Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Have you ever had to eat in a gay-only section of a restaurant? Drink out of a gay-only fountain? Use a gay-only bathroom? I rest my case.
He's lucky being a *** and all (and probably grateful) that other people had to fight for those rights to be equal to all.
Again, if it's a matter of "it's only two things, marriage and the army, why are you complaining". Would you please be the first to give up two rights, like voting and the right to a trial?
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Have you ever had to eat in a gay-only section of a restaurant? Drink out of a gay-only fountain? Use a gay-only bathroom? I rest my case.Your state has legalized gay marriage, and I really don't see you wanting to join the Army, so you have nothing to complain about.
Because Plessy v. Ferguson was bullshit.
So Plessy was it? That's where it all started?
Has anyone like me ever been murdered, beaten or denied rights based on something they have no control over?
Oh, so California (read: batton spinning ****) is going to do it, I shouldn't worry about it being illegal in everywhere else? That's a leap. Gosh, blacks were free in Illinois, why did they get all uppity in Alabama?
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No. I've known gay men who dress, talk and act straight.
And they're the only ones who should be accepted?
And, I'm fairly certain that as a "stright" man, you've never stuck your erect penis into another man's anus. So, I'm not sure I subscribe to the idea that there is such a thing as a "straight acting" gay man.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Actually, they could be ****ing your post man. Don't worry though, you'll know from his strut if he's gay.
cant be too careful. just to be safe im going to invite my mailman up to my apartment and butt**** him. if he even hints like he's enjoying it i'll kick his teeth in.
Originally posted by Devil King
And they're the only ones who should be accepted?And, I'm fairly certain that as a "stright" man, you've never stuck your erect penis into another man's anus. So, I'm not sure I subscribe to the idea that there is such a thing as a "straight acting" gay man.
What do I mean by a "straight acting" gay man?
This: they wear t-shirts and jeans (and clothing otherwise considered "male"😉. Don't dye their hair bright, neon, unnatural colors. Don't talk with a lisp or sound like they're holding their nose shut. Don't have effeminate hand movements, and aren't extremely animated and hyper.
In other words, you'd never guess that they're gay, and be pretty surprised when you learned that they were. I'm sure you've known gay guys like that.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What do I mean by a "straight acting" gay man?This: they wear t-shirts and jeans (and clothing otherwise considered "male"😉. Don't dye their hair bright, neon, unnatural colors. Don't talk with a lisp or sound like they're holding their nose shut. Don't have effeminate hand movements, and aren't extremely animated and hyper.
In other words, you'd never guess that they're gay, and be pretty surprised when you learned that they were. I'm sure you've known gay guys like that.
I know what you mean by "straight acting". I've simply never encountered a gay man that would meet your requirements on every level; which is why the term is complete bullshit.
And what does it matter that you guessed they are gay and actually are? Is this the basis on which you would deny that person rights? Male doesn't exist in quotation marks. Macho might, but not male. And what does it matter if they are gay? You speak with such disdain about these characteristics, but would likely find them attractive and acceptable from a woman? And the fact that you speak of them with such disdain addresses how ignorant and subservient you must think women are and should be. I'm really not trying to put words or intention in your mouth, but it's the same reason you thought I was incapable of getting in someone's face or standing up for myself because I'm gay.
Originally posted by Devil King
I know what you mean by "straight acting". I've simply never encountered a gay man that would meet your requirements on every level; which is why the term is complete bullshit.And what does it matter that you guessed they are gay and actually are? Is this the basis on which you would deny that person rights? Male doesn't exist in quotation marks. Macho might, but not male. And what does it matter if they are gay? You speak with such disdain about these characteristics, but would likely find them attractive and acceptable from a woman? And the fact that you speak of them with such disdain addresses how ignorant and subservient you must think women are and should be. I'm really not trying to put words or intention in your mouth, but it's the same reason you thought I was incapable of getting in someone's face or standing up for myself because I'm gay.
That's not why I can't see you getting in people's faces. Its because I've seen photos of you, and you're not very intimidating.
Being gay has nothing to do with it. If Mike Tyson one day came out, I could still see him mad-dogging people and getting into bar brawls.
That isn't a response to my point. You think less of an effiminate gay man than you do a "straight acting" gay man, because you seem to think they not conforming to your definition of social norms is some sort of personal affront to you doing it.
As for my phyiscal stature, it is a continuation of your stereotyping that a man has to be 6 and a half feet tall, broad shouldered and macho to be intimidating. Try being 5'7, skinny and shit on by public opinion and you'd develop a different approach. In fact, it's that assumption that has led to them thinking because they are 6'5 and straight that they're caught off guard and reduced to uncomfortable shifting and starring at their own hands. A man isn't a man because he sleeps with women, is tall or physically strong. And by the same virtue, he isn't dismissable because he's short, listens to dance music or trims his eyebrows.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Comparing the gay rights movement of today to the Civil Rights movements of the 1960's is ridiculous and an insult to those black people. It isn't even a fair a comparison, Carlos Mencia did a segment a couple years ago saying what I'm saying, and he had two video clips. With the first one he said "This is what happened when black people marched:" and the video was old black-&-white footage of blacks in the street being sprayed by water-cannons and sicked-on by police dogs. In the next clip he said "Now this is what happens when gay people march:" and the video showed a bunch of half-naked gays marching in some San Fransisco street to "I Will Survive" and twirling batons. And Carlos said "Yeah...kind of a difference, right?". And he's right on the money. Other than not being able to get married or join the military, gays aren't really missing out on too much.
Prior to 1962, homosexuality was a felony in every state, punishable by a lengthy term of imprisonment, with or without hard labor.
Between 1962 and 2003, homosexuality was reduced to a misdemeanor in many states, with punishments varying widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, e.g. in Idaho, homosexuality could theoretically earn a life sentence; and in Michigan, homosexuality was punishable by a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment, with a life sentence for repeat offenders.
It was not until 2003 that the the US Supreme Court ruled that private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution, decriminalizing noncommercial conduct in private between consenting civilian adults, and overruling an earlier ruling from 1986 in which the law had been upheld.
The ruling followed from an incident in 1998 in which two men were arrested in their home because they were alleged to have been engaging in consensual anal sex.
In the past 145 years, one could not be arrested in his home and sentenced to life in prison simply because he is black. Yet, this has been happening to gays as recently as 5-10 years ago.
Originally posted by Schecter
"its a democracy" has no place in an ethics debate.
Unfortunately, it has a place. Else there be debate?
Edit- And before anyone says it (Robtard), I get the point of his post.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Prior to 1962, homosexuality was a felony in every state, punishable by a lengthy term of imprisonment, with or without hard labor.Between 1962 and 2003, homosexuality was reduced to a misdemeanor in many states, with punishments varying widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, e.g. in Idaho, homosexuality could theoretically earn a life sentence; and in Michigan, homosexuality was punishable by a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment, with a life sentence for repeat offenders.
It was not until 2003 that the the US Supreme Court ruled that private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution, decriminalizing noncommercial conduct in private between consenting civilian adults, and overruling an earlier ruling from 1986 in which the law had been upheld.
The ruling followed from an incident in 1998 in which two men were arrested in their home because they were alleged to have been engaging in consensual anal sex.
In the past 145 years, one could not be arrested in his home and sentenced to life in prison simply because he is black. Yet, this has been happening to gays as recently as 5-10 years ago.
Awesome points. 👆
I didn't know it was that shitty so recently on the books for homosexuals.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Unfortunately, it has a place. Else there be debate?Edit- And before anyone says it (Robtard), I get the point of his post.
Awesome points. 👆
I didn't know it was that shitty so recently on the books for homosexuals.
I don't think you did, but okay.
Read up on:
Bowers v. Hardwick 1986
Lawrence v. Texas 2003
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Prior to 1962, homosexuality was a felony in every state, punishable by a lengthy term of imprisonment, with or without hard labor.Between 1962 and 2003, homosexuality was reduced to a misdemeanor in many states, with punishments varying widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, e.g. in Idaho, homosexuality could theoretically earn a life sentence; and in Michigan, homosexuality was punishable by a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment, with a life sentence for repeat offenders.
It was not until 2003 that the the US Supreme Court ruled that private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution, decriminalizing noncommercial conduct in private between consenting civilian adults, and overruling an earlier ruling from 1986 in which the law had been upheld.
The ruling followed from an incident in 1998 in which two men were arrested in their home because they were alleged to have been engaging in consensual anal sex.
In the past 145 years, one could not be arrested in his home and sentenced to life in prison simply because he is black. Yet, this has been happening to gays as recently as 5-10 years ago.
And yet there are two major points you are leaving out in comparing it to black people and the civil rights movement:
1) I can't look at a gay person from the jump and not without a doubt that said person is gay. You can't say the same for a race.
2) "I'm not gay, i just have sex with other men" is a large part of culture that is often looked over. So often times, homosexuality is defined very broadly.
Once again, I don't think anyone is saying "this is worse", but they are similar, they're both civil rights violations.
1) If you had 'gaydar' you could.
2) That is something ONLY Conservatives would use, usually when they get caught with their pants down and being hypocrites. . I also doubt it's highly used, so I don't know how "large" it is in society.
Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think you did, but okay.
I don't want to get in a long ass debate about this, ergo my comment.
I understand his point and I agree with it. I was commenting on the fact that opposers of giving homosexuals equal rights ARE given an influential political forum and even exercise their authority to voice and vote with their opinions which has, "unfortunately", delayed homosexuals the rights they should of had in the first place.
Originally posted by Robtard
Read up on:Bowers v. Hardwick 1986
Lawrence v. Texas 2003
Thanks for the links...I'm readin' 'em now.
Originally posted by Robtard
Once again, I don't think anyone is saying "this is worse", but they are similar, they're both civil rights violations.1) If you had 'gaydar' you could.
2) That is something ONLY Conservatives would use, usually when they get caught with their pants down and being hypocrites. . I also doubt it's highly used, so I don't know how "large" it is in society.
1) Well, if it works like Halo, once they stop moving they are undetectable.
2) By large I mean in comparison to how it is discussed.
Historical speaking, Greek fraternities were built on the philosophies of Plato (or Socrates, I forget which one) who said that men could not trust other men because they would seek their status. Men could only have friendships with young boys because they would not aspire to overthrow them. This friendship was consummated at toga parties and blah blah blah.
Recently, there is a underground culture among black males that's been called the "down low."
Basically it's when a black man is having sex with both men and women but does not tell his girlfriend and so on. These men claim they have sex with men but they don't "want" men. Don't ask, I'm not sure either.
It's not as rare a thing as I had once thought even two years ago before doing a little research.