PDA

View Full Version : Call in gay on December 10th


admin
December 3rd, 2008, 15:48
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=38177567454&ref=nf#/event.php?eid=34275107897

The above Facebook group advocates a work stoppage in support of equal rights. I work for myself now (since May) so I can't call in gay, but,..

Just FYI, December 10th is a day when your support for equal rights would be especially valuable if outwardly demonstrated. Maybe you have an equality shirt to wear or rainbow flag for the car.

-Ron

taoist
December 3rd, 2008, 20:52
same here, kind of hard to do when you own the company but we will try to do something supportive.

terraformingbeltoria
December 6th, 2008, 15:57
it's kind of odd that that's the one day next week that I'm off work.

Tally
December 6th, 2008, 16:46
it's kind of odd that that's the one day next week that I'm off work.
Well, since you can't really call in, you could show up gay. :D

Joseph
December 9th, 2008, 23:12
OK.

First off, I'm apathetic to what happens in regards to gay marriage, and what protest measures opponents of Proposition 8 are taking to get their message accross.

Quite frankly, I can't see the point of STRAIGHT marriage/divorce, where it seems, at least to me, that it's just like plain ol' getting together and breaking up, except with money. (MY folks are divorced, mom made dad sell the house and she took off with ALL the equity... What's the point of getting married if I'm going to lose half my stuff?) Marriage seems to be falling out of fashion with straight people, opting to shack up and live together, screw the legal paper, but that is outside the scope of why I'm even writing in this thread.

Is it me, or are the following analogies a bit... OFF???

"Foes of Proposition 8 often argue that it's not gay people — who, after all, are their neighbors, co-workers, and even friends — they object to, it's gay marriage. Therefore, to them, a day without actual gay people is a little beside the point, perhaps slightly hysterical. But this is exactly what needs to get driven home: You can't object to part of gay people without objecting to the whole. It's careless and equivocal to argue that it's just one part of LGBT life that's unacceptable. It would be like saying you like Jewish people but not ones that are circumcised, or that you have Latino friends but you only like them when they speak English. You get to like it all, or you get nothing, and that's what a Day Without Gays is about."

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/12/tomorrow_a_day_without_gays.html

ex-CUSE me? Could this person have thought of a more awful analogy than this? It is QUITE possible to not have anything against Jews, intact or circumcised, but still oppose circumcision.

Regardless of how I feel in regards to gay marriage, this guy is basically shooting himself in the foot with this analogy. I mean, since it IS possible to be against a practice, but not the people that do it, he is basically saying that it IS possible to be tolerant to gays but still oppose gay marriage. (He's trying to DEFEND gay marriage, is he not?) Is this NOT DEVASTATING TO HIS OWN CASE? Not to mention calling all of us who oppose circumcision JEW-HATERS???

Right now I'm behind a firewall and I can't join, or else I would, but could someone get on there and say something???

GEEZ!!!

:mad::mad::mad:

1Taoist
December 11th, 2008, 13:56
This is the problem- they ARE against the practice but not the people. They are against gay SEX. This is why gay hosts of shows are so popular...until you find out they actually have gay sex. This is one of the most curious psychologies, but marriage is- to the anti-gay marriagists -a SANCTION TO HAVE SEX. This is why they are against it. Anybody who says it's not is lying.

Funny thing is, if they really wanna stop gay sex, let them get married. Sanctioning of sex is tantamount to ending it (or at least dulling it like circ). Sex is really about what you ain't supposed to do, who you ain't supposed to do, and the word no. Which turns into yes.

The opponents say marriage is between a man and a woman, which is to say sex is between a man and woman only.

Which is why all these proponents end up sucking dick on crystal meth in an apartment somewhere (if they're male), or doin 14yr old boys after school (if they're female).

finman
December 11th, 2008, 14:11
1Taoist, you will soon have everyone believing this:

A dietitian was once addressing a large audience in Chicago. Some of her points made, were as follows:
*The material we put into our stomachs is enough to have killed most of us sitting here, years ago.
*Red meat is awful.
*Soft drinks erode your stomach lining.
*Chinese food is loaded with MSG.
*None of us realizes the long-term harm caused by the germs in our drinking water.

But there is one thing that is the most dangerous of all and we all have, or will, eat it.
Can anyone here tell me what food it is that causes the most grief and suffering for years after eating it?

A 75-year-old man in the front row stood up and said,

"Wedding cake.":p

1Taoist
December 11th, 2008, 17:28
I thought he was going to say cum.

1Taoist
December 11th, 2008, 17:39
And I'll say this again: people opposed to gay marriage are opposed to sanctioning gay sex. Just like proponents of circ are opposed to sex in general.

Gay sex, following this logic, would not be GAY if they get married. Gay means happy. Fun. Delightful.

Therefore, gay marriage is the universal enemy of straight marriage. In the old days "straight" referred to a jacket worn by people who are nuts.

Tally
December 11th, 2008, 18:32
And I'll say this again: people opposed to gay marriage are opposed to sanctioning gay sex. Just like proponents of circ are opposed to sex in general.
I think you are onto something. Many against gay marriage are willing to go along with a "civil union," which allows everything a marriage does except the sex.

1Taoist
December 11th, 2008, 19:36
Totally.

Joseph
December 13th, 2008, 04:44
This is the problem- they ARE against the practice but not the people.

When it comes to Jews and circumcision, nobody's hating circumcised Jews, let alone those who are not; it is the practice of circumcising children which is disdained.

Circumcising children is something that can actually be helped, whereas being gay is not, which is why saying "It would be like saying you like Jewish people but not ones that are circumcised" is a bad analogy.

And anyway, this thread is now pointless, as the date has already passed, and from the looks of it, wasn't too much of a success. To achieve their goals, gays need to be better organized, more focused on what it is they wish to accomplish, and they could begin by coming up with more solid verbal arguments.

It is very easy to be against the practice, and not the people, as this very board demonstrates. Gays need to demonstrate how being gay isn't a separate practice, not give examples of how it might actually be, like Jews and circumcision.

admin
December 13th, 2008, 10:15
It is very easy to be against the practice, and not the people.
I hope you don't mean it's understandable or excusable to be "against the practice, and not the people" because I don't think it is.

Unless a gay man is trying to fuck you in the ass, it is absolutely none of your business who is gay or who gets married to whom. Basic morals that include fairness are all you need to endorse equal rights for all.

Equal. Period.

-Ron

Joseph
December 13th, 2008, 12:18
I hope you don't mean it's understandable or excusable to be "against the practice, and not the people" because I don't think it is.

Unless a gay man is trying to fuck you in the ass, it is absolutely none of your business who is gay or who gets married to whom. Basic morals that include fairness are all you need to endorse equal rights for all.

Equal. Period.

-Ron

By all means, I agree, it's nobody's business who is gay or not. I see trouble with the definition of "marriage" and who can "marry," however, since it doubles as both a legal and religious institution. I could argue that since it is a religious institution, that "marriage" as we know it needs to be abolished from our legal system to allow for a more equal union that benefits couples of whatever sexes. People could then be free to define "marriage" at their respective places of worship, which is where I think a high-and-mighty holier-than-thou definition of "marriage" belongs. It would be a nice, but possibly hated, compromise on both sides, but that's not the reason I threw a fit about the article.

All I am saying, is that in the case of Jews and circumcision, given our cause, it is a perfect example of how one could be "against the practice, and not the people." Obviously, the author intended on contradicting those who "support gays, but are against gay marriage," which is why I think s/he could have used a better analogy.

1Taoist
December 14th, 2008, 13:18
Since most people understand circumcision in judiasm to be a covenant with god, it is you that are wrong. The analogy is correct. Covenant with god, just like marriage.

It's everybody here having moved so far away from that concept that miss the point, making circ "the practice" separate from the meaning. That aspect is really no different from the anti-gay marriage people being for gays and not "the practice". Being for Jews but not "the practice" of covenant with god (marriage) is the same. In fact, marriage may be as preposterous as circumcision. Either way, you're makin it unnaturally hard on your dick.

Joseph
December 14th, 2008, 17:05
Since most people understand circumcision in judiasm to be a covenant with god, it is you that are wrong. The analogy is correct. Covenant with god, just like marriage.

It's everybody here having moved so far away from that concept that miss the point, making circ "the practice" separate from the meaning. That aspect is really no different from the anti-gay marriage people being for gays and not "the practice". Being for Jews but not "the practice" of covenant with god (marriage) is the same. In fact, marriage may be as preposterous as circumcision. Either way, you're makin it unnaturally hard on your dick.

This analogy seems to imply that just as gay and marriage is a "whole," then so are Jews and circumcision. That just like I'm really a gay hater if I "support gays but not the marriage" I'm a Jew hater if I "support Jews, but not circumcision."

I really am not comfortable with this analogy, as I am not against Jews, just the practice of circumcision, nomatter who practices it, and I think the author could have found a better one.

And anyway, I think we waste our time talking about this; the "call in gay" day is over and done with...