Gay Marriage

[deedle-doo]

[quote='Coatl]

Some things we are taught. Like, the fear of homosexuals. You may have been taught this. A propensity toward fear and intolerance may have a genetic componenet, idk.

Hmm.... interesting... if my genetics can make me like women (or the same sex) then could they make me.... let's say... hate black people (just an example)?

[/quote]

yes, maybe, but probably not that specific. Your genetics may predispose you to be fearful and intolerant of anyone who is different from you. Or this might be an entirely learned thing. idk, just speculating.

 

[Saidin]

I always wonder if those opposing homosexuality want to effectively criminalize behavior. I'm not talking about anyone on this site, rather more along the lines of fundamentalist religious zealots and the like. If they think it is so moral, so wrong, so horrible - why not lobby to criminalize it? 'The gay war' - fueled my miseducation, fear, intolerance, propoganda, hate, the list goes on and on... sounds a lot like the drug war, doesn't it?

They did criminalize it long ago. There are still sodomy laws on the books in some states in the US. Rarely inforced now, but they have been in existence for a long time.

 

[wake and bacon]

[quote='Coatl]

Some things we are taught. Like, the fear of homosexuals. You may have been taught this. A propensity toward fear and intolerance may have a genetic componenet, idk.

Hmm.... interesting... if my genetics can make me like women (or the same sex) then could they make me.... let's say... hate black people (just an example)?[/quote]

I would be extremely suprised if that was the case. I have very little knowledge of genetics but that seems highly unlikely.

[quote='Coatl]

You were mis-spelling it as 'pedo'. You were slandering someone by calling them a paedophile, without evidence.

Dude go back on topic like everybody else! Come on we almost got this thread back on track!
[/quote]

You posted that you had never heard it before, and he responded to it. Nothing off-topic there.

 

[ohayoco]

[quote='Coatl]Now, lets go back to topic or I'm sure this thread will be closed.

So you do not think that people can be programmed from birth to be men or women either?
Watch out your answer; what can make you a man or a woman is the exact thing that can also make you a homosexual.

Thank you for going back on topic like a responsible member.[/quote]
Your implication here is that I am NOT a responsible member! I would say that calling people 'fag', n*gger', as you spell it 'pedo', 'troll' and 'asshole' was irresponsible... as well as arguing against scientific opinion with no evidence nor expert opinion of your own.

 

[wake and bacon]

Woah, woah there... wait a second... that's off-topic!!

 

[ohayoco]

I am on-topic, because I am showing that Coatl's 'testimony' is unreliable. She is consistently hypocritical as well as blinkered to any useful evidence and expert opinion that would keep this discussion truly on-topic.
Coatl is now PMing me cursing and demanding that I stay 'on-topic'... in an attempt to deflect this important point.

 

[Entropymancer]

[quote='Coatl]Remember.... this is what I THINK, this is not my area of knowledge what-so-ever.
[/quote]

You've already expressed your unfounded opinions (and admitted your ignorance on the topic) repeatedly throughout the thread. Might it not be a better approach to try to become informed on a topic before dogmatically asserting beliefs which you readily admit have no basis in fact?

 

['Coatl]

Alright well here we go....

I tried to keep us on topic.

I am on-topic, because I am showing that Coatl's 'testimony' is unreliable. She is consistently hypocritical as well as blinkered to any useful evidence and expert opinion that would keep this discussion truly on-topic.
Coatl is now PMing me cursing and demanding that I stay 'on-topic'... in an attempt to deflect this important point.

Seriously dude do you have to be such a troll? Are you just TRYING to start shit? I am "consistently hypocritical"... well your a douche bag.

If y'all would actually debate and not make personal fucking attacks everything would be fine.

And... Ohayoco, who the FUCK cares what I do on other forums? Maybe I'm on some lesbian anal sex forums.... are you gonna go their and qoute my shit and say "Oh, look at the horrible things Teotzlcoatl said on another site, O my, he doesn't love everyone like your supposed to, Oh goodness".

Like I said, I tried to stay on topic... this is just gonna turn into a shit-fight now (and don't fucking blame it on me!)

THIS IS THE PROPER WAY TO RESPOND AND DEBATE-

You've already expressed your unfounded opinions (and admitted your ignorance on the topic) repeatedly throughout the thread. Might it not be a better approach to try to become informed on a topic before dogmatically asserting beliefs which you readily admit have no basis in fact?

THANK YOU! For saying that in such a polite and well thought out manner that it doesn't piss me off! :lol:

 

[ohayoco]

[quote='Coatl]Alright well here we go....

I tried to keep us on topic.

I am on-topic, because I am showing that Coatl's 'testimony' is unreliable. She is consistently hypocritical as well as blinkered to any useful evidence and expert opinion that would keep this discussion truly on-topic.
Coatl is now PMing me cursing and demanding that I stay 'on-topic'... in an attempt to deflect this important point.

Seriously dude do you have to be such a troll? Are you just TRYING to start shit? I am "consistently hypocritical"... well your a fucking douche bag.

I'm done with this thread.

If y'all would actually debate and not make personal fucking attacks everything would be fine.

And... Ohayoco, who the FUCK cares what I do on other forums? Maybe I'm on some lesbian anal sex forums.... are you gonna go their and qoute my shit and say "Oh, look at the horrible things Teotzlcoatl said on another site, O my, he doesn't love everyone like your supposed to, Oh goodness".

Like I said, I tried to stay on topic... this is just gonna turn into a shit-fight now (and don't fucking blame it on me!)[/quote]

There's nothing wrong with lesbian anal sex, so why would that bother me? But I think it is central to this discussion if you, only a month or so ago, were flinging homophobic insults (never mind the slander and racism).

 

['Coatl]

I did call somebody a "fag" on edot just as a silly insult. Is it that big of a deal?

However, I would NOT use the word "fag" in a philosophical debate about homosexuality.

Can we move on now?

Ohayoco, I'm curious, are you homosexual?

 

[Aegle]

[quote='Coatl]Alright well here we go....

I tried to keep us on topic.

I am on-topic, because I am showing that Coatl's 'testimony' is unreliable. She is consistently hypocritical as well as blinkered to any useful evidence and expert opinion that would keep this discussion truly on-topic.
Coatl is now PMing me cursing and demanding that I stay 'on-topic'... in an attempt to deflect this important point.

Seriously dude do you have to be such a troll? Are you just TRYING to start shit? I am "consistently hypocritical"... well your a douche bag.

If y'all would actually debate and not make personal fucking attacks everything would be fine.

And... Ohayoco, who the FUCK cares what I do on other forums? Maybe I'm on some lesbian anal sex forums.... are you gonna go their and qoute my shit and say "Oh, look at the horrible things Teotzlcoatl said on another site, O my, he doesn't love everyone like your supposed to, Oh goodness".
[/quote]

I am relatively new here and i am shocked with your response to the negativity with such anger and harsh language. All it will do is make the forum more negative.


Much Peace

 

[ohayoco]

[quote='Coatl]I did call somebody a "fag" on edot just as a silly insult. Is it that big of a deal?

However, I would NOT use the word "fag" in a philosophical debate about homosexuality.

Can we move on now?

Ohayoco, I'm curious, are you homosexual?
[/quote]
You have asked me this question before, so you already know. Have you forgotten, or are you intending to imply something by asking? I am still straight! :lol:

If there was even the smallest shred of bisexuality in me, I'd know about it. I've even tried 69Ron's test a long time ago! As I've said before: I was raised in an open-minded environment and exposed to gay people from a young age; I have gay, bisexual and straight friends now; and I would embrace bisexuality if I was wired that way precisely because of the sexual freedom it gives. Unfortunately for my sexlife(!), I find men physically repulsive. I am similarly unattracted to children and animals!

I stick up for minorities because I am capable of empathy. You don't have to belong to a certain group to understand when they are being oppressed. If two men or two women want to get married, who cares? It doesn't hurt me or anyone else.

 

[deedle-doo]

OK back to a civilized exchange if ideas.
It is totally useful to expose each other's biases but this has to be done oh so gently and with love and respect. It is uncomfortable for anyone to have some deep seeded bias exposed to the light of day. I hope that the psychedelic community is better at this than the general population.

I am a straight male. Maybe there is a continuum from gay to straight. If so I am pretty much all the way straight. Like 69ron the very notion of sex with a man is revolting to me. Unlike him, I am quite comfortable with physical embrace with other men.

To illustrate: Receiving oral sex from a man, even if he looks like a woman, is totally revolting for me to imagine. The sensation I get from seeing an image of this is similar to the sensation I get from seeing an image of someone eating poo. These are inborn aversions. The first time I went to a gay bar maybe 15 years ago I was totally uncomfortable. The regulars there picked up on this and tormented my homophobia with lots of solicitations. I got over it pretty quick because this bar had a great dance floor and, ironically, was a great bar to meet women.

I would highly recommend any young open-minded homophobes with some adventurousness to party in some gay bars. It can be an eye opening, mind expanding, culturally enriching experience.

This is a totally separate issue from gay marriage. Gay marriage is a discussion about the role of government. I have a hard time imagining why anyone would want to empower their government with such direct control over personal life. I think government should have as little control as possible over a citizens body, mind and property.

 

[Aegle]

This is a totally separate issue from gay marriage. Gay marriage is a discussion about the role of government. I have a hard time imagining why anyone would want to empower their government with such direct control over personal life. I think government should have as little control as possible over a citizens body, mind and property.

Indeed, but unfortunately the governments and the big corporations control our lives way to much i personally don't believe in a government i think society should govern itself. :d


Much Peace

 

[HyperQuill]

Another long-time lurker here (about 1.5 years, thank you all so much for the well-written and helpful posts I've read in that time!)

As a heterosexual transgender male I thought I'd offer a different perspective on this topic. While I'm not gay, the TG community shares a lot of the same social problems the gay community deals with. I'm not gay, nor do I desire sexual reassignment, but I have a couple friends who are absolutely sure that I'm gay or want to become a woman, despite evidence to the contrary, probably because they are bound to typical societal notions of sexuality and gender.

I was raised in a very female-oriented house with my father off at work most of the time. I had urges to dress up from a very early age, and no doubt the overwhelming feminine presence in my life had something to do with it. But....I know plenty of people raised in a similar environment who are not crossdressers. It's interesting the nature vs. nurture polarity going on in this thread. Interesting because despite this community's obvious intelligence and open-mindedness the opinions still are very polarized and starting to get pretty nasty.

It's my opinion that nature vs. nurture, at least in this case, is a false choice: I believe that I have a genetic predisposition towards transgenderism, and my environment while growing up nurtured and brought out that side of me. I think the same thing happens to those who are gay. It seems to me that if anyone understands that life doesn't deal in absolutes it would be the psychedelic community. Why can't it be both? Why are some people here so absolutely sure that it is one or the other?



-Coatl, calling someone a "fag" is a big deal, regardless of context. The only reason to do so is denigration, and such a politically charged word can easily be taken with great offense. Think about it for a second: The word "faggot" is exclusively used as an insult towards the homosexual mentality - Regardless of context the meaning remains the same. Is this really a word you want in your own vocabulary? The only thing it reveals about a person when they use it is their own bigotry. While it has become commonplace in the English language and its meaning diluted, it's still not a word that an enlightened person such as yourself should be using.

I've been avoiding posting to this forum because of my own paranoia about psychedelics and the law, but I was compelled to comment on this. After reading thousands of posts and threads, this is the first time I've seen name-calling and general nastiness on this forum and I'm a bit shocked to see it here.

 

[deedle-doo]

i think society should govern itself. :d

I totally agree and I'm optimistic about it. I think this is what modern information based democracy is heading towards. Humanity at large is closer to this ideal now than anytime in history.

 

[polytrip]

I get the impression that one of the reasons why discussion's that somehow involve homosexuality, easily escalate into a lot of hatefull bullshit is because the people who obsessively oppose homosexuality are often secretly gay themselves.
You often hear that homosexuality would be a threat to society or to 'family-values'. This sounds very much like;'if we would just accept homosexuality, then before you know it everybody would be gay and then the human race would end because reproduction would stop'. People who think along these lines obviously would rather live a homosexual lives themselves, they more or less admit this implicitely.

As for gay marriage; if we exclude the religious fanatics, not to be mean or exclusive, but mainly because no reasonable discussion is possible with them anyway, then it looks like the main problem for many people is not giving homosexuals equal rights, but whether you would technically call the arangement 'marriage'. I don't see why governments or churches couldn't arrange something that has the same legal status, but with just a different name, if 'gay-marriage' too much resembles 'marriage' for some. That way each get's what he wants. Giving rite's a personal touch only stimulate's people to be a little creative every now and then and i don't see why anybody would be against it.

 

[Aegle]

I am optimistic to, i think there needs to be a serious shift away from the government system that we have today which is basically run by the big corporations eg: oil companies. The only way we will be happy as a society is if we take back the power and refuse to just be consumers and make real choices and change :d


Much Peace

 

[The Traveler]

After reading and re-reading this thread I decided to remove 'Coatl from this discussion.

The rest can continue this discussion as they were doing, I see no offense in it.

 

[Aegle]

-Coatl, calling someone a "fag" is a big deal, regardless of context. The only reason to do so is denigration, and such a politically charged word can easily be taken with great offense. Think about it for a second: The word "faggot" is exclusively used as an insult towards the homosexual mentality - Regardless of context the meaning remains the same. Is this really a word you want in your own vocabulary? The only thing it reveals about a person when they use it is their own bigotry. While it has become commonplace in the English language and its meaning diluted, it's still not a word that an enlightened person such as yourself should be using.

I've been avoiding posting to this forum because of my own paranoia about psychedelics and the law, but I was compelled to comment on this. After reading thousands of posts and threads, this is the first time I've seen name-calling and general nastiness on this forum and I'm a bit shocked to see it here.

Anger that comes out funny enough towards a specific group of people is usually directed to a group of people that person dislikes because it brings up their own issues and misunderstandings with themselves and that specific group of people reminds them of themselves. Prejudices comes only from ignorance and ignorance is one of the worst mental sicknesses.


Much Peace