I'm confused...Synthestesia wrote:I'm lesbian
LGBT BoCers
Moderator: Aesthetics
-
mechanismj
- Nova Scotia Robot
- Posts: 5153
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 3:35 am
- Contact:
-
Synthestesia
- Dayvan Cowboy
- Posts: 1721
- Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:31 pm
- Location: the place
- Contact:
-
turquoise70
- Happy Cycler
- Posts: 4893
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:30 am
- Location: the system
- Contact:
-
Synthestesia
- Dayvan Cowboy
- Posts: 1721
- Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:31 pm
- Location: the place
- Contact:
Q
I'm on page four of the article and have to stop right now, but there's so much in it that echos my school district and how I was treated by it's staff and peers, that it's a bizarre read.
I remember, one time, I went into the HEAD principles office with a lesbian friend of mine because we wanted to inquire about the school possibly partaking (by option only) in The Day Of Silence. There were a few Day of Silence's a year for Anti-Abortion, but none for the official date in silence for GBLTQ rights and argued with her for an hour. We failed and were threatened with suspension.
-
turquoise70
- Happy Cycler
- Posts: 4893
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:30 am
- Location: the system
- Contact:
fffghhh... this hits especially hard for me. Anoka district is only 10 minutes North of where I live. I grew up just south of this place, and as I grew up I remember encountering adults and their children who supported these kinds of anti-gay legislature.
"grand mistress of the grace note freedledeedee melodies" - Cupz, 2026
-
s7409651
- Sherbet Head
- Posts: 893
- Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:43 pm
- Location: Cape Town, South Africa
- Contact:
It's not that different here either. I'm lucky that I happen to be in a slightly more liberal area, but even recently there have been similar movements (even at my university) that were anti gay, even violently so.
Seeing the pictures of those kids that took their own lives brings tears to my eyes. So much potential, extinguished.
Seeing the pictures of those kids that took their own lives brings tears to my eyes. So much potential, extinguished.
-
Waterbagel
- Dayvan Cowboy
- Posts: 1922
- Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 12:50 am
- Location: gulf coast US
i still don't understand any argument against the right to marry two people of the same gender
aside from a religious standpoint.. there isn't one (that i can think of)
one argument that always makes me steamed is the slipper slope notion of "well if we allow this, then people can marry dead people/animals/etc."
no, they can't. you have to have consent from both parties. two men can easily give consent. two women can. a woman and a man can.
the only slippery slope notion i could even entertain is the idea of allowing polygamy.
while that is a concern (i'm not really for or against polygamy.. i haven't reached an understanding of how the world works and how people work to really make a claim on that), polygamy is different than marriage. marriage = 2. polygamy = 3+. we're not allowing ANYONE to engage in polygamy. however, we ARE disallowing a group of people to engage in marriage.
kinda more long-winded than i intended but you get my point and probably understand my take on the idea
aside from a religious standpoint.. there isn't one (that i can think of)
one argument that always makes me steamed is the slipper slope notion of "well if we allow this, then people can marry dead people/animals/etc."
no, they can't. you have to have consent from both parties. two men can easily give consent. two women can. a woman and a man can.
the only slippery slope notion i could even entertain is the idea of allowing polygamy.
while that is a concern (i'm not really for or against polygamy.. i haven't reached an understanding of how the world works and how people work to really make a claim on that), polygamy is different than marriage. marriage = 2. polygamy = 3+. we're not allowing ANYONE to engage in polygamy. however, we ARE disallowing a group of people to engage in marriage.
kinda more long-winded than i intended but you get my point and probably understand my take on the idea
There's NO valid argument (that I've ever heard) against the rights of gays, bisexuals and transgenders, or any criticism to make of those groups really, IMO.
The only possible issues I have pertaining to this certain field is when someone tells me not to use certain words derivative of meanings I'm not remotely implying with those words, and how often gay people are unfortunately obliged to align themselves liberally politically because politics in America (and in a lot of places around the world) is polarized and the only other main option consists of often prejudicial, religious people. Normally this sort of thing wouldn't be an issue to me whatsoever, but what happens is you get groups like HRC and whatnot who have good intentions on what they're fighting for but the mindset they function under considers things like getting TV shows about dudes in drag off the air or reporting on some blogger or someone else insignificant who used the word "gay" synonymous to "stupid", when they could be devoting their time, donation money and energy to reasonable purposes, which right now really is equality in marriage, by either promoting a movement of legalized gay marriage or alternatively recognizing marriage as a whole as an outdated concept and moving to have it disregarded from a legal standpoint for everyone, straight or gay.
However, that isn't a direct issue with LBGT rights itself. That'd be like saying that I'm against the rights of black people because of the NAACP, one particular ridiculous group. So, I don't talk about it much. I'm in full support of LBGT rights and I do believe though that if they got more serious collectively on identifying issues that they'd be taken a lot more seriously by a lot of people.
The only possible issues I have pertaining to this certain field is when someone tells me not to use certain words derivative of meanings I'm not remotely implying with those words, and how often gay people are unfortunately obliged to align themselves liberally politically because politics in America (and in a lot of places around the world) is polarized and the only other main option consists of often prejudicial, religious people. Normally this sort of thing wouldn't be an issue to me whatsoever, but what happens is you get groups like HRC and whatnot who have good intentions on what they're fighting for but the mindset they function under considers things like getting TV shows about dudes in drag off the air or reporting on some blogger or someone else insignificant who used the word "gay" synonymous to "stupid", when they could be devoting their time, donation money and energy to reasonable purposes, which right now really is equality in marriage, by either promoting a movement of legalized gay marriage or alternatively recognizing marriage as a whole as an outdated concept and moving to have it disregarded from a legal standpoint for everyone, straight or gay.
However, that isn't a direct issue with LBGT rights itself. That'd be like saying that I'm against the rights of black people because of the NAACP, one particular ridiculous group. So, I don't talk about it much. I'm in full support of LBGT rights and I do believe though that if they got more serious collectively on identifying issues that they'd be taken a lot more seriously by a lot of people.
Stupid Religious People who don't read their Bibles.
If Jesus was around today, all these people would want him killed.
I guarantee it.
Acts 8:26-40
John 4:4-42
John 7:53-8:11
Jesus was on the side of the people the religious people hated.
(Why do you think we put him on a cross to die)
And three days later he came back just to let them know that even death could not conquer him.
I'm Gay, and i'm a Christian.
(HOLY SHIT IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE?!?)
Ah, but don't worry... most of those people would say I worship the Devil.
(Matthew 12:22-37)
But God is the Devil and the Devil is God.
The Devil Condemns, God Forgives.
So my question is: Is a GSA a place of God or a Place of the Devil?
(Is a GSA a place of Forgiveness or a place of Condemnation?)
If Jesus was around today, all these people would want him killed.
I guarantee it.
Acts 8:26-40
John 4:4-42
John 7:53-8:11
Jesus was on the side of the people the religious people hated.
(Why do you think we put him on a cross to die)
And three days later he came back just to let them know that even death could not conquer him.
I'm Gay, and i'm a Christian.
(HOLY SHIT IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE?!?)
Ah, but don't worry... most of those people would say I worship the Devil.
(Matthew 12:22-37)
But God is the Devil and the Devil is God.
The Devil Condemns, God Forgives.
So my question is: Is a GSA a place of God or a Place of the Devil?
(Is a GSA a place of Forgiveness or a place of Condemnation?)
"The patience of a true enthusiast is unlimited." - Albert Camus
Yeah, and that comes from the old testament, and the passages I put down were direct contradictions of the old testament.Cupz wrote:Good point, but other verses from the bible can be smeared against that.
Leviticus 18 - 22 for example.
I say, leave that bible for what it is.
God died for us. He is dead now.
Women in those days had no rights, Eunuchs couldn't be a part of "The kingdom", and you couldn't have all you can eat shrimp buffet without being cast out of the "chosen people".
(Life kinda sucked back then fyi/imo)
What i'm trying to get at is these people sound just as dumb as the pharisees back in Jesus' day.
"The patience of a true enthusiast is unlimited." - Albert Camus