Listing Some Good Things
*They can take a joke. For the most part, comedians really let them have it these days, seemingly without much repercussion. I just cracked elsewhere about something being "totally gay", and if such shots are meant in humor it seems the gays think it is funny too. This contrasts with other groups, that's for sure.
*Not a lot of pushing and shoving. Less concern that verbal or actual roughhousing will be taking place when in their company.
*I think pretty soon we can say "queer" again in polite company, as this term is getting used by them now. As for now I assume it is like the N-word with Af/A's and only they can use it. But I hold out hope that this more convenient term from my youth is coming back.
*They tend to make quiet, cooperative neighbors who take care of their properties and improve them. They sometimes rehabilitate a neighborhood where people with school-age kids wouldnt dare.
*They may seem to suffer as a result of their orientation, but if they get ahead in life, it often is due to developing special talents and they deserve their promotions and advancements for the most part as much or more than straights.
The more homophobic on this board denounce gays as being egregious and "flaunting" their sexual orientation. Aside from the fact that such persons don't seem to have the same objections to a woman wearing a short skirt, a low-cut blouse, or heavy makeup, the truth of the matter is that you will encounter 100 gay persons before recognizing that one of them is, in fact, gay.
Evolved sensibilities regard people as people first and by their "differences" second, if at all. Not that there aren't some very unevolved sensibilities out there.
Quote: MoscaGays are pretty much the same as straights, except for whom they like to knock privates with. If you start with that, everything else kind of makes sense.
Untrue. The only MAN I can think of who talks with a lisp is Mike Tyson. Homo men use that as a love call to rope in others with the same issues they have.
Quote: mkl654321the truth of the matter is that you will encounter 100 gay persons before recognizing that one of them is, in fact, gay.
I would say the odds of that being true are extremely small. Of course there are many gay people who are indistinguishable in their appearance/actions from straight people, but there are enough of them that are 'flaunting ones' that it is almost inconceivable to me that I would encounter 100 'indistinguishable ones' before I would encounter a single 'flaunting one'. So, as the Wiz says, I call bullshit on your statement about 'the truth of the matter'.
Quote: mkl654321the truth of the matter is...
Quote: SOOPOOI would say the odds of that being true are extremely small. Of course there are many gay people who are indistinguishable in their appearance/actions from straight people, but there are enough of them that are 'flaunting ones' that it is almost inconceivable to me that I would encounter 100 'indistinguishable ones' before I would encounter a single 'flaunting one'. So, as the Wiz says, I call bullshit on your statement about 'the truth of the matter'.
I can't believe I'm saying this (actually I can, since I am in fact saying this), but cut mkl some slack. He obviously wasn't making a mathematical statement, but simply engaging in some conversational exaggeration. Meaning you're likely to meet many regular gay men, and for that matter lesbian women, who act "normal" before you meet one who flaunts his or her sexuality.
I assume also that by "meet" he meant "encounter." as in people you come accross in your everyday life. Co-workers, neighbors, service personnel, random strangers on the street, etc. He didn't say "see," either. Since if you've watched any of a number of TV shows, you've seen a flamboyant gay guy.
Quote: mkl654321The real question is, does a person's sexual orientation even come into play during the vast majority of his/her contacts with the world? In other words, should we even care whether the person who serves us a meal, buys our products, talks to us on the phone, goes to church with us, or works ithe same office as us is gay, straight, or some combination of the two?
The more homophobic on this board denounce gays as being egregious and "flaunting" their sexual orientation. Aside from the fact that such persons don't seem to have the same objections to a woman wearing a short skirt, a low-cut blouse, or heavy makeup, the truth of the matter is that you will encounter 100 gay persons before recognizing that one of them is, in fact, gay.
Evolved sensibilities regard people as people first and by their "differences" second, if at all. Not that there aren't some very unevolved sensibilities out there.
I don't think that's the real question at all. Everything mentioned in the first paragraph could be applied to a serial killer, or a child molester, or a bible scholar, or an astronomer, or whatever. Whatever the real question is, it's not "does a person's [whatever] even come into play during the vast majority of his/her contacts with the world?"
I also think it's a little presumptuous and unthinking to reflexively label any discussion of gays and the gay communities that has any negative components as "homophobic." I think any sane person understands that there's no one lifestyle where every single, solitary aspect of it completely, utterly, totally positive, with absolutely, positively NO negative aspects whatsoever. It's not homophobic to apply the same principal applied to all other demographies to the particular demography of homosexuals. In fact, it's bias, ignorant, and unthinking to not do so.
Rather than open people's minds to discussing the issue, calling people names or saying their sensibilities haven't sufficiently evolved gives the impression of trying to cut off debate using ridicule. That would raise the suspicions of anyone as to why you're trying to do that.
Because of several personal issues with homosexuality, I am positively disgusted by it and pity them. That aside, there is a certain level of tolerance that should be -expected- in a free culture by everyone. I give them enough such that if you ask anyone (including gays) that I have had extended contact with they would tell you they know my position on homosexuality, but it has never gotten in the way of anything beyond a personal relationship. In no realm does this mean that I -accept- their lifestyle choices, but in order to get by in this world I need to put up a facade of acceptance. I grew up around Seattle, went to the UW, lived on campus in Seattle - being militantly against homosexuality is worse than being an islamic terrorist. That's kind of a joke, but probably not much of a stretch.
Let me help the guy out of the unsupportable assertion corner he just painted himself into YET AGAIN!
No way would what he said be true if it were just homo men involved. But I wouldn't think that impossible with lesbians. HOWEVER, put 99 straight guys in a room with just one gay, and allow them to meet/greet you with a handshake and a few kind words. It would be a dead giveaway at that point.
Quote: odiousgambitso instead for now let me list some good things about these folks.
Is this a joke? If the thread was about Black people or about Native Americans, you could immediately see what was wrong with this bigoted, stereotypical type of rhetoric. "so instead for now let me list some good things about Black people".
See?
Quote: JerryLoganA post in which Jerry Logan claims he has good gaydar...
I'd probably give 4:1 odds that you'd not get the gay guy in a room full of straight guys right, and I'm taking 100 random people of the street. Well probably a few more and have to randomly select 99 self-describing straights and 1 self-describing gay gentleman.
Quote: EvenBobIs this a joke? If the thread was about Black people or about Native Americans, you could immediately see what was wrong with this bigoted, stereotypical type of rhetoric. "so instead for now let me list some good things about Black people".
See?
Imagine if it were about Muslims....
Quote: JerryLoganImagine if it were about Muslims....
Exactly. Since when is it OK to lump all Gay's together as one big stereotypical group? Try that with any other minority and you'll be tarred and feathered.
Quote:I'd probably give 4:1 odds that you'd not get the gay guy in a room full of straight guys right, and I'm taking 100 random people of the street. Well probably a few more and have to randomly select 99 self-describing straights and 1 self-describing gay gentleman.
Actually,
People can successfully guess with a very high degree of accuracy just by looking at the faces according to scientific research.
Regarding the odds of 4:1. I don't know that people could guess accurately enough to overcome these odds.
Quote: KeyserActually,
People can successfully guess with a very high degree of accuracy just by looking at the faces according to scientific research.
Regarding the odds of 4:1. I don't know that people could guess accurately enough to overcome these odds.
Rather my point of offering 4:1, that was my finger in the air guess of the odds, even given that you would get some clues (real or imagined) as to some one's sexuality by handshake and a few kind words.
Quote: EvenBobExactly. Since when is it OK to lump all Gay's together as one big stereotypical group? Try that with any other minority and you'll be tarred and feathered.
You can make fun of Jews, Eastern Indians, Europeans, Christians, Americans, Eastern Asians - any group that does well for itself on a large scale. You aren't allowed to make fun of underperforming minorities (or people who threaten murder at the insult of their prophet) like Blacks, Muslims, Native Americans, Southeastern Asians, Hispanics. Gays do pretty well for themselves and are on the cusp of joining the first group. Come on people, that's political correctness 101.
I don't know about you guys, but "getting jewed" is one of my favorite sayings and in 4 years of using it in Seattle only one person called me on it. She's a bitch.
Quote: SOOPOOI would say the odds of that being true are extremely small. Of course there are many gay people who are indistinguishable in their appearance/actions from straight people, but there are enough of them that are 'flaunting ones' that it is almost inconceivable to me that I would encounter 100 'indistinguishable ones' before I would encounter a single 'flaunting one'. So, as the Wiz says, I call bullshit on your statement about 'the truth of the matter'.
It ain't bullshit. You may GUESS that a person is gay, but you will almost NEVER be able to TELL that a person is gay simply by looking at them. Homophobes look at any man who dresses flamboyantly and sneer, "Oh, that's a fairy/gayboy/queer/fag/etc." That's an unwarranted snap judgment, whether it happens to be true in any particular case or not.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerI don't think that's the real question at all. Everything mentioned in the first paragraph could be applied to a serial killer, or a child molester, or a bible scholar, or an astronomer, or whatever. Whatever the real question is, it's not "does a person's [whatever] even come into play during the vast majority of his/her contacts with the world?"
I also think it's a little presumptuous and unthinking to reflexively label any discussion of gays and the gay communities that has any negative components as "homophobic." I think any sane person understands that there's no one lifestyle where every single, solitary aspect of it completely, utterly, totally positive, with absolutely, positively NO negative aspects whatsoever. It's not homophobic to apply the same principal applied to all other demographies to the particular demography of homosexuals. In fact, it's bias, ignorant, and unthinking to not do so.
Rather than open people's minds to discussing the issue, calling people names or saying their sensibilities haven't sufficiently evolved gives the impression of trying to cut off debate using ridicule. That would raise the suspicions of anyone as to why you're trying to do that.
You miss my point by a couple of million miles. Gay-bashers denounce the "openness" and "flaunting" that some gay people supposedly do. But I would submit that there are far more straight people, on a percentage basis, who "flaunt" their sexuality to at least as great an extent. Why is it OK for a woman to wear a tight blouse or a man to wear tight jeans if they're straight, but not if they're gay?
Quote: MKL54321It ain't bullshit. You may GUESS that a person is gay, but you will almost NEVER be able to TELL that a person is gay simply by looking at them.
According to scientific research, you're wrong. People CAN tell by just looking at the face an unusually high percentage of the time. There does appear to be a phenotype.
I'm looking for the ariticles to back up my statement. I believe I read it on either Sciam.com or Sciencenewsdaily.com.
-Keyser
Quote: ahiromuYou can make fun of Jews, Eastern Indians, Europeans, Christians, Americans, Eastern Asians - any group that does well for itself on a large scale. You aren't allowed to make fun of underperforming minorities (or people who threaten murder at the insult of their prophet) like Blacks, Muslims, Native Americans, Southeastern Asians, Hispanics.
You aren't allowed to lump ANY group of people under one stereotypical umbrella! Try referring to Jews or Asians or Blacks or Muslims as 'they' or 'them' or 'you people' and see how far you get.
Quote: KeyserAccording to scientific research, you're wrong. People CAN tell by just looking at the face an unusually high percentage of the time.
I'm looking for the ariticles to back up my statement. I believe I read it on either Sciam.com or Sciencenewsdaily.com.
-Keyser
Even if you find such an article, it would need provenance. The results of some random study wouldn't alone serve to back up such an outrageous claim.
Quote: mkl654321It ain't bullshit. You may GUESS that a person is gay, but you will almost NEVER be able to TELL that a person is gay simply by looking at them. Homophobes look at any man who dresses flamboyantly and sneer, "Oh, that's a fairy/gayboy/queer/fag/etc." That's an unwarranted snap judgment, whether it happens to be true in any particular case or not.
You're too biased and aren't capable of discussing this with an open mind. I don't think anything of anyone who dresses flamboyantly other than he's a phony. When's the last time you heard a guy with a lisp who wasn't a queer? When's the last time you walked around San Francisco or Provincetown and saw a straight man wearing short tight shorts with a muscle shirt and he didn't have any muscels?
By the way, I don't mind Lesbians that are very attractive and that enjoy rubbing suntan lotion on each other.
Quote: mkl654321You miss my point by a couple of million miles. Gay-bashers denounce the "openness" and "flaunting" that some gay people supposedly do. But I would submit that there are far more straight people, on a percentage basis, who "flaunt" their sexuality to at least as great an extent. Why is it OK for a woman to wear a tight blouse or a man to wear tight jeans if they're straight, but not if they're gay?
Golly, I don't know how I could missed the point. I thought your beginning, opening, primary, initial, first, out-of-the-gate topic sentence/paragraph was ...
Quote: mkl654321The real question is, does a person's sexual orientation even come into play during the vast majority of his/her contacts with the world? In other words, should we even care whether the person who serves us a meal, buys our products, talks to us on the phone, goes to church with us, or works ithe same office as us is gay, straight, or some combination of the two?
I didn't miss your point at all. You state it, then you restate it: "In other words ..."
Most people who can write at least decently put their topic sentence first and support the point with the content, not bury their "main point" deep in their statement. If you don't write like that, don't assume that I missed something. Assume that you missed something.
I suspect that I didn't miss the point at all, but that you are changing it - knowingly or unknowingly - as a smoke screen to avoid countering my response. I don't know if your intent is to be argumentative or confusing or obfuscating or to make yourself feel smart, but if I take you at face value, at best it comes across as piss-poor writing, and at worst that you're outright lying. At the very least, I would hope that you would stop reflexively and closed-mindedly assigning nasty motives to anyone who sees some negative aspects to the homosexual lifestyle, but that may not be a realistic expectation for you.
I'm not generally a Rhetoric Nazi any more than I'm a Spelling or Grammar Nazi, but this is pretty effing egregious. Try re-writing the original posit, this time putting your point first instead of burying it deep in the post and then blaming others for missing your point.
NB: I could be wrong, but it's difficult for me to imagine this re-write (if undertaken) conveying the same point at all as the initial write. I guess we'll see ...
Don't know that I necessarily agree with that. Opening sentences/paragraphs (and I am talking about good writing) often set the stage for a presentation rather than dumping the conclusion on the front end. It can be a very effective form of communication.Quote: ItsCalledSoccer... Most people who can write at least decently put their topic sentence first and support the point with the content, not bury their "main point" deep in their statement. ...
Now I'm not claiming that is what mkl did in this particular instance -- I'm just saying that if every post and every conversation presented its conclusion in the first line and rambled off after that trying to justify what had already been stated, we'd be having some pretty stilted and boring discussions in our lives.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerMost people who can write at least decently put their topic sentence first and support the point with the content, not bury their "main point" deep in their statement. .
That is indeed the standard to which I hold my freshman English high school students, because they haven't developed the expertise to know how and when to deviate from it. However, any writing more sophisticated than that does not need to conform to that standard. See: the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, JFK's inauguration speech. For that matter, see any newspaper editorial/opinion column.
Quote: KeyserAccording to scientific research, you're wrong. People CAN tell by just looking at the face an unusually high percentage of the time. There does appear to be a phenotype.
I'm looking for the ariticles to back up my statement. I believe I read it on either Sciam.com or Sciencenewsdaily.com.
Here's the reference. Really though, better than random is about as useful as guessing who's a witch, for purposes of witch burning. (I didn't see the exact stat in the article though, so maybe it's more impressive than I thought)
Are gays really obvious? For instance this list.
Rock Hudson
Portia De Rosi
Lindsay Lohan
John Travolta
and this guy?
Well, now that I see Rosi with Ellen, it may be obvious NOW. From the stories heard later about Hudson, it might have been obvious if he wanted to let you know. I'm really not sure about Travolta, but hear suggestions more than once that he might be.
Quote: boymimboWhat is the point of this thread except to inspire some hatred, name-calling, and generalizations which in the end contributes nothing to this web site or society as a whole?
That's what I keep asking myself!
Quote: boymimboWhat is the point of this thread except to inspire some hatred, name-calling, and generalizations which in the end contributes nothing to this web site or society as a whole?
To give JerryLogan another opportunity to spew hatred.
