To my gay friends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kristin said:
I have read that studies have been done that show a high correlation between homophobia in men and those being aroused by homoerotic images. Makes sense actually.
Click to expand...
Who are these people with a persistent fear of homosexuals?
 
JoseCuervo said:
In equal amounts of $$$?
Click to expand...

roncachamp said:
I'm confident the cost of military flight training of a man is the same as that for a woman. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Click to expand...

I'm also pretty sure we would have heard from ALPA if there was any systematic underpaying of any unionized pilots, including female.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Also, keep in mind, until last week, Society did not allow them to marry, have 2.3 kids, buy a house, a golden retriever, a 30 year mortgage and Cable TV with their same sex partner. So, to achieve the "American Dream" of a white picket fence and debt up to their eyeballs, they had to switch teams after graduation.

As people aren't forced to live in closets, things/society will change.
Click to expand...
All were able to marry for centuries irrespective of their orientation. Homosexuals were also allowed to have kids prior to last week, and dog, a house, a mortgage, et al.

Or, as it reads, they can choose which team to play with/for. Interesting.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Also, keep in mind, until last week, Society did not allow them to marry, have 2.3 kids, buy a house, a golden retriever, a 30 year mortgage and Cable TV with their same sex partner. So, to achieve the "American Dream" of a white picket fence and debt up to their eyeballs, they had to switch teams after graduation.

As people aren't forced to live in closets, things/society will change.
Click to expand...
I'm not one that is criticizing this decision, although I do have a problem with circumventing the Constitution. I also recognize I am not educated enough to decide if that happened.

But I do have a problem wit the highlighted part of this statement:
Also, keep in mind, until last week, Society did not allow them to marry, have 2.3 kids, buy a house, a golden retriever, a 30 year mortgage and Cable TV with their same sex partner.
Click to expand...
The 2.3 kids is a little tricky since same sex partners can't have kids, and some states prevent them from adopting.
But I never heard that same sex couples couldn't buy a house or have a dog and cable TV.
That closet must be darker than I thought.
 
DJTorrente said:
So since you presume that everyone who disagrees with your desired outcome is a-skeered of gay folk, you come to the conclusion that everyone who disagrees are just closeted self-repressed homosexuals. "Scalia is GAY!"

Are you 12?
Click to expand...

Considering the poster in question has trouble with reading comprehension and automatically assumes everyone debating her is A) 100% straight and B) a bigot, I'd say 12 is an overestimate. 7 maybe.
 
Last edited:
So what does this new law mean when I have my wife **** me in the ass with a dildo?

I mean, I'm still straight, but I do I get any new benefits?
 
SkyHog said:
So what does this new law mean when I have my wife **** me in the ass with a dildo?

I mean, I'm still straight, but I do I get any new benefits?
Click to expand...
It depends on what you call a "benefit". Personally, I would consider that ASSault.
 
SkyHog said:
So what does this new law mean when I have my wife **** me in the ass with a dildo?

I mean, I'm still straight, but I do I get any new benefits?
Click to expand...

It's worth looking into. Claim to self-identify as a lesbian. See if that gets you anything.
 
azure said:
Yes it is, and that's precisely my point. The government is already involved in marriage. That ship has long since sailed.
Click to expand...

So once the government is into something they have to stay in it?
 
warthog1984 said:
Considering the poster in question has trouble with reading comprehension and automatically assumes everyone debating her is A) 100% straight and B) a bigot, I'd say 12 is an overestimate. 7 maybe.
Click to expand...
Nope, writing skills are too advanced. :D
 
Anthony said:
So once the government is into something they have to stay in it?
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, no. It does seem quite impossible to find a counter-factual, however.
 
I called up a gay couple I know and offered my condolences that soon they will have to suffer the misery of marriage now that it is legally available to them.

:D
 
narchee said:
I called up a gay couple I know and offered my condolences that soon they will have to suffer the misery of marriage now that it is legally available to them.

:D
Click to expand...


Hehe. Poor bastards.

They will also likely get less social security if there is disparity in earnings between the spouses. Whoopsie. ;)
 
SkyHog said:
So what does this new law mean when I have my wife **** me in the ass with a dildo?

I mean, I'm still straight, but I do I get any new benefits?
Click to expand...

Be careful, my wife had to remove one from a man. It could not be 'birthed', he got an open operation.:yikes:

His kids were very upset that no one would tell them what he was in the hospital for. He refused to sign the HIPAA form.:dunno:

You do not want those 'benefits'. I do not want any benefits that the government wants to give me.
 
Kristin said:
I have read that studies have been done that show a high correlation between homophobia in men and those being aroused by homoerotic images. Makes sense actually.
Click to expand...
Can you point us to those studies? I'd love to see their methodology.
 
bartmc said:
So, we no longer regulate, aviation services, scheduled passenger service, nor do accident investigations?
Click to expand...

We no longer have economic regulation of the airlines. The CAB assigned routes and set fares.
 
DFH65 said:
So it's OK with you for a law to "working its way in that direction" for something specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights but not OK for something to be "working its way in that direction" that is NOT in the Bill of Rights.

Confused on that approach to how our system is supposed to work.

ETA: Out of curiosity why are there reasonable restriction on that right but putting restrictions on marriage (not in the Bill of rights) is not reasonable?
Click to expand...

The judicial system is slow, in no small part because appellate judges typically try to make their rulings as narrow as possible to allow the collective thought process among the judiciary as a whole to consider all angles.

There is no absolute right to anything, as rights can bump against other rights. Your right to free speech, for example, can be limited when it comes to lying about the product you are trying to sell. Freedom of religion doesn't extend to human sacrifices, as another example.
 
Matthew said:
That's where the conflict comes in. No State denied marriage as a right. They defined marriage as man/woman, and for centuries (and for centuries before the US), that was an accepted definition, even when the 14th amendment was written there was no question about that. Gay marriage wasn't part of the deal because it wasn't part of the definition. Interracial marriage restrictions were declared illegal because they denied the right of marriage based on race (14th Amendment), but it didn't change the definition of marriage as man/woman. Gay marriage changes the definition of marriage, and that definition had been left to the States (10th Amendment). At least this is how the dissenting Justices saw it.

Yeah, a lot depends on your particular social or ideological views in how you look at it.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a contract between two people that is sanctified by the government and give certain rights and responsibilities. That hasn't changed.

At one, the government had no involvement in marriage. It was entirely a religious sacrament. Had it stayed that way, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, alas, the world changes.
 
roncachamp said:
Your input in this thread indicates you don't understand what constitutes a right.
Click to expand...

I trust that neither of us are a sitting judge, so which of us is confused on the subject of what is a "right", matters little.
 
Lindberg said:
Can you point us to those studies? I'd love to see their methodology.
Click to expand...

I said I had read that such studies were conducted. I did not say that I had personally read the studies. Assuming that the article I read was accurate, you should be able to find them on the internet, if you are so inclined.
 
Kristin said:
Marriage is a contract between two people that is sanctified by the government and give certain rights and responsibilities. That hasn't changed.
Click to expand...

Yes, it did change. It always was between people of opposite sex.
 
Matthew said:
Yes, it did change. It always was between people of opposite sex.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was between two people of identified as being of the opposite sex. Historically, we believed that gender/sex was was either male or female. Science has screwed that up. Modern medicine has made it even murkier. :yes:
 
SkyHog said:
So you can be aroused too?
Click to expand...

No. I'm not the one who enjoys getting ****ed in the ass. Nor am I a homophobe. I was interested in the study, since the conclusion strains all credibility. If accurate, it means that either 1. homosexuals are not aroused by homosexual imagery, or 2. they fear themselves.
 
Lindberg said:
No. I'm not the one who enjoys getting ****ed in the ass. Nor am I a homophobe. I was interested in the study, since the conclusion strains all credibility. If accurate, it means that either 1. homosexuals are not aroused by homosexual imagery, or 2. they fear themselves.
Click to expand...
I posted the a link to the study in #464. It took me about a minute on Google to find it.
 
Lindberg said:
No. I'm not the one who enjoys getting ****ed in the ass. Nor am I a homophobe. I was interested in the study, since the conclusion strains all credibility. If accurate, it means that either 1. homosexuals are not aroused by homosexual imagery, or 2. they fear themselves.
Click to expand...

The conclusion to draw is the "doth protest too much" conclusion or the "smelt it, dealt it" conclusion.

If you spend a large portion of your free time talking about how bad dick in the ass is, you probably want dick in the ass but don't want people to know.
 
Kristin said:
I don't know any by name. Are you suggesting homophobia does not exist?
Click to expand...
By definition, yes. However, if the definition is bastardized there may be some truth. But then again, words have meanings.
 
Last edited:
pilot_dude said:
By definition, yes. However, if the definition is bastardized there may be some truth. But then again, words have meanings.
Click to expand...

You live in a better better part of the country than any I have lived in, or you have a more narrow definition. But instances of guys randomly assaulting a gay man on the street and beating him half to dead, or worse, strikes me as pretty good evidence of homophobia.
 
Kristin said:
You live in a better better part of the country than any I have lived in, or you have a more narrow definition. But instances of guys randomly assaulting a gay man on the street and beating him half to dead, or worse, strikes me as pretty good evidence of homophobia.
Click to expand...

No, it's evidence of assault and battery -- already illegal in every state of the union, BTW.

Your definition of "homophobia" is "Anything the militant homosexualist lobby doesn't like."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top