Bigger issue than marriage and equality.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Superhans

Originally posted by LightOrange

Originally posted by Superhans
It appears too many people are way too focused on things that haven't been said to understand what is being said here.


I'm not really sure if you've said much of anything, and that's the real issue with that.


I have said a lot and it has been clear to everyone but you. Maybe i should state more obvious thing like you who have provided such gems like "gay men get more AIDS because they have anal sex"


You've also been shown that your suggestions are as illegal as they are asinine and shallow.

Yet here you are. Saying the same thing that doesn't make any sense over and over and over again.




posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Marriage is a sexist institution of control and domination of one sex by the other. Even if one sex marries the same sex there is still domination. Equality is not available anywhere on the planet. Just look how less than 1% hog all of the resources while millions starve, die of thirst and do not have adequate housing.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 

Dear markosity1973,

I don't think I'll ever be able to write clearly. Let me show you what I mean.

I get where you are coming from in terms of the fear of gay relationships taking over mainstream media.
Dear Markosity1973, that wasn't what I meant at all. I mentioned those various ways of communicating to the public in order to explore possibilities for getting the marriage and monogamy issue before the public. Believe it or not, I was trying to assist in turning your hope for gay marriages and monogamy into a reality.

As a matter of fact, I support your thinking on the issue (with one small worry), and I think I have a halfway decent idea for you.

To quickly review, and I hope I'm getting it right, gays need to motivated to strive for stable marriage and monogamy. For various reasons, religious commands and social pressures won't supply the incentive. You're thinking about a campaign to make monogamy fashionable and romantic.

Fine goal, but it's going to be a challenge to make it a permanent part of the gay community's thinking. Actually, I think it will be a challenge to achieve that for any community Adultery seems more "romantic" than the "same old, same old." My guess is that it will be part of a fad, or trend, and pass away over the years as people revert to following their sexual desire to sleep around.

I'm going to throw away most of what I was going to say and switch gears. I hope you'll forgive me, you're a tolerant guy. Here's what we do (And, yes, the credit goes to you, it was your idea with just a slight twist.):

The Chief Gay (I know there isn't one, humor me.) goes to the Chief Christian Family Group and says:
"You're right about the importance of the Family, and we want to donate umpty thousand dollars to your cause. God and Society has spoken about it's value forever. We accept that as true and valuable. It is so desirable and good that we want it for ourselves, too.

"We can't be celibate, we're just not able, please don't ask us to be. But we want to stop being so promiscuous, and we think you can help us. Chief Christian Family Group, you have been researching and writing on the value of monogamy for years, with great dedication and passion. Share that with us, teach us. Let's work together to show the whole country the value of stable marriages and monogamy.

"You've got the raw materials, we've got some creative people in the ad business, let's blanket the country with the message of monogamy. We don't have to waste resources on fighting each other, let's get to the best place we can, stable lifetime unions.

"If we write them correctly we can use some of the same ads for the gay and the straight market. Just think, one united message sent to the entire country. Instead of making each other the enemy, we make promiscuity and adultery the enemy. Let's do it."

So, markosity1973, do you have an opening on the World-Wide Gay Strategy Team for me?

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. After re-reading this post, I've come to the conclusion that I'm a very strange kind of straight person. Oh well, I don't need to impress anyone anymore. That's one good thing about getting old. - C -



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by LightOrange
 



You've also been shown that your suggestions are as illegal as they are asinine and shallow.

Now you have resorted to making up crazy talk...



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightOrange

HOWEVER, you cannot accept donations for media + politics and then go spend it on science & medicine; it's illegal. I've said this three times now, and I'm really not sure why you have so much trouble understanding it.


Said what 3 times? You have asked why they should over and over but this is a first for saying its "illegal". Its not illegal by the way, they could do a lot more to promote HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention but they just choose not to.
They do announce the big things like world aids day but other than that all they choose to do is say that HIV is on the rise in black men.
www.glaad.org...
So you can clearly see that they CAN use their power for this cause they just choose not to.

But they can however ask the media to twist their coverage of AIDS to make it sound like AIDS is not a problem in the gay community.
www.glaad.org...
edit on 8-7-2013 by Superhans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952

Americans see nothing wrong with campaigns against excessive drinking, smoking, overeating, and not wearing seat belts. People are encouraged not to do things which lead to unhealthy outcomes. Bloomberg ordered a stop to the sale of large glasses of soda. But nobody has come up with a viable campaign, nation-wide and government endorsed, against unprotected homosexual sex.

I honestly think that's because of a reluctance to criticize any homosexual activity. I can't imagine a government saying, "Homosexual behavior is risky. It imposes a disproportionate strain on our health care system. It's an unhealthy life style." But the government will say that for overeating, alcoholism, drug abuse, smoking, etc.

Perhaps, and I'm just guessing, the idea is to try to persuade the public that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and that it has equal health results to heterosexuality.


Hi Charles,

I'm going to reply to this post as it relates more to this thread than marriage and BH has covered off the basic point that I have already raised - monogamy slows the spread of AIDS and other STI's there's no real surprise in that one.

What you don't see as a heterosexual person is all the campaigning within the gay community on these sorts of issues. Wherever one went in the 90's early 2000's in the gay community. i.e. pubs, clubs, commuity events the safe sex massage was slammed home. Condoms were thrown into audiences, mobile STI clinics made the rounds, pamphlets were freely available, even the effervescent drag queens performing their shows on saturday nights would push the message home.

And in my generation, safe sex became the social norm

However, I have noticed now that I think about it that this campaigning has dropped off. We have lulled ourselves into a false sense of security and yes, infection rates are rising. This is one of those issues that does not need to be in everyone's faces. It never was back then and it does not need to be now.

Back in your reply to me, you voiced the concern that marriage might be a fad in the gay community. It's not an entirely unreasonable fear. Let me shed some light on gay behaviour from my personal experience to give you some knowledge on how people within the community behave.

Lesbians are and always have been extremely relationship oriented. It's always been kind of a private joke in the gay community that one lesbian meets another, goes home with them and wakes up the next morning married. From all the lesbians I have met, this seems to be very true, they are all in pursuit of a partner.

Gay men are somewhat different. Some (like myself) are relationship oriented and are what we called serial monogamists (i.e may have had multiple partners but have been faithful to them) and others are true playboys. A lot of gay men play around a lot in their teens / 20's, reach the thirties, grow up and settle down with one guy. Some never do. Long term relationships are not uncommon at all in both lesbians and gays though. I literally know of dozens of both gay and lesbian couples that have been together 20 plus years (the longest being 42 years this September) - so they are as durable as heterosexual marriages.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 06:55 AM
link   
lo Mark and Charles.

Sorry to jump into the conversation, but I actually think there is a pretty knock down easy answer to Charles query.


Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by markosity1973
 

To quickly review, and I hope I'm getting it right, gays need to motivated to strive for stable marriage and monogamy. For various reasons, religious commands and social pressures won't supply the incentive. You're thinking about a campaign to make monogamy fashionable and romantic.

Charles, religious commands supplied enough incentive and social pressure to turn homosexual relations into what they were in the last thousand plus years i.e ... in the closet, on the down the low, and with permanence only being a fantasy.

An entire sub-culture has developed from this pressure. It's not possible to just decriminalize, wait a few decades, and click your fingers to fix everything after an era of discrimination and persecution. It will take time to adjust to that new freedom and for new generations to embrace the possibilities.

That said, gay men (and probably heterosexuals) will likely always be in a more dangerous bracket than lesbians. It's just the hormonal nature of gender.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
 

Charles, religious commands supplied enough incentive and social pressure to turn homosexual relations into what they were in the last thousand plus years i.e ... in the closet, on the down the low, and with permanence only being a fantasy.


You have hit the nail on the head there Pinke, well done
It's something that is difficult to put into words where the gay community has come from in terms of relationships and where it is headed, but you have got it absolutely right with the history of it all.



That said, gay men (and probably heterosexuals) will likely always be in a more dangerous bracket than lesbians. It's just the hormonal nature of gender.


Also an absolute truth. There is no denying that gay men are the highest risk group when it comes to STIs. Its not something that I or any other gay man would try and deny.

However, as we (gay men) and our moral values change (and they already have a lot since say the 1970's) the risk factor will decline as men become more relationship oriented. It's a strange thing, but my experience, having lived in 4 major cities in 2 countries now has lead me to understand that the gay male's attitude toward relationships vary wildly. One city I lived in, it was difficult to get attention let alone any loving, another was the seedy side of gay life that is the anti-gay thinkers stereotype fulfilled and another was a place that you meet someone and talk to them and a date was the expectation with relationships being the ultimate goal. The last one is the one I met my partner after only a month after arriving....





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join