Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > "Gay" Rights      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Connor-19
Joined: 1/27/2009
Msg: 89
Gay RightsPage 4 of 18    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
Your point is very valid.

However, common sense says that probably 9 out of 10 people use the word gay when something is lame/stupid think of it in the context of homo and not happy.
 Uncle Fist
Joined: 12/18/2006
Msg: 90
Gay Rights
Posted: 9/27/2009 7:18:14 PM
Actually, while he was obviously saying that to be a smartass, he does have a rather valid point.

The word "lame" isn't an attack on anyones racial background, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation, but it is another example of another word getting taken and given a new defintion. It's still in the dictionary as meaning "crippled or physically disabled." Now we routinely use it to describe things we think are dumb.

Kind of sounds like what we did to "gay."
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 91
Gay Rights
Posted: 10/15/2009 11:35:36 AM

Putting homosexuals in the same on context as race is stupid.
Homosexualality is a chosen lifestyle defined by who they choose to have sex with.



wboydsp I'm just curious; on which day did you wake up & choose what your sexual orientation was gonna be? Did you get up, rub your eyes & say to yourself "Gee, it's about time I decided if I'm gonna be gay or straight ( or possibly bi)" then make your choice? Or did you flip a coin?
 curiousnrg
Joined: 5/29/2009
Msg: 92
view profile
History
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/7/2009 6:25:07 PM
TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF GENETIC SEXUAL DIVERSITY

There are two types of sexual human beings: heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. Heterosexuals are defined as XX-XY progeny-producing pairs; non-heterosexuals include everybody else. You are one or the other, but you cannot be both. You are at some point on a continuum that stretches from one extreme to the other. The source of such a non-uniformly distributed range of phenotypic expression lies in the deoxyribonucleic acid molecule (DNA), a plastic molecule capable of spontaneous mutation and responsible for all living things as you know them.

Living organisms (including humans) of whatever complexity arise from an evolutionary-derived genetic substrate. This genetic, mutational substrate is capable of producing an infinite number of human phenotypic expressions. Human phenotypes are finished products of the human DNA blueprint, one of which is sexual expression.

Non-heterosexual rights is clearly a civil rights issue! There is no natural right to heterosexual supremacy. We are dealing with genetically-induced phenomena. Should we reinvent the wheel and begin again with a Supreme Court declaration of separate but equal status? I think not.

If I may continue to ramble.

Nature has no purpose; only consequences. Thrusting a planet into Newtonian space will cause that planet to follow a straight course…unless acted upon by another force. Consequently, Earth revolves around the sun because the sun’s gravitational field pulls it. Throw a ball into the air and, consequently, it returns toward Earth because another force, Earth’s gravity, draws upon it.

The consequence of a scaled range of human reproductive success (ranging from heterosexual to non-heterosexual phenotypes) is the convergence of the gene pool. This occurs because if you subtract a clinically significant percentage of genetic diversity from independent assortment mechanisms, the genetic pool will have less variability with each generation of newborns.

As a consequence, genetic material is removed from recombination opportunities. The genetic pool is restricted in potential variations because gene combinations and permutations are lacking. Subsequently, combinations and variations of genetic expressions are unavailable. Speciation (species is defined as an interbreeding population) to novel life forms fails to occur. The consequence of a converged gene pool is obstruction to human speciation in space and time.

So, it must follow that a portion of humanity is repository of non-recombining DNA segments that are culled away from mechanisms of independent assortment. These fragmented human DNA islands are deprived of participation in genetic exchange processes. Consequently, they are isolated from contributory global genetic patrimony. Non-participating genes cause humans to arrive at the cusp of species differentiation but never quite cross the threshold of speciation to newer life forms. We do have races of mankind, but not
a different species of man. Non-lethal mutations of DNA are retained in human progeny and become inbred in the human population.

The net effect of a converged gene pool is that humans are the end of an evolutionary line. There are many races, but only one species. And that will remain so. No other new human species will arise because the genetic pool is unable to expand due to genetic mechanisms inherent in human DNA and the phenotypic expressions arising from them.

Despite many isolating factors such as (1) the prehistoric migration of the human species throughout the world, (2) prolonged remote isolation of the human races (geographical barriers, cataclysmic phenomena, natural disasters, etc.), (3) deoxyribonucleic acid mutations, and (4) substantially elapsed periods of time (all the ingredients of speciation), no other human species has evolved, nor will. Non-heterosexual humans are the gatekeepers of speciation, and the gate is genetically locked. There is no key! Therefore, humans can no more speciate than can religions suspend the laws of nature. This phenomenon of species containment and genetic non-differentiation is intimately connected to heterosexual and non-heterosexual biologically-predetermined behavior.

If the evolution of humans has halted, then strategies to evoke desirable human qualities may be proposed. Only selective breeding and assortative mating can cluster desirable (or undesirable) genetic characteristics. Homogenization of the human races, as is the current trend, may produce a genetically more robust human species.

Selecting out superior genetic characteristics from the convergent gene pool may succeed to produce a healthier human species. Superior human qualities may be promoted via public policies that are socially desirable and acceptable.

One conceivable socially approved method is global competition among all individuals in the economic and educational arenas. This will select out desirable traits from those who are healthy, wealthy, and wise. But manipulated selection that arises from a system of universal competition will not benefit everyone equally!

E A Mortarelli
 curiousnrg
Joined: 5/29/2009
Msg: 93
view profile
History
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/7/2009 6:31:06 PM
TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF GENETIC SEXUAL DIVERSITY

There are two types of sexual human beings: heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals. Heterosexuals are defined as XX-XY progeny-producing pairs; non-heterosexuals include everybody else. You are one or the other, but you cannot be both. You are at some point on a continuum that stretches from one extreme to the other. The source of such a non-uniformly distributed range of phenotypic expression lies in the deoxyribonucleic acid molecule (DNA), a plastic molecule capable of spontaneous mutation and responsible for all living things as you know them.

Living organisms (including humans) of whatever complexity arise from an evolutionary-derived genetic substrate. This genetic, mutational substrate is capable of producing an infinite number of human phenotypic expressions. Human phenotypes are finished products of the human DNA blueprint, one of which is sexual expression.

Non-heterosexual rights is clearly a civil rights issue! There is no natural right to heterosexual supremacy. We are dealing with genetically-induced phenomena. Should we reinvent the wheel and begin again with a Supreme Court declaration of separate but equal status? I think not.

If I may continue to ramble.

Nature has no purpose; only consequences. Thrusting a planet into Newtonian space will cause that planet to follow a straight course…unless acted upon by another force. Consequently, Earth revolves around the sun because the sun’s gravitational field pulls it. Throw a ball into the air and, consequently, it returns toward Earth because another force, Earth’s gravity, draws upon it.

The consequence of a scaled range of human reproductive success (ranging from heterosexual to non-heterosexual phenotypes) is the convergence of the gene pool. This occurs because if you subtract a clinically significant percentage of genetic diversity from independent assortment mechanisms, the genetic pool will have less variability with each generation of newborns.

As a consequence, genetic material is removed from recombination opportunities. The genetic pool is restricted in potential variations because gene combinations and permutations are lacking. Subsequently, combinations and variations of genetic expressions are unavailable. Speciation (species is defined as an interbreeding population) to novel life forms fails to occur. The consequence of a converged gene pool is obstruction to human speciation in space and time.

So, it must follow that a portion of humanity is repository of non-recombining DNA segments that are culled away from mechanisms of independent assortment. These fragmented human DNA islands are deprived of participation in genetic exchange processes. Consequently, they are isolated from contributory global genetic patrimony. Non-participating genes cause humans to arrive at the cusp of species differentiation but never quite cross the threshold of speciation to newer life forms. We do have races of mankind, but not a different species of man. Non-lethal mutations of DNA are retained in human progeny and become inbred in the human population.

The net effect of a converged gene pool is that humans are the end of an evolutionary line. There are many races, but only one species. And that will remain so. No other new human species will arise because the genetic pool is unable to expand due to genetic mechanisms inherent in human DNA and the phenotypic expressions arising from them.

Despite many isolating factors such as (1) the prehistoric migration of the human species throughout the world, (2) prolonged remote isolation of the human races (geographical barriers, cataclysmic phenomena, natural disasters, etc.), (3) deoxyribonucleic acid mutations, and (4) substantially elapsed periods of time (all the ingredients of speciation), no other human species has evolved, nor will. Non-heterosexual humans are the gatekeepers of speciation, and the gate is genetically locked. There is no key! Therefore, humans can no more speciate than can religions suspend the laws of nature. This phenomenon of species containment and genetic non-differentiation is intimately connected to heterosexual and non-heterosexual biologically-predetermined behavior.

If the evolution of humans has halted, then strategies to evoke desirable human qualities may be proposed. Only selective breeding and assortative mating can cluster desirable (or undesirable) genetic characteristics. Homogenization of the human races, as is the current trend, may produce a genetically more robust human species.

Selecting out superior genetic characteristics from the convergent gene pool may succeed to produce a healthier human species. Superior human qualities may be promoted via public policies that are socially desirable and acceptable.

One conceivable socially approved method is global competition among all individuals in the economic and educational arenas. This will select out desirable traits from those who are healthy, wealthy, and wise. But manipulated selection that arises from a system of universal competition will not benefit everyone equally!

E A Mortarelli
 aSydneyMale
Joined: 5/16/2006
Msg: 94
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/7/2009 7:43:15 PM

I lived in Turkey. In Turkey, the state, including the schools, is secular. That is why they have a healthier, stronger government than so many other Islamic countries. Not because they don't believe in Islam, but because they keep religion and government separate; they allow people to choose which religion they want to practice (there are Jews, Christians and others who live in Turkey and live as any other persons there); they allow if a person does not want to be religious at all. They don't allow headscarves or any other religious apparel or symbolism to be worn in school. It makes their democracy healthier. They don't pray in school. I don't think there has been one Islamic fundamentalist terrorist who has come from Turkey. Because they have a healty attitude toward religion. If American loses her perspective on religion, she will lose her strength as a democracy. My opinion,of course.

That is because the founder of modern Turkey, Ataturk, was a visionary who looked beyond dogma and took a humanist approach.

Athiesm is the absence of religion and not a religion itself. Evolution is a branch of science and based upon evidence and scientific methodology. Religion is based upon the assumption that God exists and the Bible is fact. The ad nauseum quoting of passages from the Bible is hardly evidence to back up an argument.
 southernlass
Joined: 5/2/2006
Msg: 95
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/7/2009 9:11:41 PM
I haven't read this entire thread. Just tossing in my two cents...

My daughter regularly says the word "gay," several times a day, every day.

This commercial is "gay," or that music is so "gay."

Sometimes when I tell her I want her to wear the new shirt I bought for her, she'll say "Mom, that shirt is gay." This means she has now changed her mind, the shirt sucks, in her opinion, and I have wasted twenty five dollars of my hard earned money.

"Gay" to her at ten years old, means "lame," "sucky," and other assundry adjectives.

Should she stop saying this out of respect to homosexuals who apparently snapped up the word? Well, if your answer is yes, trying telling her and her friends that; they don't care what we "old people" think.
 4rumninja
Joined: 11/30/2009
Msg: 96
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/7/2009 10:19:15 PM
This thread is "Gay".....
 magneeto
Joined: 2/10/2008
Msg: 97
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/8/2009 12:25:36 AM
lets give them a new name how about go figure
they are a figure in sociaty that can go
so now we have ,fag
qweer
fudge packer
gay
homosexual
carpet licker
lesbeans
canoe licker
homo.
playing for the wrong team
and now go figure
did I miss any
 aSydneyMale
Joined: 5/16/2006
Msg: 98
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/8/2009 1:13:49 AM

^^Dismissing one's beliefs doesn't get a discussion very far either.

Maybe so, but the poster in question opened the door when he used the Bible to justify his own bigotry. There are plenty out there who do just that.
 southernlass
Joined: 5/2/2006
Msg: 99
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/8/2009 6:08:59 AM

It's not about what "old people think." It's about responsible parenting.

It's also not about "homosexuals... apparently snapping up the word." Turning a blind eye doesn't change reality.

Your 10 yr old should not be in charge. Allowing her to speak that way, while innocent on her part, is not helpful to her.


Honey, it's clear that you have no children. Carry on.
 geeleebee
Joined: 5/26/2008
Msg: 100
view profile
History
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/8/2009 6:17:14 AM

Honey, it's clear that you have no children. Carry on.

Condescending and an inaccurate summation of the issue.

'Gay' is used to mean a variety of derogatory things, and when I hear kids using it that way I deal with it. Happened yesterday at the high school where I work--I stopped three boys in the hall and said, "My niece is Gay--what did you mean when you called that kid Gay?"
They had the grace to say, "Sorry, Gail.". It probably won't change their attitude or language, but it just might make them hesitate the next time.

When a child uses the word 'Gay' in a negative way, it should be addressed for the child's sake.
That's just good parenting.

Carry on.
 4rumninja
Joined: 11/30/2009
Msg: 101
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/8/2009 6:35:55 AM
Whatever, the only ones offended when people use the word gay for any meaning other than Homosexual are hypersensitive politically correct Nazi liberals...sorry was that offensive?...lol
 coveredinpaint
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 102
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/8/2009 10:56:47 AM
Yeah, why is it that if it's bad, lame or messed up its gay? But if everything is fine and all good you say "I'm straight."

Sounds like it's turning into one of those arguments about how all terms that have the word "black" in them are bad. However, if the word "white" is used then it means its good or beneficial.
 god_of_rock
Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 103
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/8/2009 1:59:04 PM

so now we have ,fag
qweer
fudge packer
gay
homosexual
carpet licker
lesbeans
canoe licker
homo.
playing for the wrong team
and now go figure
did I miss any


um, couldn't # 3, # 6 & # 8 apply to 'straight' men?

(who like to 'pack a woman's fudge', or lick her 'carpet' or 'canoe'? )

got to avoid any possible confusion!
 Fleur_de_Lis
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 104
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/8/2009 2:18:47 PM
^^^ Good point! Not that an innocent like me would know

 MsBeave
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 105
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/8/2009 4:06:12 PM
^^ I agree

I've broken my kids from using 'gay' as an insult as I believe it's bigoted. Also in the pre-teens it can be an insult causes confusion and fear.
 acuddler
Joined: 10/30/2009
Msg: 106
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/8/2009 4:08:07 PM
The word gay has been in the public domain too long to be copyrightable, or trademarkable. Even if it weren't, and someone did have a copyright/trademark on it, allowing others to use it without permisssion costs the copyright/trademark holder the right to the copyright/trademark, and puts the word back in the public domain. So, unless some homo union can charge everyone a nickel per use to use the word gay, or they sue everyone who speaks/writes the word without permission, they lose their rights to the word. Besidses, you copyright words, and trademark logos/images, and patent inventions.

Homos adopted the word gay to pose as happy, and carefree, because all portrayal of homosexuals prior to that was more honest, and accurate...portraying them as: sad, depressed, lonely, angry, homicidal, suicidal, etc. I have never met a truly gay (happy) Gay (homo). They were all: angry, sad, depressed, etc. Of the four I have known closely-classmates, workmates, friends-three quit being gay, and went straight. The fourth killed himself. None were gay while being Gay. Gay ness-as in happy homos- is a fraud. They can be, or do, or call themselves, whatever they wish as far as I am concerned...but I don't play mind games with English. To me gay is happy, bad is bad, good is good, heavy is a matter of weight, etc. If the: hipppies, yippies, homos, blacks, etc, want to adopt slang definitions for everyday words, let them. I won't play along with them, though. I speak English, rather than Gobbledygook. Those who don't like that can take a leap at themselves.
 junipermoon
Joined: 3/1/2006
Msg: 107
view profile
History
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/8/2009 4:32:54 PM
i understood that the word 'gay' at one time referred to a woman with loose morals. in victorian england, prostitutes were said to be 'gay.' apparently the well-to-do didn't realize that women turned to prostitution due to poverty and desperation. they assumed the women enjoyed promiscuity.

i don't know how the word came to mean 'homosexual.' as a kid, we used 'gay' to refer to something not well thought-out. it implied that someone did something due to over-enthusiasm without considering the foolishness of the action. i sometimes still use it that way.

i do wonder how my gay friends feel about that. apparently it doesn't bother them too much. but then the gays i know care more about window treatments than they do about societal attitudes toward one particular word.
 Uncle Fist
Joined: 12/18/2006
Msg: 108
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/8/2009 4:57:53 PM
Let's all be gay and stop arguing about whether or not gay people own the rights to the word. Because that's a totally gay argument.
 junipermoon
Joined: 3/1/2006
Msg: 109
view profile
History
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/8/2009 5:12:27 PM

I speak English, rather than Gobbledygook.


well, the goblins may take offense to this. but, you take your chances i guess.
 god_of_rock
Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 110
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/8/2009 5:13:00 PM
maybe our homo sexual friends would be happier if kids starting saying: "That's so faggish"

or 'faggotish' ? or "That's so queer" or "bent" ? instead, to indicate something stupid
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 111
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/8/2009 6:55:28 PM
Of the four I have known closely-classmates, workmates, friends-three quit being gay, and went straight. The fourth killed himself. None were gay while being Gay. Gay ness-as in happy homos- is a fraud. They can be, or do, or call themselves, whatever they wish as far as I am concerned...but I don't play mind games with English. To me gay is happy, bad is bad, good is good, heavy is a matter of weight, etc. If the: hipppies, yippies, homos, blacks, etc, want to adopt slang definitions for everyday words, let them. I won't play along with them, though. I speak English, rather than Gobbledygook. Those who don't like that can take a leap at themselves.


Maybe you just have a tendency to associate with depressed bi-curious men.

I doubt four gay (or three "formerly" gay) men could be considered a good representative sample of the community in question.

Naturally though, anyone is free to not "play along" with modern society's terms all they like, while in search of an American-English purified of the modernisms that are used (and generally understood now) by the majority of the country.
 Dr. Gazebo
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 112
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/9/2009 12:24:50 AM
"Homos adopted the word gay to pose as happy, and carefree, because all portrayal of homosexuals prior to that was more honest, and accurate...portraying them as: sad, depressed, lonely, angry, homicidal, suicidal, etc. I have never met a truly gay (happy) Gay (homo). They were all: angry, sad, depressed, etc"

All of them, each and every one. Maybe they were depressed because society keeps calling them HOMOS! Jeese dude, some of the posts here scare me.
 geeleebee
Joined: 5/26/2008
Msg: 113
view profile
History
Gay Rights
Posted: 12/9/2009 9:12:24 AM

I have never met a truly gay (happy) Gay (homo). They were all: angry, sad, depressed, etc"


Really?
Then, you should meet my niece and her Gay/Lesbian friends.
They are quite involved in sports and art--love to read--are community activists, and going to college/university.

My niece is thrilled to be able to openly be who she is--a happy, healthy Lesbian. Our family reacted to her 'coming out' by basically saying, "That's nice, Sweetie--please pass the potatoes." We adore her--the kid has a whack sense of humor, and she is writing the most hilarious book right now. She's perfectly 'normal'--perfectly Justine.

If you have only met angry, depressed, sad Gay folks, then maybe the common denominator isn't their homosexuality...just sayin'...
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > "Gay" Rights