Show Posts
121
Forum Games / Re: Let's play Hangman!
« on: October 21, 2012, 10:43:40 PM »
I...
Show Posts
Messages |
Topics |
Attachments
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
122
Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Sexual Orientation
« on: October 21, 2012, 10:33:43 PM »
Wouldn't Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory be considered asexual? I thought Amy Farrah-Fowler was ace as well, but she seems to be exhibiting more romantic and sexual curiosity as the series has progressed (or so I've heard, I don't really watch the show very often).
I used to think I might have been asexual when I was in 8th grade. All the other guys were talking about how girls were "hot," and I didn't understand it. I figured they were all just trying to act older by pretending to be interested in women... until I actually witnessed my friend full-on making out with a girl, on the lips, longer than a few moments! I was so stunned that anyone would feel compelled to kiss a girl.
Meanwhile, I was looking at pictures of men online: fully clothed, and not in overtly sexual positions, so I didn't know I was experiencing sexual attraction to them. I was really just terribly uninformed about sexual diversity, as I went to Catholic school this whole time and I didn't even consider it an option to be a guy attracted to other guys.
Then I got to college and realized that all the guys in my high school just hadn't been all that good looking. Finally it was painfully obvious how sexually-attracted-to-men I was. That took awhile to get used to. I didn't even kiss a guy until I was 21. In retrospect, I think it's hilarious how the Advice Dog meme originated in a thread I had made about not being sure about kissing girls.
I used to think I might have been asexual when I was in 8th grade. All the other guys were talking about how girls were "hot," and I didn't understand it. I figured they were all just trying to act older by pretending to be interested in women... until I actually witnessed my friend full-on making out with a girl, on the lips, longer than a few moments! I was so stunned that anyone would feel compelled to kiss a girl.
Meanwhile, I was looking at pictures of men online: fully clothed, and not in overtly sexual positions, so I didn't know I was experiencing sexual attraction to them. I was really just terribly uninformed about sexual diversity, as I went to Catholic school this whole time and I didn't even consider it an option to be a guy attracted to other guys.
Then I got to college and realized that all the guys in my high school just hadn't been all that good looking. Finally it was painfully obvious how sexually-attracted-to-men I was. That took awhile to get used to. I didn't even kiss a guy until I was 21. In retrospect, I think it's hilarious how the Advice Dog meme originated in a thread I had made about not being sure about kissing girls.
123
Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
« on: October 21, 2012, 09:42:31 PM »124
Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Sexual Orientation
« on: October 21, 2012, 04:08:09 PM »
I'm gay. Attracted to men, and I guess I've had emotional-romantic crushes on men, though I haven't really done anything. I can still donate blood!
I met a friend in college who identified as a "pan-romantic lesbian." While she was sexually attracted to women, she said she felt the capacity to fall in love romantically with a person without regards to their gender. Her girlfriend is a transgender woman who so far hasn't undergone any transition, so she looks like a man still.
Another friend of mine eventually came out as a lesbian, attracted to women. However, she identifies as "genderqueer," so her gender identity is about 60% female, 40% male (she's biologically female). So for her, it's confusing to say she's a lesbian if she herself is not simply a "woman" attracted to women. (Her parents are evangelical Christian, and when they found her online profile with a "queer" identification they began to tell their friends that they were disowning their daughter. They stopped funding her college tuition, so she had to take out loans in her own name to avoid having them send her to a local private Christian college. It was pretty upsetting, but she's been very adamant about taking care of herself despite her family's rejection).
I met a friend in college who identified as a "pan-romantic lesbian." While she was sexually attracted to women, she said she felt the capacity to fall in love romantically with a person without regards to their gender. Her girlfriend is a transgender woman who so far hasn't undergone any transition, so she looks like a man still.
Another friend of mine eventually came out as a lesbian, attracted to women. However, she identifies as "genderqueer," so her gender identity is about 60% female, 40% male (she's biologically female). So for her, it's confusing to say she's a lesbian if she herself is not simply a "woman" attracted to women. (Her parents are evangelical Christian, and when they found her online profile with a "queer" identification they began to tell their friends that they were disowning their daughter. They stopped funding her college tuition, so she had to take out loans in her own name to avoid having them send her to a local private Christian college. It was pretty upsetting, but she's been very adamant about taking care of herself despite her family's rejection).
125
General Chat / Re: How privileged are you?
« on: October 20, 2012, 10:37:22 PM »
White: +25
Male: +25
Gay: -150
Cis: +20
US: +20
Christian: +5
Middle Class: 0
Able-bodied: +25
Attractiveness: 0? My face is simultaneously well proportioned yet my complexion is sub-par...
Size: 0? I'm only slightly shorter than average...
Profession: 0
Saturday: -15
Total = -30 NON-PRIVILEGED. I figured my white maleness would have outweighed my sexuality in terms of the societal privileges I receive...
Male: +25
Gay: -150
Cis: +20
US: +20
Christian: +5
Middle Class: 0
Able-bodied: +25
Attractiveness: 0? My face is simultaneously well proportioned yet my complexion is sub-par...
Size: 0? I'm only slightly shorter than average...
Profession: 0
Saturday: -15
Total = -30 NON-PRIVILEGED. I figured my white maleness would have outweighed my sexuality in terms of the societal privileges I receive...
126
Video Game Chat / Re: Pokemon Topic
« on: October 19, 2012, 09:09:16 PM »
Speaking of images of Pokemon, has anyone seen this realistic pokemon art?
127
Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
« on: October 19, 2012, 04:29:22 PM »I also agree that there are people who, and please do not take this the wrong way, have pika or are predisposed to pedophilia. I say this only to demonstrate that having an orientation is not sufficient grounds for acting on said orientation.
The quote I posted that began with "Do homosexuals actually exist" was meant to demonstrate that homosexuality is not as frivolous as other types of attraction (such as incest, polygamy and pedophilia). With pedophilia, it is very apparent why a person should not act on those attractions: it is harmful toward children, who are emotionally, physically, and mentally vulnerable, and cannot give legitimate consent to such behavior. How are same-sex relationships more similar to pedophilia than to healthy, functional opposite-sex relationships?
129
Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
« on: October 19, 2012, 01:55:47 PM »Quote
Same-sex marriages ought not be given by the government the same rewards and benefits as a heterosexual marriage precisely because the integral component of childbearing can never be present. While this argument says nothing about whether two people may or may not, of their own choosing, engage in same-sex genital stimulation, it does maintain that because of the nature of a same-sex couple, the government has no interest and is actually harmed in granting the same benefits to same-sex couples as it does to heterosexual couples.
OK. So marriage in which procreation is impossible ought not to be legal, because the gov't would not receive the benefit of another young citizen to support that gov't in the future. But how about this?
- Gay people can and do raise children. Some gays/lesbians have children from previous heterosexual relationships; others adopt; and some rely on surrogacy or artificial insemination. And these aren't just a few families: there are currently about 1-5 million lesbian parents and 1-3 million gay parents in the U.S. today, with children. If marriage requires the capacity to produce and raise children, then certainly many same-sex couples would meet this requirement. EDIT: Luigison addressed this before I did.
- Sterile opposite-sex couples can get married. So can opposite-sex couples who choose not to have children. If procreation should be the basis for legalizing marriage, then it is not logical or consistent to allow marriage to opposite-sex couples who will not yield children.
- Marriage provides other beneficial functions for the government (and couple) besides producing children. Economically, marriage is a form of social insurance: the benefit of a marital “partner” is to help guarantee that one will not have to rely on the government during times of need. Individuals with Alzheimer's or cancer, who are single, and whose family and friends are unable to care for them, will fall under the responsibility of the State, often at a substantial cost. Aside from providing individual and societal stability, marriage also functions as an expression of love. When people choose to marry, it is not simply for the economic benefits or potential to create children, but rather it is usually because they are in love and want to make a binding commitment to be together for life.
With regards to the slippery slope fallacy, or argument of trajectory, here is a quote from Andrew Sullivan: "Do homosexuals actually exist? I think so, and today even the Vatican accepts that some people are constitutively attracted only to members of the same sex. By contrast, no serious person claims there are people constitutively attracted only to relatives, or only to groups rather than individuals. Anyone who can love two women can also love one of them. People who insist on marrying their mother or several lovers want an additional (and weird) marital option. Homosexuals currently have no marital option at all. A demand for polygamous or incestuous marriage is thus frivolous in a way that the demand for gay marriage is not."
Finally, if my post were an essay, I would be penalized for plagiarism: Most of my information was taken nearly verbatim from this website: http://www.arguingequality.org/chapter5.htm There's much more information in the link, but I wanted to hone it down to address the specifics in your post.
130
Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
« on: October 18, 2012, 11:20:55 PM »Markio, there's no video appearing for me.
Here's a direct hyperlink: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY If it still isn't working, then searching for "Matthew Vines" on Youtube ought to yield the right results.
I'm really curious to hear how homosexuality is understood as detrimental. I would rather speak directly about those concerns than construct odd analogies about the issue. Patience is a virtue, I guess...
131
Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
« on: October 18, 2012, 08:20:55 PM »
I admit I feel strongly about this subject because I am gay, but I also do not intend to react with hostility to dissenting opinions regarding homosexuality and marriage equality. I wouldn't want this topic to crumble into a flame war because I think these discussions are really important to have, however uncomfortable they may be.
I also wanted to clarify that by "same-sex relationship" I am referring to the healthiest manifestation of a romantic relationship between a man and a woman, where love is unconditional, each individual is committed to the other, and sexual activity is merely one facet of the entire relationship... except instead of one man and one woman there are two men or two women. I hold the belief that two people of the same gender and/or biological sex are capable of having as healthy and moral a relationship as two people of differing genders/sexes. I don't consider anything other than the gender of the parties involved to differ when comparing same-sex relationships and opposite-sex relationships (aside from potential sex positions, but I think that's a trivial difference of little consequence). My opinions will usually extend from this belief.
I also wanted to clarify that by "same-sex relationship" I am referring to the healthiest manifestation of a romantic relationship between a man and a woman, where love is unconditional, each individual is committed to the other, and sexual activity is merely one facet of the entire relationship... except instead of one man and one woman there are two men or two women. I hold the belief that two people of the same gender and/or biological sex are capable of having as healthy and moral a relationship as two people of differing genders/sexes. I don't consider anything other than the gender of the parties involved to differ when comparing same-sex relationships and opposite-sex relationships (aside from potential sex positions, but I think that's a trivial difference of little consequence). My opinions will usually extend from this belief.
133
Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
« on: October 18, 2012, 06:07:01 PM »
I'm still waiting for your reason-based arguments against same-sex marriage. You say you don't mean to put gay sexual activity on par with your examples of detrimental behavior, but then I'm not sure why you're bringing them up in the first place. Do you think that same-sex relationships are not capable of secular stability, happiness, or substance?
134
Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
« on: October 18, 2012, 02:40:25 PM »If the government legalizes gay marriage, it effectively forces people to accept gay marriage as a valid marriage, whether or not they believe or agree with it. Likewise, if the government bans gay marriage, it forces people to accept gay marriage as invalid, again, whether or not they agree with it. By the government controlling marriage—essentially, a religious/personal concept—it takes away the freedom of religion.
My issue with this argument is that it relies on the assumption that legal marriage is equivalent to the Sacrament of Matrimony. If the government extends legal marriage rights to same-sex couples, then I do not see how the sacrament of marriage is affected. My understanding is that marriage as a religious/personal concept is not controlled by the government: the government issues marriage licenses to allow couples access to 1,049 federal rights, none of which include the consummation of their vows or a blessing from their God(s). If same-sex couples were allowed receive legal marriage licenses, wouldn't those who disagree with the morality of same-sex relationships still be able to practice their religion and live their lives in accordance to their own beliefs?
People are always emphasizing "separation of church and state," yet the concept of marriage is inherently intertwined in both. Therein lies the problem. Marriage—the religious, personal concept—should, ideally, be completely separated from the legal concept—civil unions. Don't just call them different names, make them two different concepts.
Why is it necessary to give legal marriage a different name? So far, actual civil unions do not afford a couple all the same federal benefits as a legal marriage does. And current marriages recognized by the State do not require that either party affiliates with any organized religion (let alone the same religion). Clearly there is already a distinction between religious marriage and legal marriage. Insisting that legal marriage change its name before including same-sex couples does not seem fair. It suggests that same-sex couples are incapable of the same commitment and legal integrity that is expected of opposite-sex couples.
I would also like to point out that there are religions that affirm/value same-sex relationships! Including many denominations of Christianity. This video is the most comprehensive on the theological debate regarding the validity of homosexuality within the context of the Bible. It's long, but covers all the bases:
135
Forum Games / Re: Let's play Hangman!
« on: October 18, 2012, 09:53:53 AM »
"Stickman" reminds me of that xkcd comic about using Google maps to pass through some creepy woods.
The Games |
Downloads |
Reference |
Mario Mania |
Emulation |
Specials |
Miscellaneous
Copyright © 1997-2017 TheMushroomKingdom.net. All Rights Reserved.