Gay Marriage

Quote: AZDuffman

I'm not going to comment on your daughter like some kind of John Edwards but will speak in some generalities. I don't live in Canada, but here in the USA we have the following situation. Pre-early 1970s it was taught outright that homosexuality was wrong. It was classified as a mental health defect. As a kid you were warned about these folks. To have a gay do anything with kids was a no-go from the start. This fit with the anthropological instinct to find homosexual behavior wrong. This was not religious or moral, though that played a part. It is more the "yuck factor" being so strong that regular people will feel if anyone does such behavior they are probably having other problems as well. As I maintain here, the higher rates of depression, drug use, risky behavior, and suicide among gays shows many homosexuals may actually share these feelings.

Early 1970s to 1990s the gay movement started. TV shows started having "lesson" episodes on homosexuals. "Dallas" may be the first. At this same time the rule got established that under no circumstances could a gay character ever be seen in any kind of negative light. The cops could no longer just roust the bath house, but nobody would seriously suggest there was nothing wrong with a gay male tenting with Boy Scouts at an camping trip.

After the early 1990s the full-court press started. Kids had to read "Heather Has Two Mommies" and "Daddy's Roommate" in the low grades of school. A few celebs came out. And there was some kind of "cool" factor to knowing a gay in some circles. It eventually got to where we are today.

BUT-----you still have the natural aversion to it in humanity. And that cannot be changed any more than any other human nature can be. There is always going to be a level of "we shouldn't be doing this" out there. IMHO by education that it is "OK" we are just raising a generation of confused kids.

Just because it was that way in the past doesn't make it right. Look at how african-americans were treated in the 60s and are still being treated today to some extent. There were plenty of homosexuals in those times, but they just hid it. The higher rates of isseus among gays is probably due, I maintain, to the astigmatism and lack of acceptance for who they are.

Quote: boymimbo

The higher rates of isseus among gays is probably due, I maintain, to the astigmatism and lack of acceptance for who they are.

Much like the brown eye blue eye. experiment. (5 mins into this video what looks like a benign experiment at the beginning has become rather nasty and even involved violence among children)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeK759FF84s

Teacher says in the beginning, "I don't think you would know how that would feel unless you'd been through it." And she puts them through it.

Quote: AZDuffman

I'm not going to comment on your daughter like some kind of John Edwards but will speak in some generalities. I don't live in Canada, but here in the USA we have the following situation. Pre-early 1970s it was taught outright that homosexuality was wrong. It was classified as a mental health defect. As a kid you were warned about these folks. To have a gay do anything with kids was a no-go from the start.

I think to this point you're pretty accurate as to social mores of those times. However...

Quote: AZD

This fit with the anthropological instinct to find homosexual behavior wrong. This was not religious or moral, though that played a part. It is more the "yuck factor" being so strong that regular people will feel if anyone does such behavior they are probably having other problems as well. As I maintain here, the higher rates of depression, drug use, risky behavior, and suicide among gays shows many homosexuals may actually share these feelings.

I think this part of what you've said I would have to disagree with. Anthropologically, and not just with human behavior, there has been homosexuality throughout both human history and that of most animal species. The rejection of others of the same gender is almost entirely learned behavior, taught from infancy and reinforced in countless ways. I understand it's contra-survival as a propagating species, but not un-natural as an occurence.

And further on, where you're talking about higher rates of depression, etc., I think you've got it almost completely backwards. People want and need socially to fit in, to have a place, and gays are taught that they are shameful, sick, awful people, from long before they're even sexually aware. The adolescent years of about 9 to 14 are nearly impossible for a "normal" child, with the hormones raging and physical changes, as well as transitioning to an age where gender matters; how is a gay child, on realizing their orientation in those years, to like anything about themselves, after everything they've been told about gays? All the other behavior you detail is acting out the stress from knowing they're not going to be accepted and welcomed by the society around them. They don't share those feelings; instead, they dread your (in the "normal society" sense of "your") condemnation but are powerless to change who they are. The conflict is overwhelming, and they feel isolated from their friends, their parents, other adults right at the time they most need to understand what's going on with themselves.

As to tv, I think Billy Crystal in "Soap" is the one usually credited with breaking the gay character barrier, about 10 years before "Dallas" went there. I could be wrong.

But I have to disagree with the genesis of your last paragraph conclusion about a "natural aversion". It is learned behavior not to touch and be touched, by gender, by race, by age, by any other division of humanity. The taboo has been so ingrained in many people that it may feel natural, but it's learned.

Quote: Face

But concerning the issues between you and the members who either have a problem with you or with whom you have a problem, I have already done the PMs and gentle whisper approach...My suggestive whispers haven't worked...I now know no other way that to put everything on notice and in the open.

I know a better way. Did you ever consider telling them: "Stop sending messages to people you dislike and just BLOCK him"?

As a moderator, why do you ignore the simplest solution of all?

Remember, I rarely write to these people. I haven't even initiated a conversation with any of them since I started posting here, yet you claim I'M the one with the problem? Unbelievable. Here I am minding my own business on this board talking with people like AZ and EB about issues we care about, and then these liberals (who DISLIKE me) come along and start whining about words like "shift" while throwing around words like "troll".

Your response? Ignore "troll" but go after the utterer of "shift"! I don't get it. Hell, one guy in this thread even flat out said that he's "proud of calling me a troll" !!! Yet you demand that I be nice to him? Wouldn't it make more sense for you to demand that the guy who's "proud of calling me a troll" simply use the BLOCK feature?

And it's not just "troll" vs. "shift". This is indicative of a larger problem that has afflicted this forum recently. Think about it, how come there has been a mass exodus of conservative posters over on WoV? Most of them have either left voluntarily or been suspended since the new mods came on board. Why is that?? Why do they not feel welcome there anymore? You've said numerous times on both forums that you're here to "protect the Wiz's investments", so this development should be of great concern to you.

Quote: Face

Regarding the racial slur...since no other member seemed to suffer great offense...

Whoa, whoa, whoa.....now wait just a doggone second here.

No "other" member? So you're saying that MY complaint means nothing around here?? I get it now, so a liberal complains about "shift", and you reply: "Let's get the bloody bastard!" OTOH, a conservative complains about a racial slur, yet you say: "Ah, no biggie...who cares what the right-winger thinks?"


But the kicker here? Someone else DID take offense, my friend. (He also happens to be conservative, BTW):

Quote: rob45

Being half-Asian myself, I was extremely interested in finding out how the minority slur was going to be resolved. Looks like we got our answer.

http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info/rules/3853-discussion-about-the-suspension-list/294/#post344761

...and this particular member hasn't posted in over a month, so I guess the "Wiz's investments" aren't being adequately protected.

So to summarize, there was one conservative who objected to the slur vocally and another conservative who objected passively.
Q: What did you do? A: Nothing. (Yet when liberals complain, they seem to get results)

Quote: Face

Asking or forcing members to never address each other is, as you said, quite childish. I also see it perhaps encouraging more games to be played. After all, any single person I've listed that you've had run ins with before could address you in an attempt to bait you and would receive only a 3-7 day ban, per their history. You slip up once, and it's at least 60 days for you.

Oh c'mon, you're making it sound like you'd be forced to hand out a 60-day ban when that isn't true at all. Moderators have discretion when administering bans, and the Suspension List clearly reflects that.

Quote: Face

I don't want to demand you never speak to each other

Why not????????? The guy flat out said that he was PROUD OF CALLING ME A TROLL! If you were "proud of calling someone a troll", would you continually seek that person out and try to initiate a conversation with them????

Look at this rationally, the guy refuses to block me, he admits that he's "proud of calling me a troll", and he continues to publicly address me on the forum.....yet you're coming down with the heavy hand on me??? Please.

Quote: Face

...and have to parse every single post made in the future

But that's what you've been doing anyway (e.g., "shift", "tangent") !! My posts have been scrutinized for weeks now!

I want to know...what gives these liberals the right to address me publicly and then dictate to me what words I can/can't use in response? Do YOU approach people in real life whom you dislike and then demand that they respond to you in a certain way??? I highly doubt it.

Also, who exactly is prohibited from using the word "shift" now? Is it only me? And who is prohibited from talking about dogs? Just me again, I bet, right? (FYI, the dog story is absolutely TRUE. Several years ago, my friend did have a dog named Rick who whimpered & whined, wandered aimlessly, and ate his own crap)

I said it before, and I'll say it again...this is all frighteningly Orwellian. I agree with you that nicknaming someone "Shifty" can be taken as an insult, but the simple use of the word "shift"? Gimme a break! And if I am the only one who is prohibited from using that word, how exactly do you know my thoughts & intentions to be able to declare it an "insult"? This is turning into the freakin thought police!

But I'm really curious now...what if somebody (not me, of course) wrote a story about a fictitious land that was ruled by a kind, benevolent king. But then one day, the king was kidnapped, and his land was taken over by an evil witch and her ugly henchman. They terrorized the land, threatened the "bad" inhabitants, and only showed mercy to the "good" citizens who agreed with all of their beliefs and stroked their egos.

Tell me, would you ban such a story because somebody on this forum might think it's an allegory about them? If so, be very, very careful because similar things have been done in the past:

Ever hear of Animal Farm? Uncle Tom's Cabin? The Satanic Verses? They were all banned because some idiotic dictator found them "disrespectful". Or how about Gulliver's Travels? Alice In Wonderland? Green Eggs & Ham? Some nincompoops found parts of those stories to be "disrespectful" as well.

I really want to know...would you support banning those books simply because an ultra-sensitive person out there perceived some sort of insult and felt disrespected? Probably not. You'd probably say, "Don't read them! Get over it!" So I don't know why the same doesn't apply here. I don't think it's unreasonable to tell a guy who's "proud to call me a troll" that maybe he should use the BLOCK feature.

Quote: Face

The time I've spent typing the last two days, the stress I endure from having offended people, you, in this instance, is not something I want to continue doing

Look, after reading this line, I do feel bad now. I apologize if you've felt stress over this. There are some moderators who get a thrill out of wielding power & using it to control others, and there are other mods who genuinely want their forums to be enjoyable places for all. I sincerely believe that you are in the latter category, and I think that most of the other mods are, too.

In closing, I do want to reiterate that you might want to consider telling the offended parties that they should USE THE BLOCK FEATURE (especially if they're PROUD OF CALLING ME A TROLL). I don't ever plan on making an unsolicited post to those libs again, so there's no reason why they can't do the same.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I think this part of what you've said I would have to disagree with. Anthropologically, and not just with human behavior, there has been homosexuality throughout both human history and that of most animal species. The rejection of others of the same gender is almost entirely learned behavior, taught from infancy and reinforced in countless ways. I understand it's contra-survival as a propagating species, but not un-natural as an occurence.

*sigh* The "Animal Species" thing yet again. THERE IS NO HOMOXEXUALITY IN ANIMALS! Animals do not have sex except to reproduce, they do not exgage in it for recreation. When you see a male mount another male in nature it is an act of domination, nothing else.

OTOH, rejection of homoxezuality in humans has been taboo in socities that have been isolated from each other throughout history. You can say it is "learned behavior" in individuals all you want, but for it to pop up like this and survive shows it is natural.

Quote: Beethoven

Look, after reading this line, I do feel bad now. I apologize if you've felt stress over this. There are some moderators who get a thrill out of wielding power & using it to control others, and there are other mods who genuinely want their forums to be enjoyable places for all. I sincerely believe that you are in the latter category, and I think that most of the other mods are, too.

Well, I'm at least glad for this. I suppose the fact that this conversation is continuing means there is hope yet. So let's carry on.

In the interest of clarity, please don't confuse this as a partisan thing. While there's a lot of this address I'm unsure of, from how to do it all the way to whether I have should done it at all, the one thing I'm sure it's not is this being some sort of political bias. My closest friends here are conservative. When someone has judged my stance here, they refer to me as conservative. Most of my real-life friends are conservative. I personally don't refer to myself as anything. And on this OP, I do side with the left. But that is neither here nor there. I'm reasonably confident you couldn't find another member who would say I judge based on party lines. In fact, it's the people who disagree with me who I seek out and enjoy the most. I even referred to it in this very thread in an address to AZD. I just want to push that thought aside so we don't muddle the issue at hand.

That out of the way, I'll try to condense an answer to your post into one shot...

Basically, I made a judgement call. There were complaints in this thread (a first for DT), as well as sniping reminiscent of what has just gone on at WoV. I think back to your history, and as I said, I saw a common thread in you. It is not uncommon to find members who butt heads, however, your list is long indeed. That in itself isn't worth addressing, after all, you can't hold a candle to EB ;) But just as I did with him, I had to do with you. I had to look at the evidence surrounding it and make a judgement.

With EB or Ahigh or any other member who's become a sort of lightning rod of controversy, I look at everything and try to determine where the problem lies. This is not an exact science for the best of judges, and I'm just some dude with little life experience doing his best. I know I make mistakes. Sometimes I address something that's no big deal. Sometimes I leave something of great offense. I don't have an excuse for those incidents and I'm not able to say something to make it better. I mess up. I have before, and I will again. But I have no choice but to follow through with what I believe, accept the parts I mess up, and take the lesson with me. And that brings me to this.

I have judged that you have some responsibility in the issue at hand. Not all, but certainly some. There are parts of it I'm unsure of and will bring up to learn your side. There are parts I'm almost positive of, and bring up in hopes there will be an understanding between us. For instance, "Rick's dog". I look at it, and I can't help but see it as anything other than an purposeful and planned attack on rxwine. Your explanation aside, the very subject doesn't make sense as to why you'd bring it up and make it a sig. A random story about your friend Rick's dog? I don't have the vocabulary to explain it, other than it just doesn't jive. It doesn't fit. So I have to ask "what is this really?" And I see references it to being aimless, annoying, eating it's own defecation, just a list of things you hate. And then the cleverly worded "Ah, Rick's whine". Am I really chasing ghosts, here? Have I just suddenly come over all paranoid, when I've never suffered anything of the sort before? You and I have never had issues, in fact, I'd say we've always gotten along, whether in argument or sharing music videos and hilarious internet memes. So why would I single you out? Yes, I've had to judge my own actions. Am I seeing stuff because I'm looking for it? Or is this really a thing? And on the topic of your WoV sig, I am convinced there is no question. I don't see how there could be. I can't even call it Occam's Razor, because I don't even see it as simple. I see it as obvious.

That leads me to the whole "shifty" issue. No, using the verb "shift" and the adjective "tangent" are not against the rules nor are they banned terms, not for you or anyone else. But it falls back to the judgement thing. I look back to your history and I see a pattern of antagonistic behavior. Asking Twirdman what an asexual is is a completely legitimate question. Pestering him for weeks across several different threads after he asked you to stop is not. Claiming someone is shifting an argument is a legitimate claim. Following someone across several different threads and calling them Shifty is not. I feel you know exactly what you mean and that you know you do it. You're a very keen guy, I just can't believe that you're ignorant of the effect this has on people. Now, with this thread, I saw more of the same. Saying "Cess, dude, you're shifting the argument away from my point" is a valid statement. But wording it "I see your friends have taught you how to shift lol", to me, is nothing more than a taunt and references your previous taunts. This, yes, is a judgement. As it is my judgement, it is possible that I am wrong. But based on the responses it got in thread, I'm not the only one who feels this way. boymimbo made a comment about it, TheCessPit has left the thread and, it appears, the entire forum. And it pulled rxwine into the fray, which only exacerbated the situation. Is that completely your fault? No. As I tell nearly every single person that gets involved in the drama, YOU (the complainant) have a responsibility to act appropriate in the face of conflict, regardless of fault. And yes, I don't care how innocent the victim or how horrible their offense, I still expect them to act right. But I cannot free you, Beethoven, of some of the blame.

So this is my entire mind frame, summed up into one thread. No, this isn't just a "beat up on Beeth" thread. Regardless of any single thing you or anyone says, I expect every single other person to maintain their own personal levels of appropriateness and respect. But, based on everything above, I also expect things from you. I know you too well. And you're too damn intelligent to not realize what it is that you're doing.

I can only hope that the drama I've caused by the address results in an understanding from everyone that leaves us free and clear of drama for months to come. I'll leave that to hope. But now, I'm going to see my mama. Happy Mother's Day to all.

Quote: AZDuffman

*sigh* The "Animal Species" thing yet again. THERE IS NO HOMOXEXUALITY IN ANIMALS! Animals do not have sex except to reproduce, they do not exgage in it for recreation. When you see a male mount another male in nature it is an act of domination, nothing else.

OTOH, rejection of homoxezuality in humans has been taboo in socities that have been isolated from each other throughout history. You can say it is "learned behavior" in individuals all you want, but for it to pop up like this and survive shows it is natural.

There is plenty of homosexuality behaviour among animals, in particular dolphins, apes, giraffes and lions. While some of the behaviour is indeed "domination", some of it is also bonding. Look it up. And, to counter your next argument, there are cases of long term homosexuality pair bonding as well. I know that you want to believe that it isn't natural, and certainly, it's true that it isn't "normal", but for the 2-4% of society where it is the preferred behaviour, rather than force them into a life of unhappiness and persecution, shouldn't at least the government (if not us) accept that portion of society having equal rights as the rest of the heterosexual folk?

Quote: boymimbo

There is plenty of homosexuality behaviour among animals, in particular dolphins, apes, giraffes and lions. While some of the behaviour is indeed "domination", some of it is also bonding. Look it up. And, to counter your next argument, there are cases of long term homosexuality pair bonding as well. I know that you want to believe that it isn't natural, and certainly, it's true that it isn't "normal", but for the 2-4% of society where it is the preferred behaviour, rather than force them into a life of unhappiness and persecution, shouldn't at least the government (if not us) accept that portion of society having equal rights as the rest of the heterosexual folk?

But they do not want equal rights. They want special rights. And I am still not buying that animals practice homosexuality when animals do not have sex for recreation. Sorry but I'm not buying what the gays are selling.

Quote: AZDuffman

But they do not want equal rights. They want special rights. And I am still not buying that animals practice homosexuality when animals do not have sex for recreation. Sorry but I'm not buying what the gays are selling.

If a society is formed that doesn't encompass the needs of its individuals who always existed in it, it can't be said that it was ever fair to begin with.

For instance, the premise that blacks and women in America were under a fair Constitution was not initially true. Women weren't equal and blacks... well you know, As with gays and sexuality who have always been with us.

You're not adding special rights, you are correcting injustice.

(edit - this premise may come back to bite me, but I'll let others come up with any problems with it)

Quote: rxwine

If a society is formed that doesn't encompass the needs of its individuals who always existed in it, it can't be said that it was ever fair to begin with.

Incorrect. A fair society has equal rules for everyone. IOW, equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

So we have a law that states, "Any person not of feeble mind over the age of 18 may marry any person of the opposite sex meeting the same age and mind standards." That law is 100% fair. Now someone may say, "but I don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex." Well, TOUGH. It doesn't require someone to marry, it says what the requirements are if you want to do so. Asking for something else is asking for special treatment. Same as asking to be allowed to use the women's restroom if you are a guy and same as demanding history about your group only be taught in a positive light as a matter of law.

Quote:

For instance, the premise that blacks and women in America were under a fair Constitution was not initially true. Women weren't equal and blacks... well you know, As with gays and sexuality who have always been with us.

Nothing in the Constitution discriminates against women, blacks, or gays. Nothing ever did. Indians were set aside but only if they did not want to be citizens in the first place. Now, some local laws might have discriminated, but when these items were corrected they generally did not give special treatment. One exception would be state-sanctioned discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action and lower standards for women and blacks in hiring requirements. But that is another thread.