# General Discussion > Opinions >  Gay Marriage OFFTOPIC Mike v Hyde

## Mike Cash

I can't wait so see her rant when she learns there are states which have laws against fornication.

----------


## Mike Cash

> There is a big difference between making a sexual POSITION illegal/legel and actual types of sexual RELATIONSHIPS. Why do you keep making these broad connections with things like this? I never said a thing about inter-person sexual relationships, I was talking about a sexual position. Stop trying to make it sound as though I am saying things that I am not please.


Didn't read the paragraph below it, did you?

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

Yes, actually I did. That doesn't mean I can't take offense to what you said, meant in jest or otherwise.

----------


## Mike Cash

> Yes, actually I did. That doesn't mean I can't take offense to what you said, meant in jest or otherwise.


It also doesn't mean you can't ignore it in order to be able to be offended by it, apparently.

Here's a little pop quiz:

What do you think my position on gay marriage is?

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

I am not the type to ignore something that bothers me, sorry.

What's your position on gay marriage? I really couldn't give a s**t. However, to appease you I will say this much, the obvious answer to your question would be to say you're against it. But if that were the case you wouldn't be asking, now would you because it would be, well, a stupid question. So the logical answer is to say that you aren't against it. But then how could I know since you haven't told me? And frankly I don't care. I disagree with the things you say, the fact that you're pro/anti has nothing to do with my reactions to your posts it is the posts themselves.

----------


## Mike Cash

That is a very encouraging answer. You are right; I haven't told you.

But before I asked the question and made you notice that, were you operating on the assumption that we have opposite opinions?

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

Did just miss the last part of that paragraph? Apparently. Your actual standing on the matter has no bearing on my reactions to what you say, it is the very things you say themselves, they and they alone. *I do not care what your standing on the matter is and it had nothing to do with how I responded to your posts.* That clear enough for you?

----------


## Mike Cash

> Did just miss the last part of that paragraph? Apparently. Your actual standing on the matter has no bearing on my reactions to what you say, it is the very things you say themselves, they and they alone. *I do not care what your standing on the matter is and it had nothing to do with how I responded to your posts.* That clear enough for you?


What is even more clear is that you are unable to engage in a rational discussion with adults without flying into a rage.

----------


## No-name

C'mon Mike, stop fighting it and surrender to your true feelings. You love me as deeply as I love you. I can't stand to think of living another day without you for the rest of my life. Marry me.

While I am here, does anyone have an explanation for why all the threads in the serious discussion part of the member's lounge are now in the Europe Forum? Even American Issues are now in Europe? Has there been a shift in government that I don't know about?

----------


## Mike Cash

> C'mon Mike, stop fighting it and surrender to your true feelings. You love me as deeply as I love you. I can't stand to think of living another day without you for the rest of my life. Marry me.


There have been countless times over the last 20 years when some irritating words or deeds from my wife have prompted me to say, "Next time, I'm marrying a guy!" I will keep your proposal in mind.




> While I am here, does anyone have an explanation for why all the threads in the serious discussion part of the member's lounge are now in the Europe Forum? Even American Issues are now in Europe? Has there been a shift in government that I don't know about?


Only Europeans are serious. They're also the main ones interested in discussing American issues on what used to be a Japan-themed forum.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

> What is even more clear is that you are unable to engage in a rational discussion with adults without flying into a rage.


Where do you people get this idea that I get into "rages"? I wasn't swearing, using too many ! marks to be at natural or anything like that. I wasn't even upset. You seem to be incapable have having a conversation were someone disagrees with you without thinking they're just off their rocker or "in a rage" just because they don't agree with you.

----------


## Mike Cash

> Where do you people get this idea that I get into "rages"?


I wasn't aware that we people got that idea. I thought maybe it was just me.




> I wasn't swearing, using too many ! marks to be at natural or anything like that. I wasn't even upset. You seem to be incapable have having a conversation were someone disagrees with you without thinking they're just off their rocker or "in a rage" just because they don't agree with you.


Alright. You don't go into rages. Just tirades.

----------


## Mike Cash

> Oh dear!
> A Rick Santorum has been pulled!
> Alert the PC police!


Yet another person who can't read the next paragraph.....

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

Again just because something is said in jest does not mean people can't take offense to it. It's like bad race jokes, they're jokes but you can still get pissed over them. A joke in bad taste is still just plain bad taste joke or not.



> Alright. You don't go into rages. Just tirades


Ya know what, if you are seriously that hellbent on making me out to be a loose canon then go right ahead. But the truth of the matter is, you have yet to see me in an actual "tirade" no one here has actually. If you think the things I'm saying now are tirades then you have obviously never been witness to a real one. In all honesty, I think I might have had a right to blow a gasket at you but I didn't, I could have yelled insults at you but I didn't, I could have attacked you personally instead of keeping it to politics but I didn't. You have no idea just how nasty I can be and I've tried to keep it that way throughout this discussion. But you just keep pushing and pushing as though you _want_ me to go into an actual tirade. Well sorry, you won't get your wish. 'Cause I'm not about to loose it over you.
And I still think the reason you wanna make me seem like a loose canon is 'cause you just can't stand the idea that someone in complete control of her faculties could possibly disagree with you. You seem to take disagreement highly personally when all it is, is disagreement, plain and simple. It's nothing personal and it doesn't equal someone having a temper problem either.

----------


## Mike Cash

I don't want you to lose your temper. To the contrary, I would dearly love to see you learn to better focus your posts and thereby increase your chances of bringing people who disagree with you around to your way of thinking. I believe I have so stated at least two or three times.

You're good at preaching to the choir, but the choir already votes the way you do (or will, when you turn 18). It is those whose opinions differ whom you need to influence. Rationality and focus are what it takes to do that. For better or worse, emotional appeals don't do the trick.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

That first paragraph comes across as more of a bate then sincarity.

If your opinions and mine are so "smiliar" then why is that we don't agree? In the end we both might support the same thing however that does not mean our actual _opinions_ are the same.

And I am sorry that I cannot be a stone cold debater, truly I am. I wish I could just switch off my emotions, it would save me a lot of pain. But if I did that, that would make me no different from the bigots I so loath who can't see others as human beings just because they don't live the way they do and it would make me something less then human. So actually, now that I think about it, even if I _could_ switch off my emotions I wouldn't. I would rather remain human then join those I stand against.
"Rationality and focus" I am rational and I am focused just not in the way YOU would like me to be. Just because someone is different does not mean they do not posses such things and just because they imploy them differently then you do does not mean they don't exist.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

Emotions are quite fine to employ as a tool in debates or advancing social issues. Courts, jugdes and juries are often swayed by the emotions that come forth. They may give lip service to the evidence, but the emotions of a 6 year old child who bravely agrees to testify on the stand through tears while recalling a viscious rape from someone will sway the onlookers.

If the facts were the only thing that was valued, all juries would be supplied with just transcripts of the words.

That is but one example. There are many.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

Thank you. I needed that, truly. Thank you.

----------


## Mike Cash

> That first paragraph comes across as more of a bate then sincarity.


I am saddened that you have trouble taking me at my word.




> If your opinions and mine are so "smiliar" then why is that we don't agree? In the end we both might support the same thing however that does not mean our actual _opinions_ are the same.


Two people can disagree about which road to take to the same destination.

For example:

I don't think there is anywhere in the Constitution a right to gay marriage or abortion. The closest thing I can find is the 10th Amendment, which reserves such decisions to the individual states to decide. This is not to say that I think either gay marriage or abortion should necessarily be outlawed. Just that I don't think there is any way to find a constitutional right for them.

I think the road to take is to change people's hearts and minds and institute change through the legislative process. Others, perhaps including yourself, see the matter as a fundamental human rights issue and believe the courts can/should find those rights embodied in some portion of the Bill of Rights.




> And I am sorry that I cannot be a stone cold debater, truly I am. I wish I could just switch off my emotions, it would save me a lot of pain. But if I did that, that would make me no different from the bigots I so loath who can't see others as human beings just because they don't live the way they do and it would make me something less then human.


I wouldn't want you to be devoid of emotions or untrue to yourself.




> So actually, now that I think about it, even if I _could_ switch off my emotions I wouldn't. I would rather remain human then join those I stand against.


Those with whom you disagree are no less human than yourself. And it isn't necessary to "join" them. It is only necessary to appeal to them to come around to your way of thinking. So long as the majority are either satisfied with the status quo or are moving toward making changes in it in a direction not to your liking, the onus will be on the minority to be the ones changing hearts and minds. The other side need do nothing but (continue to) ignore your side.

To increase the chances of changing their hearts and minds and thereby bring about the changes you desire, it is helpful to be able to present your side in a manner they are more open to listening to and more likely to be able to bring themselves to accepting.




> "Rationality and focus" I am rational and I am focused just not in the way YOU would like me to be. Just because someone is different does not mean they do not posses such things and just because they imploy them differently then you do does not mean they don't exist.


The key isn't ME. I'm trying to point out how to have a greater effect when presenting your ideas and motivating toward change when interacting with the people who actively oppose gay marriage. As far as I personally am concerned, I admire your passion. I thought I had made that clear, but I guess I failed.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

> I think the road to take is to change people's hearts and minds and institute change through the legislative process. Others, perhaps including yourself, see the matter as a fundamental human rights issue and believe the courts can/should find those rights embodied in some portion of the Bill of Rights.


When did I ever say that you could find the "right to gay marriage" in the Bill of Rights? You can't. But here's the rub, the Bill of Rights was written a very, very, VERY LONG time ago and if we went by the rights and only the rights in the Bill of Rights then I know a few women and blacks who would be protesting right about now. So, going by what you're saying, no right that is not in the Bill of Rights should stand as a human right. Which would leave us in an even more f**ked up world then the one we currently live in, which is a scary thought since the world's pretty f**ked as 'tis.




> To increase the chances of changing their hearts and minds and thereby bring about the changes you desire, it is helpful to be able to present your side in a manner they are more open to listening to and more likely to be able to bring themselves to accepting.


Tell me, have you ever been on the receiving end of homophobia? Do you know what it is like to be objectifide and not even seen as something human? Have you ever had someone tell you that you are going to hell with all the rapists and pedaphiles? Have you ever had people treat you as though you are no more human then the dirt in their yard? I'm sorry, but after having gone through that myself it is a little difficult for me to smile pretty for the camera, so to speak. And here's the problem, why are Christians going to listening to a morally bankrupt homosexual who's gonig to Hell even if she does present her case in the manner you think she should? They don't hear us, no matter what we say they won't listen. Because in their eyes we are nothing but sinners and perverts on a fast track to Hell.




> As far as I personally am concerned, I admire your passion. I thought I had made that clear, but I guess I failed.


No, sorry, that was completely lost on me. It's hard to think someone admires you when they're openingly bashing you. But hey, that could just be me. I'm sure there's lots of people who take insults as a way of showing admiration.

----------


## Mike Cash

> When did I ever say that you could find the "right to gay marriage" in the Bill of Rights? You can't.


You didn't say that it isn't in there. But since all you did when I earlier mentioned neither the "right" to abortion nor the "right" to gay marriage are in the Constitution was to have something that bore a remarkable resemblance to what is vulgarly known as a "hissy fit", how was I to know?

This is what I've been trying to get across to you. You're not going to change any minds like that. Pointing me to the 9th Amendment, on the other hand....that would be a different story.




> But here's the rub, the Bill of Rights was written a very, very, VERY LONG time ago and if we went by the rights and only the rights in the Bill of Rights then I know a few women and blacks who would be protesting right about now.


Please see:

Article 5
9th Amendment
13th Amendment
14th Amendment
15th Amendment
19th Amendment
24th Amendment





> So, going by what you're saying, no right that is not in the Bill of Rights should stand as a human right.


Please see:

9th Amendment





> Tell me, have you ever been on the receiving end of homophobia?


Not being homosexual myself, no.




> Do you know what it is like to be objectifide and not even seen as something human?


Since before you were born, dear friend. I'm a gaijin. Unlike sexual orientation, I can't hide it.




> Have you ever had someone tell you that you are going to hell with all the rapists and pedaphiles?


I have a policy of not allowing myself to be defined by the smallness of others.




> Have you ever had people treat you as though you are no more human then the dirt in their yard?


Yes.




> I'm sorry, but after having gone through that myself it is a little difficult for me to smile pretty for the camera, so to speak. And here's the problem, why are Christians going to listening to a morally bankrupt homosexual who's gonig to Hell even if she does present her case in the manner you think she should? They don't hear us, no matter what we say they won't listen. Because in their eyes we are nothing but sinners and perverts on a fast track to Hell.


I think that someday perhaps you will come to realize that Christians aren't a one-size-fits-all proposition.




> No, sorry, that was completely lost on me. It's hard to think someone admires you when they're openingly bashing you. But hey, that could just be me. I'm sure there's lots of people who take insults as a way of showing admiration.


I said I admire your passion. If you realize that isn't a blanket endorsement then you will see there is no inherent inconsistency or hypocrisy involved when and if I disagree on other aspects.

And, yes, I do think you've gotten your nose inordinately out of joint over our exchanges and see no real point in continuing them further.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

You know, you're kind of annoying. Do people ever tell you that? 'Cause it's true, you are. I could keep trying to make sense to you but it's clear that unless I stoop to a pre-school level of explainnig things you're never going to get it.
We could keep battling our way around the Legal System all day and it won't get us anywhere 'cause we both know it too well and therefor can counter eachother perfectly.
But I still think the reason you insist I through hissy fits is because you can't stand the fact that someone might possibly think you're wrong. I didn't through a hissy fit in the incedent you're referring to, I just hit you with your own medicine. And if that classifies as a hissy fit maybe you should start looking inward instead of outward.
But I am sick of trying to get through to you and I am not gonig to waist anymore of my time on you.

----------


## Mike Cash

The feeling is mutual, I assure you. I've tried to talk to you like an adult and now realize the folly of that. Right to the end I've tried to have a reasoned discussion with you, only to be met with combative juvenile replies and suspicions of my motives.

And don't flatter yourself into thinking you have "hit" me with anything. Nor should you think you know your way around the legal system any too well. You'll need a lot more trips around the sun before either of those come to pass.

Last bit of unsolicited advice on posting: Proofread.

----------


## Mike Cash

Did some posts get arbitrarily deleted from this thread?

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

Well, since we have a whole section to ourselves now (*roll of the eyes*)

The words "older" and "wiser" are not Synonyms for each other. Just because you have been around longer then someone does not mean you are any more mature or wise then they are and vise versa. Age and knowledge, wisdom, maturity etc don't go hand in hand. Matter of fact some of the most immature people I know are adults.

And you know, I said we BOTH knew our way around the system, that includes you. I credited you on your knowledge. But what did you do? Insult my knowledge and speak down to me. If I had done the same thing, well, I could just see the rant coming. But I didn't do that, now did I? You, on the other hand, went on a "I'm older then you so hahahahah!" ego trip.

Last bit of unsolicited advice on posting: Rich gifts wax poor when givers prove unkind.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

No. They got moved.

----------


## Mike Cash

> No. They got moved.


Ah, I see. Thank you very much.

----------


## Mike Cash

> Last bit of unsolicited advice on posting: Rich gifts wax poor when givers prove unkind.


̂tĂԂ܂

I'm trying to understand how this rated breaking off into a new thread.

I especially don't appreciate that it makes it look as though I instigated the thread. No real reason, just that I normally don't start threads.

----------


## Kinsao

I think the reason why this was broken off was because the original 'homosexuality and gay marriage' thread had turned into something of a dualogue, so maybe someone thought that it might discourage other people from posting in the thread, so they decided to put your discussion in another thread.

I've forgotten what you were debating to begin with. Was it that Hyde thinks gay couples ought to be allowed (legally, I mean) to get married, and Mike doesn't? (Because I didn't get the impression that Mike is 'against' gay marriage... although I might be wrong... correct me if so. ^^) Or was it about a legal point relating to that? (I don't know the first thing about American/US laws... ><)

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

We're debating technicalities in the Legal System regarding Gay Marriage. As well as each other's core beliefs it would seem.

----------


## Kinsao

Ah. Technicalities in the legal system. No wonder I'm lost! *retires*

----------


## Mike Cash

> We're debating technicalities in the Legal System regarding Gay Marriage


Oh, is that what we were doing? I thought I was doing that and you were avoiding debating technicalities in the legal system regarding gay marriage and telling me how much I annoy you.




> As well as each other's core beliefs it would seem.


And which core beliefs would those be?

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

Do you know the meaning of the word "petty"? 'Cause that's what you're being right now.

I am not avoiding anything, the fact that I think you're annoying and am not afraid to say so does not mean I am avoiding anything. On the contrary. And yes, we were debating the legal system, like it or not.

And I can't make up my mind if you're trying to take a low blow at me or were just being ignorant with that last comment.

----------


## Mike Cash

Sure, I'm petty. What's your point?

I'm just at a loss to understand how we are "debating" the legal system when you very early on opted out of active discussion of it with me.

And the last comment (actually, it was a question) was sincere. Which core beliefs were we debating?

----------


## Mike Cash

> *sighs* Pointless.


Ain't it, though? But we both keep on going to see who is going to get the last word in anyway.




> Now getting back on topic:
> 
> I've noticed that the "strongest" anti-gay argument most people can make concerning Gay Marriage is that "legalizing same-sex marriages will undermine the institution of marriage." But this statement hinges on the argument that marriage is not a legal matter but a religious one. But as I said before, there are quite a few problems with this way of thinking. To take the above standing is to say that it's not about legal marriage in the secular or civil sense but Holy Wedlock, a Union of Two God-Fearing Members of the Opposite Sexes and this is putting the right to marriage in a religious category. So in essence, Christians are saying that the whole country should follow their ideals concerning marriage, that sounds an awful lot like an Established Church of America to me. To pass laws in America forcing citizens to follow a moral code based upon the Bible, 'the word of the Christian God', is in a sense establishing said church as the Church of America. And according to dear Mike Cash's own definition of the Bill of Rights, this is against the law.


How did you manage to so completely misunderstand my words as to be able to arrive at that 180 degree out of phase mischaracterization of my opinion?




> The reason laws forbidding murder, rape etc are expectable is because these are basic moral values found everywhere not just in Christianity. They're found in other religions as well as completely outside of religion. But the moral code dictating that homosexuality is immoral is found solely in religion and primarily in Christianity. Meaning by passing laws banning Gay Marriage that are blatantly based on Christianity the White House is all but officially naming that religion the religion of America. Matter of fact, President Bush used his religious convictions and therefore anti-standing on Gay Marriage as a campaign tool when running for office the second time. In his public speeches he talks as though he considers America to be entirely Christian with the exception of the Gay Community. "Our moral values", "_America's_ moral values" again, that sounds an awful lot like America has an Established Church to me.
> Another reason laws banning murder are different then laws banning Gay Marriage is this, murder is one person infringing on another person's rights by taking the other's life without their consent. That is violating another citizen's rights. However, Gay Marriage takes place between two consenting adults, they are not violating the other's rights in any way by marrying. To make an action wrong in the eyes of the State it has to be in violation of the rights of either a third party or the person in question themselves. Gay Marriage falls under none of those categories. Which means the only reason these laws stand is due to religion, which means the United States of America is going against its own Constitution because it is establishing Christianity as America's Religion.


How is any of that on topic in this thread?
This is the OFFTOPIC: Mike vs Hyde thread....remember?

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

First comment: If you don't wish to be misunderstood then find more intelligible and clear ways of stating your points.

Second comment: Because anything I post in the original topic seems to get bumped here anyway *points to top of page* See? But I can post it there too if it'll make you happy. And besides this topic got started because we were disagreeing about Gay Marriage so shouldn't the GM discussion continue on here as well?

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

lol  :Laughing: 

And Mike Cash, I can post that one post here if you wish (actually I did but I'm editing) but I swear it'll just get deleted or moved if I do so yeah.

----------


## Mike Cash

> First comment: If you don't wish to be misunderstood then find more intelligible and clear ways of stating your points.


Perhaps you could try reading above your grade level. I'm not in the habit of dumbing down my comments.




> Second comment: Because anything I post in the original topic seems to get bumped here anyway *points to top of page* See?


You are quite right. Like a man in orthopedic shoes, I stand corrected.




> But I can post it there too if it'll make you happy. And besides this topic got started because we were disagreeing about Gay Marriage so shouldn't the GM discussion continue on here as well?


This is another reason I don't think breaking the thread made any sense at all.

(Were we disagreeing about gay marriage?)

----------


## No-name

Mike- I can understand you perfectly, but I can't actually figure out what the focus of this offtopic thread must be. Perhaps if you two would start merciless slamming each other over eating meat or worshipping some other god, get really fringe strange conspiracy theory...or perhaps if you use the word nazi in some kind of new creative way-- we could understand why this has been moved here. It is not even clear why this is OffTopic or who moved it. I wish people would tell you why they do such things.

----------


## Mike Cash

I just as puzzled as you are about why the thread got broken off.

Excuse my brevity, but I have to pin a swastika on my baby harp seal coat and go sacrifice a whale to Baal now.

----------


## Kinsao

I actually went back to the original thread to try and find what you were disagreeing about in the first place, but I've had no luck so far... I think I didn't go back far enough...  :Mad:

----------


## Tsuyoiko

Mea culpa. I split the thread because you were no longer arguing about gay marriage, but more about each others opinions. That way, you can carry on with your argument without distracting anyone else from the point of the thread. I hope that makes sense to you guys  :Smiling:

----------


## Mikawa Ossan

> Excuse my brevity, but I have to put pin a swastika on my baby harp seal coat and go sacrifice a whale to Baal now.


I'm sorry to butt in, but this is one of the funniest things I've read in a while!

----------


## MeAndroo

> I actually went back to the original thread to try and find what you were disagreeing about in the first place, but I've had no luck so far... I think I didn't go back far enough...


I think the "discussion" actually started when Hyde made a post with no paragraph breaks and Mike said she should. Hyde thought that an empassioned post would get attention regardless of the formatting, and Mike thought the majority of forumers would merely gloss over it, thus making any emotion in it moot. It took off from there.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

> Perhaps you could try reading above your grade level.


Does Virginia Woolf count? Or perhaps Shakespeare, Ibsen, Emily Dickinson?




> I'm not in the habit of dumbing down my comments.


I'm not asking you to "dumb down" your comments, just make them clearer.
Oh, side note: Speaking intelligently, last time I checked, didn't equal speaking down to someone.




> I just as puzzled as you are about why the thread got broken off.


Huh, guess we both need to proofread more.  :Poh:  Me talk pretty one day.

----------


## Mike Cash

I wonder if Virginia Woolf, Billy Shakespeare, Ibsen, or Emily Dickinson would have come away with a bass-ackwards understanding of what I wrote regarding the Establishment Clause.

Reading intelligently, last time I checked, didn't equal blaming the writer for one's own failure to comprehend what others grasped easily.

Where have you been the last couple of days? I missed seeing you around.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Where have you been the last couple of days? I missed seeing you around.


Careful Mike, you'll make Sabro jealous  :Laughing:

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

> I wonder if Virginia Woolf, Billy Shakespeare, Ibsen, or Emily Dickinson would have come away with a bass-ackwards understanding of what I wrote regarding the Establishment Clause.


Actually I think dear Billy (refer to his sonnets) and Virginia (a.k.a Mrs. Dalloway) might agree with me on this subject. Eh-hem. As well as, Tschaikowsky, Oscar Wilde, and Tennessee Williams.




> Reading intelligently, last time I checked, didn't equal blaming the writer for one's own failure to comprehend what others grasped easily.


Who are these others that you speak of? Everyone on here seems pretty mystified by this whole affair actually.

----------


## No-name

Ibsen: Vision of Hedda feeding the Loevborg manuscript into the fire:"I'm burning your child!" (Even gave Oscar Wilde the chills.)

How is homosexuality viewed in your country or culture?

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

Is that question directed to me or someone else? Because if it's to me, and since your country flag is the same as mine, I would assume you already know that.

----------


## No-name

The question is directed at everyone and anyone. I'm certain our perceptions on the treatment of homosexuality are different even if we do have the same little flags.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

I think my own personal opinions on this matter have been made rather clear throughout this debate. As far as the opinion of my country...well, just watch the news.  :Wary:

----------


## No-name

In my school we have a counselor who happens to be gay. He adopted a young man who was having extreme troubles at home because of his sexual orientation-- and was basically abandoned and homeless at the point that my friend stepped in. I have a teacher that adopted a boy who was being physically abused by a step father and emotionally abandoned by his mother. There is one kid- who is flamboyant and openly gay, and in spite of some teasing seems to have adjusted quite well and is somewhat popular among at least his circle of friends.

I think there still is a great deal of intolerance and prejudice in the US directed against homosexuals. That especially young men face bitter and vicious harassment, taunting and even physical violence. We remain a bigoted and intolerant society to homosexuals...But I also feel that there is a significantly higher degree of acceptance than any other time in our history... That homosexuals face fewer restrictions and less prejudice legally and in the work place than before.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

"Fewer" do you realize how that sounds? So just because not _as many_ people harass us then it's suddenly okay when a _slightly_ smaller number does? Right.

----------


## strongvoicesforward

> "Fewer" do you realize how that sounds? So just because not _as many_ people harass us then it's suddenly okay when a _slightly_ smaller number does? Right.


Yes, Hyde, you are right and quite perceptive. There is smugness in the minds of those who qualify their words so as to make things seem "not that bad," so therefore you should be grateful for the scraps you have been thrown. I mean, why should you demand an actual equal chair at the table. You are not like them to deserve such. 

I am glad to see you identify it and reject such rubbish. That is the offering of those who do not wish to grant equality of consideration for the hurt they cause.

----------


## No-name

Didn't at all ever say it was okay. You will face harassment and oposition. That is not new. I don't think it is fair and it won't come from me. Just be prepared for intollerance and bigotry.

It will not stop you however from going to college, getting an education and securing a job in the profession of your choice. It will not prevent you from buying a house and getting the loan, of buying a car and driving without fear of the police arresting you. I would say that that is a significant improvement over the way thing were thirty years ago.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

> Yes, Hyde, you are right and quite perceptive. There is smugness in the minds of those who qualify their words so as to make things seem "not that bad," so therefore you should be grateful for the scraps you have been thrown. I mean, why should you demand an actual equal chair at the table. You are not like them to deserve such. 
> 
> I am glad to see you identify it and reject such rubbish. That is the offering of those who do not wish to grant equality of consideration for the hurt they cause.


Right the whole "be glad you have a roof over your head" BS doesn't wash with me. Yes, it's terrible that some people don't but does that mean that I have to lie down and take it just because I have it slightly better then some? Hell no.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

> It will not stop you however from going to college, getting an education and securing a job in the profession of your choice. It will not prevent you from buying a house and getting the loan, of buying a car and driving without fear of the police arresting you. I would say that that is a significant improvement over the way thing were thirty years ago.


Actually yes it will. People still get fired for others THINKING that they MIGHT be gay nevermind if they're actually gay. Sure the company'll have a cover reason but everyone knows the real reason for them getting sacked.

----------


## No-name

Again I never said "be glad you have a roof over your head" or anything close to that sentiment. As far as "lie down and take it..." I never asked you to, don't expect you to and would not want that.

Don't misunderstand what I am saying. It is quite clear if you read it.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

Did I say that you said that? No. I was replying to SVF not you.

----------


## No-name

I wouldn't insult you by saying it is fair. I could tell you don't work for such companies. Like women and people of color have found, you can change laws, but changing people is much harder. You will have to be better at whatever you do just to break even. They can't fire the employee that the company can't live without, the won't fire the guy who makes the bottom line, and they can never fire the boss. You need to be better, work harder and be tougher. Like I said, it is not fair, but the alternative is to accept whatever you get and complain impotently to people who can't change it.

I have at least three gay employees at the high school and two of them are indispensible. The other needs to retire, or move on and I would fire him if he were not tenured. But that has nothing to do with his sexual orientation. (He's not a very good teacher right now.)

----------


## No-name

> Did I say that you said that? No. I was replying to SVF not you.


Sorry, I have him on ignore and can't see his posts. I thought you were putting words in my mouth.
Gome nasai.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

Well, if you have a debater on ignore who posts a fair amount then you shouldn't assume that what people say is always directed at you in debates because it could be directed to someone you have on ignore. That's exactly why I don't put anyone on ignore.

----------


## No-name

It was at the request of a moderator, and not really my preference. 

I wish I could see what he is saying... It is rather irksome to be left out of chunks of conversations and have to wait until someone quotes him. But again, I guess it is not that big a deal.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

Huh, ya know, I thought it was an admin who ordered you to put him on the ignore list because you were breaking rules. But maybe not.  :Wary:  Sabro-san, I would like it if you didn't try and mislead me again. Thanks.

----------


## No-name

It was maciamo if you need to know. I don't believe it was because I was breaking rules and I wonder where you got this misinformation. I suppose you could ask Maciamo directly what the reason was, but I believe it was to preserve some sense of order. I have made no attempt to mislead you at all.

----------


## Mike Cash

> Who are these others that you speak of? Everyone on here seems pretty mystified by this whole affair actually.


Only one has actually chimed in and indicated having no difficulties understanding my prose:




> Mike- I can understand you perfectly


I admit to assuming the silence of others meant they had no trouble understanding it either. Perhaps that was wrong of me.

But on the other hand, only one person has claimed to be unable to understand it......

Are we going to continue with unpleasantries forever? Or does the king-sized (sorry...._queen-sized_) chip on your shoulder prevent that? How is the new Shakespeare production coming along?

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

> It was maciamo if you need to know. I don't believe it was because I was breaking rules and I wonder where you got this misinformation. I suppose you could ask Maciamo directly what the reason was, but I believe it was to preserve some sense of order. I have made no attempt to mislead you at all.


Funny how you call what I said misinformation and the person who gave it to me called yours misinformation. Ah, man, what's a girl to do to find the truth?  :Mad: ...*cough* Anyway! I must say I am more inclined to trust the person who gave me this info then you. Nothing personal but that's just how it goes.

----------


## No-name

I am definitely missing something here. What is actually going on?

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

> Are we going to continue with unpleasantries forever? Or does the king-sized (sorry...._queen-sized_) chip on your shoulder prevent that?


Now that was uncalled for.




> How is the new Shakespeare production coming along?


Where did that come from? Oh, wait, did you go to my website? Well, in that case you should know.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Huh, ya know, I thought it was an admin who ordered you to put him on the ignore list because you were breaking rules. But maybe not.  Sabro-san, I would like it if you didn't try and mislead me again. Thanks.


Sabro hasn't been 'ordered' to put anyone on his ignore list and he has broken no rules. He has graciously accepted a suggestion in the interests of harmony. I assure you, you can trust me on that. He has also not misled you in any way. You have misunderstood him, that is all.

----------


## Hyde_is_my_anti-drug

I was going to drop the matter anyway. But alright.

----------


## No-name

> Funny how you call what I said misinformation and the person who gave it to me called yours misinformation. Ah, man, what's a girl to do to find the truth? ...*cough* Anyway! I must say I am more inclined to trust the person who gave me this info then you. Nothing personal but that's just how it goes.


Tsuyoiko's and Hyde's previous posts have rendered my response moot...

I believe my character and attitudes have been quite transparent and speak for themselves. I beleive it to be a rather poor choice if you care to take others assessments instead of what you see for yourself.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

I think this thread has had its day.  :Smiling:

----------

