Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 09:14pm PT
|
I'm talking about Pate, Wes.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 09:22pm PT
|
cultural perversion
You disagree that we are socially more perverted, Wes?
I guess you'd call it 'liberation', right?
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 10:40pm PT
|
I've got no problem with gay people...some friends of mine are gay (I think). The way it is now, any man can marry any woman; any woman can marry any man, gay or not. Tom Cruise didn't get blocked from marrying Nicole Kidman.
If you're a dude who is gay or for some reason isn't turned on by women, well, that is your own business. I don't see how it's necessary to change the definition of marriage to accommodate a few people's alternative interests.
What if Pate decided he hates everyone; should we change the definition of marriage so that he can marry himself? or marry the tree in his backyard?
On the legal level , I think equal rights for those who choose not to marry are already guaranteed under existing civil union laws.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 10:55pm PT
|
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 11:01pm PT
|
It was funny. Very funny. And so was wes' comment about your son.
Just sayin'.
If you weren't such an as#@&%e then we wouldn't treat you like one.
Yeah, uh-huh, referring to my wife as a dog is real funny. Can I refer to your daughters as little sluts?? I wouldn't consider it, ya know why??
Guess why.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 11:06pm PT
|
because you only dis' homosexuals? Hey, did you ever read that post about hostility toward homosexuals? Fascinating, really.
No I disagree with everything I oppose, Johnson. Don't you? Wouldn't I be a fool not to?
What post about hostility towards fags are you referring to?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2010 - 11:24pm PT
|
He then showed them gay porn -- and some 80 percent became aroused. He concluded that since "most homophobes demonstrate significant sexual arousal to homosexual erotic stimuli", anti-gay hatred is probably "a form of latent homosexuality."
OMG!!! The science is in!!!!! It's over, man!
Thanks for the enlightenment, Wes. I'm so stupid and hateful.
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 12:02am PT
|
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage.
Cite your source, please. California legal code or some post-modern e-dictionary?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 12:08am PT
|
Is that attractive to you, Wes? Go for it, dude!
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 01:03am PT
|
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 01:33am PT
|
I got curious (not bi-curious) and looked a bit further to see about the control group in that study
from
http://www.petertatchell.net/homophobia/bigots%20are%20buggers.htm
"....Prof. Adams tested a group of men who expressed homophobic attitudes, and who said they were exclusively heterosexual and had never had any homosexual experiences or fantasies. He wired these men to a plethysmograph. This is a calibrated, elasticated band which is fitted around the penis and detects any change in its size. Prof. Adams then showed the men three sets of sexually-explicit videos: heterosexual, lesbian and gay male.
In response to the gay sex videos, Prof. Adams found that 20 percent of the homophobic men showed no erection, 26 percent showed moderate erection, and 54 percent showed strong erection. By comparison, a control group of non-homophobic straight men produced very different reactions: 66 percent didn't get aroused, 10 percent got slightly turned on, and 24 percent had definite hard-ons.
The response to the heterosexual video was also interesting. The homophobic group got less aroused by the heterosexual porn flicks than the non-homophobic group; which suggests that homophobia correlates with dysfunctional heterosexuality and impaired heterosexual erotic capability.
There was also a significant disparity between the claimed lack of sexual arousal by the homophobic men and the reality that most of them got some degree of erection. When viewing the gay sex videos, the homophobic men consistently underestimated their state of erotic excitement, as measured by the plethysmograph. Prof. Adams's notes that the men's "verbal judgements are not consistent with physiological activity". In other words, the homophobes were in deep denial about their homosexual attraction...."
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 10:16am PT
|
the acid test standard is would locker do the cut male model...prop 8 should hinge on the locker standard....not the rover tail pipe...rj
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 10:40am PT
|
No I disagree with everything I oppose, Johnson
Oxymoron?
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 11:20am PT
|
the proponants of prop 8 have no legs to stand on...
they cannot show that allowing lgbt marriage harms them in any way....
look into it...
this is just a freedom (too long in the shadows) that has been brought to all our attention.
though you may find it revolting, and against your religion... that is no basis for stopping others from do it.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 12:13pm PT
|
I haven't read all posts so apolgies if other's have brought this up, but:
Any chance that states will abolish ALL marriage in response to this ruling (if it's upheld on appeal), and so marriage will be defined solely by churches? Kind of like how some Southern states tried to abolish all public education in response to abolition of segregation.
I don't think states should be in the marriage business--why should I pay higher (or, much less commonly, lower) taxes just cuz I'm not married. Leave marriage to religion: the government should treat everyone equally.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 12:18pm PT
|
Blablah- aint gonna happen. Check all the 'wedlock' legalese on the 14th amendment thread.
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 11:39pm PT
|
"Children of Same-Sex Couples Do as Well as Other Children"
I'll bet even better (in some cases)..
Having a pair of obviously open minded people raising a child has to have it's advantages.
What of in 20 years studies are done that show that SS kids have a definite higher intelligence level...
I'm sure blurring would still be haten.. LOL
|
|
Bertrand
climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 02:22am PT
|
Looks like m-w.com is now reaching for modern activist definitions, rather than legal code, and rather than 1000's of years of traditional definition.
I always had the feeling our language was getting dumbed down, and now f'ing dictionary publishers trying to be hip instead of preserving the meaning of words.
|
|
Flanders!
Trad climber
June Lake, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 06:51am PT
|
I hate to bring the obvious into the conversation but, isn't it those who oppose Prop 8 who suck, rim, and felch, and want the rest of us to approve?
Doug
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!