body parts (and their various combinations for playtime) to wish the government to waste funding that could be better spent in areas of true need. People don't need sex. It's nice to have. Lots of fun -- but you can live without it. People who are handicapped, really need help to just live. That's why their issues are far more important than someone's sex preferences. They can't care for themselves so they need advocates with passion. I just find it ludicrous that people devote passion to other people's sex preferences. --Debutante
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 20, 2013 23:08:51 GMT -5
"Exactly. The sex is a feature of the relationship -- and that particular feature involves combining body parts. The issue is one of preference ."
Yes, preference, but not choice. Gay rights has to do with gay people having exactly the same rights as straight people, which they didn't have in the past. In the past, gay people were penalized - through discrimination, victimization etc - for being BORN with a particular sexual orientation.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Dec 20, 2013 23:28:04 GMT -5
Dear Zak:
I am not totally sure that's the case. It's been suggested that there is a genetic basis. It's been a very long time since I took my psychology courses, but I believe there is a theory involving a dominant female figure and an absent or ineffectual father.
I really don't think the nature/nurture debate has been completely resolved. You posted an article several days ago about a new discovery in DNA. I imagine that would need to be examined before any definitive theories could be put forth.
No -- I am not suggesting that we discriminate against gays. I am saying though -- that their issue takes a back seat to those issues which affect people who have difficulty coping with the simplest tasks of living.
And I -- seriously do RESENT -- the outpouring of passionate "pro gay" support and trickling begrudging snippets of attention given to the handicapped.
I am not worried about Jim. He has me, my husband, my daughter, aunts, uncles, and cousins. And my friend in London that would take charge if the rest of us in Chicago were wiped out. But not every handicapped person is that lucky. Many of these children are abandoned. Marriages break up due to the stress. There is virtually no support systems in place and yet everyone is jumping on the "gay marriage" bandwagon with passionate support while these kids are struggling to have any kind of life at all.
This is, to me, simply ridiculous. But I think my daughter summed it up best. Once she was talking about her friends and said something like this, "I listen to my friends talk about their problems and I think to myself -- you don't know what a real problem is."
Let these "gay rights" advocates spend a couple of weeks caring for a handicapped person and I will guarantee you that you'll see a shift in their perspective. They'll finally discover that sex isn't "all that".
Being able to see is "all that". Being able to walk is "all that". Being able to speak is "all that." Being able to feed yourself, toilet, and live up to whatever potential you have is "all that".
There is a real difference in priorities once you've walked the walk.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 20, 2013 23:42:25 GMT -5
First, homosexuality has been proved to have a genetic basis. Your ideas on this are at least 20 years out of date.
Second, you are still comparing two things which have no relationship to each other. One is about rights. The other is about privileges. And the media attention given to gay rights does not detract from the attention given to the handicapped. They are completely separate issues. Furthermore, as I've pointed out twice already - and you don't seem to want to accept this fact - handicapped people are just as likely to be gay as straight people. Gay rights doesn't EXCLUDE handicapped people, it INCLUDES them.
"Let these "gay rights" advocates spend a couple of weeks caring for a handicapped person"
Are you suggesting - you seem to be - that only straight people look after handicapped persons? Because if so that's as nonsensical as it is false.
|
|
|
Post by teri on Dec 21, 2013 0:13:37 GMT -5
The (U.S.) Republican party has long had ties to Uganda’s anti-gay extremists.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Dec 21, 2013 0:21:14 GMT -5
Dear Zak:
Mmmm...let's see.
Handicapped gay person.
Can have money spent on "gay rights" or money allotted for an aide to help wipe himself after toileting?
Mmmm...big decision there! What do you think?
Seriously?
As for the "gay rights" advocates -- mmmm....don't see them lining up en masse in protest for the handicapped. Mmmm...don't see massive press in the newspapers -- either national or college press. Don't see daily "tweets". Not a lot of celebrities appearing for the very few fundraising events (usually organized by people who have handicapped relatives). Mmmm....a lot of nothing...from those oh so good and concerned citizens who are so supportive of wee wee and hooha preference issues....
A few "gay advocates" might do something, but let's not kid ourselves, shall we? It's not as "trendy" to be a handicapped advocate is it? A person can't put a nice flashy avatar on their Facebook page to show how gosh-darn sensitive they are, like they can with "gay rights". They won't get applauded by their liberal buddies for spewing forth all this delicious righteous-sounding rhetoric by becoming a handicapped advocate. That cause might require as Alison pointed out, picking up some toilet tissue and getting to work. It's not trendy, to wipe up after toileting. It's messy. Uncomfortable. Leave it to someone else. Put the time in to champion body part preferences -- that way a person can be seen as being so "good" without having to do anything but lip service to true "goodness".
Seriously?
No comparison AT ALL.
Proven to be genetic? Articles from peer reviewed journals required for me to believe that. And even then, it's only sex. You don't require sex to live.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Dec 21, 2013 0:43:08 GMT -5
Dear Zak:
One more thing --
That Duck Dynasty guy -- why do you think they asked him about his views on homosexuality?
Why didn't they inquire how he felt about the handicapped?
And you suggest that the cause of the handicapped is adequately brought to public attention??? They COULD HAVE asked him about the handicapped, but why should they when "sex preferences" are so more important to bring to public attention?
PIFFLE!!!!!!
I am not angry at you or any other Factoid...just blowing off steam at the total absurdity of what society prioritizes.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 21, 2013 0:58:14 GMT -5
"Can have money spent on "gay rights" or money allotted for an aide to help wipe himself after toileting?"
Again - for the last time - you are trying to make a comparison between two things that have absolutely no relationship to each other. It's like saying bus drivers shouldn't go on strike because there's a banana shortage in Hong Kong. Or women shouldn't have the vote because not enough is being done to help blind people.
There is no connection between asking for legislation to give gays the same rights as non gays and a lack of funding/resources for disabled people. Giving gay people equal rights does not in any way deprive disabled people of money or resources. You are making a meaningless and nonsensical comparison. And as I have pointed out three times now, disabled people are just as likely to be gay as able-bodied people. The doctors, nurses and other professional carers who look after disabled people are also just as likely as anyone else to be gay.
You are presenting it as a "gay people versus handicapped people", which is absurd.
The argument is very simple. Should people who are attracted (from birth) to people of their own gender have the same basic human rights as people who are attracted to people of the opposite gender? In any civilized, democratic society, the question is a no-brainer. It has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with equality for minorities. And protecting the rights of minorities does not equate to depriving handicapped people of resources. That's just silly. The argument you and Tricia are making is the one made by Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Putin, the fascist government of Uganda, the Ku Klux Klan and right-wing extremist groups.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Dec 21, 2013 1:33:26 GMT -5
Dear Zak: Are you claiming that NO MONEY has been expended by corporations to lobby for gay rights (after all, they have to be trendy too!) Want to rephrase that? I can think of a hell of a lot of good things to spend money on and campaigning for the rights of sex preference isn't one of them. Okay, the handicapped don't do it for you? How about educational programs for small children? That's a better cause than sex preferences too. Nobody is boiling the gays in oil these days, are they? Last time I looked, they're living up there in "boys town" (what Chicagoans call the area around Wrigley Field area where they congregate) perfectly safe doing their own thing. So some people don't approve of the fact that they're gay? Well, some people don't approve of the fact I'm overweight. I get a lot of discrimination. Let's see...I have medical tests which, prove that I have a metabolic problem. But people call me fat! Boo hoo for me! They tell me I should lose weight (even though given my metabolism, it's nearly impossible) -- but hey what the hell, even Mrs. Obama has an axe to grind with fat people. The FLOTUS who, despite all medical evidence to the contrary, publically endorses the view that it's a matter of just diet and exercise. Mind you -- the PRESIDENT'S WIFE -- think about that. So what about we poor metabolically challenged people? We're a minority. Oh....we.....don't....count. I guess that's because Mrs. Obama thinks we need "Insanity" or "Power 90". So no Zak, there are minorities that are supported (gays) and minorities that nobody cares about (fat people). Where is your support for my fatness? (Sorry, but funny as it sounds, it's a valid argument). Discrimination against fat people is every bit as prevalent as that against gays. I don't see anyone supporting us. If you think discrimination against fat people is something I'm making up -- check out this website by "Dances With Fat". She's for fat acceptance -- and a very gung-ho advocate. I suggest you watch her video because she truly does dance with her fat --- and she is incredible! Play the video and prepare to be amazed. danceswithfat.wordpress.com/But to get back to my point, why is the discrimination against fat people of less importance than discrimination against gays? Like I said -- I have medical records to prove it isn't my choice to be fat. And fat people have been discriminated against for as many generations as gays. Like I said, it's all about where you put your priorities. --Debutante
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 21, 2013 2:14:55 GMT -5
Okay, so in your opinion gays shouldn't have rights because various good causes are under-resourced. Got it.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Dec 21, 2013 2:22:18 GMT -5
Dear Zak:
And also that their claims of discrimination are no more important than that directed against fat people.
Did you read the article on Dances with Fat's blog where she talks about getting egg-bombed?
Also -- I do hope you realize that handicapped children are discriminated against. I should tell you about Jim's joyous high school experiences.
Here's something to think about: The handicapped children (unlike the non-handicapped children) were not allowed to arrive at school through the front door. They had to go in through the loading dock.
See Zak, discrimination isn't just directed at gays. A lot of rights get violated for other groups and nobody cares.
--Debutante
|
|