Jump to content
N-Europe

Sexuality Thread

KKOB

By KKOB
in General Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Chris the great Newbie

Chris the great

Posted
Posted

honestly, whats wrong with gay marrige? even if you super straight and homophobic (i think that may be impossible), i fail to see the harm homosexuality puts upon you.

 

also, in the advert, the dr who dosent want to choose between her job and her belife, how is gay marrage going to change that? do drs marry people on the side?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Slaggis Newbie

Slaggis

Posted
Posted

 

also, in the advert, the dr who dosent want to choose between her job and her belife, how is gay marrage going to change that? do drs marry people on the side?

 

She might have to treat a man, that is married to another man. Oh no, touching a gay man? Horrific. :heh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Jordan

Guest Jordan

Posted
Posted (edited)
"whisky" (5 cool points to who ever gets this movie reference)

 

 

"W-hisky!"

"What...?"

"W-here do you get off?!"

 

Hot Rod... Awesome...

 

EDIT: Annnnnddd i just quoted something from two pages back. Nice job Jordan :D

Edited by Jordan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The fish Newbie

The fish

Posted
Posted
also, in the advert, the dr who dosent want to choose between her job and her belife, how is gay marrage going to change that? do drs marry people on the side?

 

They're upset because they'll loose their choice to discriminate against people purely on the grounds of the gender of consenting adults they are sexually attracted to.

 

Basically, they want their intolerance to be tolerated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Slaggis Newbie

Slaggis

Posted
Posted

I never thought I would be posting a Fox News video concerning homosexuality, and praising it. How odd.

 

 

Bitch needs a raise, she gave as good as she got. I love it. Though, this only got onto fox news in the first place because they were picketing right funerals. But still, good nonetheless.

 

AIDS and all. It's a gay disease.

 

Totally. God, can't gays do anything right? :heh:

 

Actually, you make a good point though. I've never understood that whole "Omg, only gay men get AIDS" thing. Millions in Africa (where in a couple of places you can be killed for being gay) have aids...so how on earth did they get it? Oh wait...maybe it was the "Gay rain army". :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Slaggis Newbie

Slaggis

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just had a re-eeaaally awkward moment with a friend. He randomly said he liked me, and asked if anything could ever happen between us. I felt so awkard, and had no idea how to say "Noooooo". I tried.

Edited by Slaggis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fierce_LiNk Newbie

Fierce_LiNk

Posted
Posted (edited)
Just had a re-eeaaally awkward moment with a friend. He randomly said he liked me, and asked if anything could ever happen between us. I felt so awkard, and had no idea how to say "Noooooo". I tried.

 

It would have been pretty hilarious had you just turned to him and said: "Nooooooooooooooooo," and then just turned away.

 

Hmm, the best thing to do is probably just say from the start that all you're interested in is his friendship. If you do give him any hope, he may cling to that, and it'll probably make the situation worse. He's told you he liked you, which isn't easy, so give him the truth straight, and then if you're good friends you'll be able to put that awkward moment behind you and move on.

 

:D

 

I had one awkward moment about a year and a half ago, when I had just started a part time job. We all went out drinking after work, and four of us were walking home, when this lad sat next to me on a bench (because we were waiting for some people to get a move on) and he said he liked me. I was tipsy at the time, but I know that I told him he was just a friend and that I wasn't interested (in boys, or him, haha.) He was much more drunk than me, and kept trying to kiss me, which just annoyed me and wound me up a little bit, because I had just made it clear that I didn't like him.

 

The thing is, he was sure I fancied him, and even asked: "Are you sure you're not gay?" To which I replied: "Well...what makes you think I am?!"

 

His reply: "Well, you come into work all the time and smile at me."

 

My reply: "I smile at everyone! That's who I am!"

 

When I had split from the group and walked home, he went out of his way home to keep following me, and kept harassing me. No matter how many times I told him to leave me alone, or told him that I was just going home, he kept following. In the end, he cried and said he didn't want to see me again in work! What the shit. The next day, he didn't turn up in work, and I've never seen him since, or heard him mentioned.

Edited by Fierce_LiNk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Daft Newbie

Daft

Posted
Posted
n578451074_2985181_756830.jpg

 

Success?

 

:p

 

 

I think someone owes the Nike Corporation royalties. If you don't get it, laugh anyway.

But seriously, that's not unlike the other photos you've posted so I'm betting nada has happened. Gotta love the pessimism.

 

Anyways, this was an interesting read,

 

A twisted history of sexuality

Conservative Christians promoting 'recovery' from homosexuality have their arguments tied up in knots

 

 

The Anglican Mainstream conservative Christian conference has been learning about the work of American therapists who claim to be able to cure homosexuality – or at least bring out the "heterosexual potential" in ostensibly gay people. It is unclear whether they are able to bring out the homosexual potential in ostensibly straight people, or would want to. What is clear is that there is an insidious religious agenda implicit in their presence. It neither has the wellbeing of gay people in mind, nor is it honest.

 

For one thing, such therapies probably do much harm, especially to the wives of the "ex-gay" men they create: few consider them in this debate. And it's worth asking about the language used by such conservative Christians, as they often are, when talking about sexuality.

 

Suddenly, they become masters of suspicion, to use the phrase that refers to those thinkers who seek to overturn our most basic assumptions. In particular, they deploy the language of social constructionism to argue that gayness is not genetic, but rather that it has only been with us for about 100 years, since the invention of the word and medicalisation of the condition of homosexuality. The implication is that they are the progressive ones. They are the ones promoting a postmodern notion of sexual pliability. But one should be suspicious of their suspicion for it is deeply confused.

 

The implication that there have been individuals who are erotically attracted to members of the same sex for only about 100 years is clearly just silly. 'Twas ever thus, and in a biological sense seems natural for sections of the populations of not just humans but other higher animals too. What the social constructionists are pointing out is that the cultural identity of gayness, lesbianism and so on is modern. For example, men who had sex with men in ancient Athens didn't go to the local gay bar to express their identity or, more profoundly, call themselves gay as if they were in certain respects different from the rest of the male population, as gay men may do now.

 

So it's not the sexual desire that is the crux issue in constructionism but the psychological and cultural accretions – though of course, it is the sexual desire that upsets the Christians. In short, they get social constructionism the wrong way round.

 

A second reason for suspicion stems from the limited nature of "ex-gay suspicion". Constructionism as a theory does not just apply to identity. It applies to hermeneutics too, say – though you won't see any ex-gay advocates arguing that conservative believers should treat their bibles as socially constructed: scripture must at heart be timeless, it's core message unaffected by cultural shifts.

 

Similarly, Michel Foucault argued on constructionist grounds that there were different regimes of knowledge at different moments in history, which has the effect of calling into question any direct relevance of the past for now. For conservative believers in Jesus, that would surely be a major problem. So, the second point is that ex-gay constructionists don't show the courage of their convictions when it comes to their Christian convictions.

 

Third, for Foucault, the personal point of social constructionism was to move beyond polarities in sexuality altogether. He argued that the heterosexual label is potentially as imprisoning as the homosexual might be, over-determining people's identity. Foucault did not just think that gay men and women should come out, though they might do that at some point in their lives, but that they should find a way out of the whole discourse of sexuality too. That way would lie a true liberation.

 

The ex-gay agenda is precisely the opposite of this. They want to preserve the language of sexuality by ensuring everyone's heterosexuality. So, thirdly, the ex-gays are borrowing the language of constructionism strictly when it suits them. In short, and alongside the other charges against them, they are intellectually dishonest.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/24/gay-christian-conservatives

 

I'm now very excited I'm doing gender studies next year in my degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...