South Carolina is so gay!

[Goofball]

It seems that South Carolina folks are all in a tizzy over an ad campaign in Europe aimed at attracting gay tourists to their lovely state, and they are taking action, up to and including welching on payment for the posters that were ordered from and produced by the printer in good faith.

I can totally understand their outrage though. I mean, sure, the gays that would come to South Carolina would most likely be well-heeled types who would be willing to spend lots of cash in the South Carolina economy, but come on! Who the hell wants their dirty gay dollars?!?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25677373/

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Would this be highly inappropriate?

https://usera.imagecave.com/Karsh/fotitosh/skeletor-gay.jpg

[Crazed Rabbit]

I can understand being upset that your state is being advertised as 'so gay'. It's not just the appeal to gay tourists people are unhappy about, but the means.

CR

[Xiahou]

That's pretty gay.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The last time I visited South Carolina it was indeed a happy and joyous place.

Why have they suddenly become so glum?

:huh:

[Rhyfelwyr]

If anyone ever made a similar advert about Scotland I wouldn't be very happy about it.

lol, I can just imagine all these tourist trecking up to the Isles for the beaches. Since just about all the western Isles are either staunchly Presbyterian or devout Catholic, the reaction would be pretty funny. They still chain up kiddies playparks on Sundays in some of those places...

[Adrian II]

It's not just the appeal to gay tourists people are unhappy about, but the means.No. It's the appeal to gay tourists that they are unhappy about. That's what all the quotes in the article say.

Many inhabitants don't tolerate homosexuality and they don't want to attract homosexuals. The Palmetto Family Council wants SC to be a 'family-friendly market', as if there were any contradiction between one thing and the other.

Barack Obama knew what he was doing when in his 2007 barnstorming campaign of SC he enlisted the gay-bashing gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, a man who maintains that churches are 'infested' with 'gay predators' and that gays have a 'lying problem'.

Sick Carolina would be a better name.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What if they started advertising NYC as "straight-friendly"? Gays would be pissed.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What if they started advertising NYC as "straight-friendly"? Gays would be pissed.

No! Rights no longer apply to the mainstreams these days...:no:

[Goofball]

What if they started advertising NYC as "straight-friendly"? Gays would be pissed.No! Rights no longer apply to the mainstreams these days...:no:

:laugh4:

Nothing makes me laugh harder than straight, white men moaning about how they are so oppressed.

You guys should find a nice, private corner somewhere and you can stroke each other's moral outrage and self righteousness to full erection.

But please don't do it in public. Some of us find it offensive.

:beam:

[Adrian II]

What if they started advertising NYC as "straight-friendly"? Gays would be pissed.
No! Rights no longer apply to the mainstreams these days...:no:Guys, your kind has been privileged for centuries. So much in fact that various minorities must be separately approached to convey the message that a certain spot is not just intended for you, but for them as well.

If and when the opposite applies, you can bet your straight white Christian hindquarters that you will become a marketing target.

Oh look, you already are (http://www.grfamily.com/index.htm)!

[CrossLOPER]

What if they started advertising NYC as "straight-friendly"? Gays would be pissed.
There are several organizations marketed as "family friendly" or "family oriented".... not exactly what you are talking about, but in line with the subject.

[Rhyfelwyr]

There are several organizations marketed as "family friendly" or "family oriented".... not exactly what you are talking about, but in line with the subject.

Yes, because they have facilties for adults and children, amazingly. Presumably the same facilities any same-sex couples with their adopted children would use. :inquisitive:

These places are not marketed as great for everyone who is straight/pre-puberty.

If homosexual people are so 'normal', why do they feel the need to base entire holidays on their sexual orietation. You have to be gay to appreciate a slave plantation? :laugh4:

And I never said your average white, straight, et etc person was opressed. I just feel sorry for the people of South Carolina having a show-case made out of their state.

And on a side note, I think the "happy yay yay we love everyone family values" crew are pretty creepy, verging on disturbing.

EDIT: @Adrian: do you change your avatar every week? Its pretty confusing. :dizzy:

[Adrian II]

EDIT: @Adrian: do you change your avatar every week? Its pretty confusing. :dizzy:I am going through a lot of changes lately.

https://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2456/gaycoupleow5.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

[drone]

Similar ads were posted for Atlanta, Boston, Las Vegas, New Orleans and Washington, D.C., none of which reported any negative backlash.
Vegas, anything goes. Atlanta and New Orleans, I can definitely see that. DC isn't really a "gay town" (aside from the Republican politicians ~;))but the chance of backlash is slight. Boston, I have no idea about (but the thought of nancy-boy lisping combined with that accent makes me cringe). South Carolina? Sounds like wasted money.

[Don Corleone]

Massachussets is running the other way on this issue, as fast as they can.

When the State Supreme Court ordered gay marriage to be allowed in 2004, then governor Mitt Romney announced that due to a 1913 law (relating to inter-racial marriage) that if your marriage wouldn't be recognized in your homestate, Massachussets wouldn't marry you.

Today, this very day, as a matter of fact, the state legislature of the Commonwealth, with full support of the governor, are voting to repeal that law and begin an over-the-top marketing campaign to advertise to gays throughout the US, Canada and Europe to come to Massachussets on holiday and get married while you're here. Viewed as a way to help plug some budget shortfalls.

Drone, you know, all you have to do is listen to Barney Frank, and you'll know exactly how the two go together... I don't think he's going to win any awards for the asethetically pleasing qualities of his voice any time soon.

On a sidenote... Adrian, you were born in the early 70's, right? Little late to discover you might want to try out for the other team, no?

[PanzerJaeger]

If homosexual people are so 'normal', why do they feel the need to base entire holidays on their sexual orietation.


Because of people such as yourself. Unfortunately, when making vacation plans they have to factor in things such as whether the population of their destination will question their normalness. :dizzy2: Who wants to go somewhere to relax in a hostile environment?

The whole gay issue is an embarrassing blight on modern conservative ideology. It completely ignores libertarianism in sake of a "moral majority" and religious pandering. The best part is that its all based off of the same old testament writings that approve of slavery and forbid eating pork, among other fun codes Christians tend to ignore. If certain groups of Christians had an understanding of the bible as a whole, not just specific passages, I find it hard to believe they would be able to reconcile the teachings of Christ with the current treatment of gay people in that community. It constantly astounds me that the people who hold Jesus above all else are reliably the most openly hate filled group of people in this country. (This is, of course, not directed at all Christians.)

1.There have always been gay people.
2.There will always be gay people.
3.You cannot become gay. Social acceptance of it will not increase or decrease homosexuality.

The sooner we on the Right stop making this an issue, the sooner it will cease to be an issue. There is so many more important things to concern ourselves with. I understand that the Republican party has to pander to the rednecks and hicks among us, just like the Democrats have to go after the inner city ghetto losers with welfare promises; but I for one don’t want to be associated with the lowest common denominator.

[CrossLOPER]

What was in my pie this morning?

[Don Corleone]

A whole bunch of stuff that while I somewhat agree, has my jaw dropping, considering the source.
Panzer, I didn't think fascist states in general tolerated homosexuality. How do you jibe with that? You'll just order tolerance for homosexuality?

[PanzerJaeger]

Panzer, I didn't think fascist states in general tolerated homosexuality. How do you jibe with that? You'll just order tolerance for homosexuality?

In fascism, the State and the betterment of the State - at the cost of others if need be - is the most important driving concern. Homosexuality neither benefits nor hurts the State, therefore it wouldn't be an issue at the governmental level.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Because of people such as yourself. Unfortunately, when making vacation plans they have to factor in things such as whether the population of their destination will question their normalness. :dizzy2: Who wants to go somewhere to relax in a hostile environment?

So they picked South Carolina?


The whole gay issue is an embarrassing blight on modern conservative ideology. It completely ignores libertarianism in sake of a "moral majority" and religious pandering. The best part is that its all based off of the same old testament writings that approve of slavery and forbid eating pork, among other fun codes Christians tend to ignore. If certain groups of Christians had an understanding of the bible as a whole, not just specific passages, I find it hard to believe they would be able to reconcile the teachings of Christ with the current treatment of gay people in that community. It constantly astounds me that the people who hold Jesus above all else are reliably the most openly hate filled group of people in this country. (This is, of course, not directed at all Christians.)

That is because for things such as the eating of pork it is clearly stated that these are to be "a statute unto your people" for the children of Israel. So we are not supposed to obey these.

I'm not hate filled, being gay is just another sin. The problem is just that some people do not accept this. Although I can assure you that where I come from my views still represent the majority on this, even if this majority is declining.


The sooner we on the Right stop making this an issue, the sooner it will cease to be an issue. There is so many more important things to concern ourselves with. I understand that the Republican party has to pander to the rednecks and hicks among us, just like the Democrats have to go after the inner city ghetto losers with welfare promises; but I for one don’t want to be associated with the lowest common denominator.

Well I am definetely not on the right. You seem so understanding to homosexuals, not so much to the "ghetto losers". :no:

You liberal capitalist Yanks need to sort your priorities out.

[PanzerJaeger]

So they picked South Carolina?

No, South Carolina picked South Carolina. Then South Carolina decided against its previous decision. Now South Carolina just looks silly.




That is because for things such as the eating of pork it is clearly stated that these are to be "a statute unto your people" for the children of Israel. So we are not supposed to obey these.

I'm not hate filled, being gay is just another sin. The problem is just that some people do not accept this. Although I can assure you that where I come from my views still represent the majority on this, even if this majority is declining.

Fascinating. I'm wondering how much time, if any, you've spent contemplating the nature of Christianity in the context of Jesus' own claims of being the Jewish Messiah. Thats another issue entirely..



Well I am definetely not on the right. You seem so understanding to homosexuals, not so much to the "ghetto losers". :no:

You liberal capitalist Yanks need to sort your priorities out.

I am less understanding of people who choose to live off the dole, because its a choice. Life gives them lemons, and instead of making lemonade they choose to live off of government handouts. Thats a whole other issue, as well...

[CrossLOPER]

I am less understanding of people who choose to live off the dole, because its a choice. Life gives them lemons, and instead of making lemonade they choose to live off of government handouts. Thats a whole other issue, as well...
Moving and good high education is expensive. I do think that programs that directly assist people who want help would probably be more effective than grants alone.

[Goofball]

Because of people such as yourself. Unfortunately, when making vacation plans they have to factor in things such as whether the population of their destination will question their normalness. :dizzy2: Who wants to go somewhere to relax in a hostile environment?

The whole gay issue is an embarrassing blight on modern conservative ideology. It completely ignores libertarianism in sake of a "moral majority" and religious pandering. The best part is that its all based off of the same old testament writings that approve of slavery and forbid eating pork, among other fun codes Christians tend to ignore. If certain groups of Christians had an understanding of the bible as a whole, not just specific passages, I find it hard to believe they would be able to reconcile the teachings of Christ with the current treatment of gay people in that community. It constantly astounds me that the people who hold Jesus above all else are reliably the most openly hate filled group of people in this country. (This is, of course, not directed at all Christians.)

1.There have always been gay people.
2.There will always be gay people.
3.You cannot become gay. Social acceptance of it will not increase or decrease homosexuality.

The sooner we on the Right stop making this an issue, the sooner it will cease to be an issue. There is so many more important things to concern ourselves with.

An eminently pragmatic and refreshingly practical position.


I understand that the Republican party has to pander to the rednecks and hicks among us, just like the Democrats have to go after the inner city ghetto losers with welfare promises; but I for one don’t want to be associated with the lowest common denominator.

It's a freaking shame, isn't it? That is the inherent drawback of democracy. The LCD has a lot of pull. A guy who didn't complete grade 8, has never had a job, and has never spent 5 minutes thinking (let alone reading) about the issues, has just as much say in politics as you or I do.

[HoreTore]

It's a freaking shame, isn't it? That is the inherent drawback of democracy. The LCD has a lot of pull. A guy who didn't complete grade 8, has never had a job, and has never spent 5 minutes thinking (let alone reading) about the issues, has just as much say in politics as you or I do.

I see that as a strength. Why? Because it gives the people who did complete the 8th grade a motivation to ensure that everyone else does too. Since their opinion matters just as much as yours, it's in your own good to educate them.

EDIT: As for the rest of the thread, well, I lol'ed.

Btw PJ, have you reconsidered your stance on gays lately? I seem to remember you saying in some "iran hangs another gay guy"-thread that "while gay people should be discriminated, killing them is just too much" or something to that effect...

[English assassin]

The whole gay issue is an embarrassing blight on modern conservative ideology. It completely ignores libertarianism in sake of a "moral majority" and religious pandering. The best part is that its all based off of the same old testament writings that approve of slavery and forbid eating pork, among other fun codes Christians tend to ignore. If certain groups of Christians had an understanding of the bible as a whole, not just specific passages, I find it hard to believe they would be able to reconcile the teachings of Christ with the current treatment of gay people in that community. It constantly astounds me that the people who hold Jesus above all else are reliably the most openly hate filled group of people in this country. (This is, of course, not directed at all Christians.)

1.There have always been gay people.
2.There will always be gay people.
3.You cannot become gay. Social acceptance of it will not increase or decrease homosexuality.

The sooner we on the Right stop making this an issue, the sooner it will cease to be an issue. There is so many more important things to concern ourselves with. I understand that the Republican party has to pander to the rednecks and hicks among us, just like the Democrats have to go after the inner city ghetto losers with welfare promises; but I for one don’t want to be associated with the lowest common denominator.

Oh my god. I agree with every word. What is going on here?


If homosexual people are so 'normal', why do they feel the need to base entire holidays on their sexual orietation.

This would obviously be as ridiculous as young heterosexual people heading off to the Greek islands and spending two weeks copping off with each other.

[InsaneApache]

Aye, apart from Zante that is. :embarassed:

[Adrian II]

Oh my god. I agree with every word. What is going on here?Me too! This is what is going on:

https://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3121/fallout12lu4.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

[ICantSpellDawg]

Because of people such as yourself. Unfortunately, when making vacation plans they have to factor in things such as whether the population of their destination will question their normalness. :dizzy2: Who wants to go somewhere to relax in a hostile environment?

The whole gay issue is an embarrassing blight on modern conservative ideology. It completely ignores libertarianism in sake of a "moral majority" and religious pandering. The best part is that its all based off of the same old testament writings that approve of slavery and forbid eating pork, among other fun codes Christians tend to ignore. If certain groups of Christians had an understanding of the bible as a whole, not just specific passages, I find it hard to believe they would be able to reconcile the teachings of Christ with the current treatment of gay people in that community. It constantly astounds me that the people who hold Jesus above all else are reliably the most openly hate filled group of people in this country. (This is, of course, not directed at all Christians.)

1.There have always been gay people.
2.There will always be gay people.
3.You cannot become gay. Social acceptance of it will not increase or decrease homosexuality.

The sooner we on the Right stop making this an issue, the sooner it will cease to be an issue. There is so many more important things to concern ourselves with. I understand that the Republican party has to pander to the rednecks and hicks among us, just like the Democrats have to go after the inner city ghetto losers with welfare promises; but I for one don’t want to be associated with the lowest common denominator.

I fundamentally disagree with what you are saying here. This is the mainstream opinion of homosexuality.

I don't believe that there have always been "homosexual" people. There have always been "homosexual" acts, but people were less rigidly defined by "sexuality". I also believe that you are not born "gay", therefore you become "gay" at some point in your life. Look at the ratio of identical Twins who are not both gay - same womb, same genes; different sexual identity? Someone is lying about there sexuality there according to propoenents of genetic homosexuality. God forbid it was the twin who believed that he was a homosexual!

To me, homosexual acts are simply actions taken that I believe can and should be condemned by moral opinion, if not by law - In line with theft, sexual promiscuity, public masturbation, etc. We are able to come to conclusions about those things even though "they don't hurt anyone". It is one thing to do those things on your own time, but if you start advertising spots as "great places to masturbate" or "take a crap in the bushes" - people would probably get offended about that, too.

Opposition to homosexuality is only an "egregious humanitarian injustice" if is biologically determined. As it stands it is just a sexual perversion in my book. Sexual perversions should be frowned upon, particularly when they are being used to advertise a state as a den of sexual perversion.

It is good to see that I fundamentally disagree with PJ on this issue. I thought that we were reading out of the same book. Younger generations are buying these arguments and others like them in droves. It bodes well for the movement to make homosexuals a minority group in the future.

[HoreTore]

Why the hell are you opposed to sexual promiscuity...?

Sex is healthy and good for you. And I like to taste all the different candy available instead of sticking with just one ~;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why the hell are you opposed to sexual promiscuity...?

Sex is healthy and good for you. And I like to taste all the different candy available instead of sticking with just one ~;)

I am - I believe that it is a bad thing and causes alot of unnecessary problems in relationships. I am guilty of it like the others, but I don't want to hear about my town being labeled as the heterosex capital of the world either.

"Homosexuals" are people defined by their sexual perversions. I am against swingers and sado-masochists as well. Oh - I'm sorry, were they born like that too? I'd better be careful what I say about them, wouldn't want to be called a bigot by people who use the term every chance they get.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Come to Long Island Dungeons, its just unbearable for sado-masochists!

:balloon2::balloon::balloon2::balloon:

:smash:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Come to Long Island Dungeons, its just unbearable for sado-masochists!

:balloon2::balloon::balloon2::balloon:

:smash:

hehe. Careful, wouldn't want anyone to condemn you as a bigot for making fun of the bad choices of individuals.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh, fer Pete's sake. What a lot of fuzz over nothing. Gah!

For 150 years, we've been advertising ourselves as Gay Paris and nobody ever complains about it either. ~;)

[ajaxfetish]

I fundamentally disagree with what you are saying here. This is the mainstream opinion of homosexuality.This is because you are willing to overlook pretty much all of the relevant research and evidence related to the issue.


I don't believe that there have always been "homosexual" people. There have always been "homosexual" acts, but people were less rigidly defined by "sexuality". I also believe that you are not born "gay", therefore you become "gay" at some point in your life. Look at the ratio of identical Twins who are not both gay - same womb, same genes; different sexual identity? Someone is lying about there sexuality there according to propoenents of genetic homosexuality. God forbid it was the twin who believed that he was a homosexual!Probably not solely genetic, yet definitely natural, as it is attested throughout human history and observable in numerous other species, and environmental factors likely take effect at a young enough age and work through means we so insufficiently understand that PJ's claim that you cannot 'become' homosexual is still essentially true, even if environmental factors play a part.


To me, homosexual acts are simply actions taken that I believe can and should be condemned by moral opinion, if not by law - In line with theft, sexual promiscuity, public masturbation, etc. We are able to come to conclusions about those things even though "they don't hurt anyone". It is one thing to do those things on your own time, but if you start advertising spots as "great places to masturbate" or "take a crap in the bushes" - people would probably get offended about that, too.This is an argument against public displays of homosexual behavior, rather than homosexuality itself. As such, it is valid.


Opposition to homosexuality is only an "egregious humanitarian injustice" if is biologically determined. As it stands it is just a sexual perversion in my book.
False. Opposition to homosexuality is only an "egregious humanitarian injustice" if is involuntarily determined. The choice doesn't have to be made genetically for it not to be a sin. It just has to be made by something other than the individual. The evidence suggests that same-sex sexual preference is not primarily a matter of choice. It is wrong to hold homosexuals morally accountable for their sexual predisposition, and foolish to argue that they should be provided no morally acceptable sexual outlet.

Ajax

[Adrian II]

It is one thing to do those things on your own time, but if you start advertising spots as "great places to masturbate" or "take a crap in the bushes" - people would probably get offended about that, too.Man oh man, are you out of your depth in this thread. Your Neanderthal views and vulgar imagery say more about your prejudice and inexperience than about homosexuals. As English Assassin said earlier in this thread, you obviously have some growing-up to do. And some reading in History, too.

[Viking]

I fundamentally disagree with what you are saying here. This is the mainstream opinion of homosexuality.

I don't believe that there have always been "homosexual" people. There have always been "homosexual" acts, but people were less rigidly defined by "sexuality". I also believe that you are not born "gay", therefore you become "gay" at some point in your life. Look at the ratio of identical Twins who are not both gay - same womb, same genes; different sexual identity? Someone is lying about there sexuality there according to propoenents of genetic homosexuality. God forbid it was the twin who believed that he was a homosexual!

To me, homosexual acts are simply actions taken that I believe can and should be condemned by moral opinion, if not by law - In line with theft, sexual promiscuity, public masturbation, etc. We are able to come to conclusions about those things even though "they don't hurt anyone". It is one thing to do those things on your own time, but if you start advertising spots as "great places to masturbate" or "take a crap in the bushes" - people would probably get offended about that, too.

Opposition to homosexuality is only an "egregious humanitarian injustice" if is biologically determined. As it stands it is just a sexual perversion in my book. Sexual perversions should be frowned upon, particularly when they are being used to advertise a state as a den of sexual perversion.

It is good to see that I fundamentally disagree with PJ on this issue. I thought that we were reading out of the same book. Younger generations are buying these arguments and others like them in droves. It bodes well for the movement to make homosexuals a minority group in the future.

Next up from TSMG:

You are not born hetero; sanity and proper morals will lead you down that path. :yes:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Man oh man, are you out of your depth in this thread. Your Neanderthal views and vulgar imagery say more about your prejudice and inexperience than about homosexuals. As English Assassin said earlier in this thread, you obviously have some growing-up to do. And some reading in History, too.

Homosexual acts would seem similarly vulgar to the majority of people. And it is this vulgarity that the "prejudice" is against, not the people themselves.

And considering TuffStuff's "Neanderthal" comments were made regarding public acts or the advertising of these acts, I don't see what's wrong with the comparisons. Yes they're unpleasant, but is this whole issue not unpleasant?

I'm not preaching hate and I'm not saying homosexuals are defined by their sexuality. Despite the apparent reversal of roles on either side of the argument in this respect, still it is the same side that remains "Neanderthals" in the eyes of the other.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What If they called it the private masturbation capital of the world? I'm sure that people would be irritated by that as well.

I need to get back to my cave, Adrian. Us Neanderthals need our beauty sleep.

I don't remeber us slavery loving bigots ever claiming that blacks wern't born black, but were defined by their black actions.

[Viking]

Homosexual acts would seem similarly vulgar to the majority of people. And it is this vulgarity that the "prejudice" is against, not the people themselves.

And considering TuffStuff's "Neanderthal" comments were made regarding public acts or the advertising of these acts, I don't see what's wrong with the comparisons. Yes they're unpleasant, but is this whole issue not unpleasant?

I'm not preaching hate and I'm not saying homosexuals are defined by their sexuality. Despite the apparent reversal of roles on either side of the argument in this respect, still it is the same side that remains "Neanderthals" in the eyes of the other.


What If they called it the private masturbation capital of the world? I'm sure that people would be irritated by that as well.

I need to get back to my cave, Adrian. Us Neanderthals need our beauty sleep.

I don't remeber us slavery loving bigots ever claiming that blacks wern't born black, but were defined by their black actions.

But there is a major flaw in Tuff's logic here; Tuff's talking about sexual activity, but sexuality does not equal sex or sexual activity. The ad didn't say anything about sexual activity. :idea:

[Ser Clegane]

Homosexual acts would seem similarly vulgar to the majority of people. And it is this vulgarity that the "prejudice" is against, not the people themselves.

And considering TuffStuff's "Neanderthal" comments were made regarding public acts or the advertising of these acts, I don't see what's wrong with the comparisons. Yes they're unpleasant, but is this whole issue not unpleasant?

I'm not preaching hate and I'm not saying homosexuals are defined by their sexuality. Despite the apparent reversal of roles on either side of the argument in this respect, still it is the same side that remains "Neanderthals" in the eyes of the other.

If I read the ad that is shown in the article correctly, it does not say anything along the lines of "South Carolina is a great place to have wild gay sex" - it just promotes SC as a great place for gay tourists to visit. So comparing the ad to imaginary ads that promote "vulgar" acts is not really valid
Perhaps an ad that says "SC is a great place for single travelers" is the same as "SC is a great place for masturbating"? or "Niagara Falls are a great destination for honeymooners" is the same as "Niagara Falls are a great place for young couples to have sex like rabbits"? :idea2:

I have the feeling that "vulgar" rather is the term that fits the ideas that come to the mind of some people when reading this ad...

EDIT: Viking kind of beat me to it...

[Rhyfelwyr]

What If they called it the private masturbation capital of the world? I'm sure that people would be irritated by that as well.

Don't talk horrible! You have taken a thread about nice, innocent homosexual acts and turned it into something disgusting...:no:


I need to get back to my cave, Adrian. Us Neanderthals need our beauty sleep.

Go rot in your den of morality!


I don't remeber us slavery loving bigots ever claiming that blacks wern't born black, but were defined by their black actions.

I think I'll go back to my own cave and sit out the oncoming storm...


But there is a major flaw in Tuff's logic here; Tuff's talking about sexual activity, but sexuality does not equal sex or sexual activity. The ad didn't say anything about sexual activity. :idea:

Exactly. So now who is saying these people are defined by their sexuality? Used to be if people on my side of the argument said anything along those lines they would be narrow-minded bigots.

[Viking]

[...]

Perhaps an ad that says "SC is a great place for single travelers" is the same as "SC is a great place for masturbating"? or "Niagara Falls are a great destination for honeymooners" is the same as "Niagara Falls are a great place for young couples to have sex like rabbits"? :idea2:

I have the feeling that "vulgar" rather is the term that fits the ideas that come to the mind of some people when reading this ad...


Closing in on the reductio ad absurdum.


Exactly. So now who is saying these people are defined by their sexuality? Used to be if people on my side of the argument said anything along those lines they would be narrow-minded bigots.

I'll point back to PJ's post:


Unfortunately, when making vacation plans they have to factor in things such as whether the population of their destination will question their normalness. Who wants to go somewhere to relax in a hostile environment?

[HoreTore]

"Homosexuals" are people defined by their sexual perversions. I am against swingers and sado-masochists as well. Oh - I'm sorry, were they born like that too? I'd better be careful what I say about them, wouldn't want to be called a bigot by people who use the term every chance they get.

Well.... Let's take the swingers first; We're all born with the desire to procreate, right? And as much as possible... Isn't that what swingers are doing?

As for the S/M-stuff, well, that's the most commonly found sexual fantasy. Handcuffs are a blast :2thumbsup:

And no, there's nothing wrong with it either. It makes people happy.

[Ironside]

I don't believe that there have always been "homosexual" people. There have always been "homosexual" acts, but people were less rigidly defined by "sexuality". I also believe that you are not born "gay", therefore you become "gay" at some point in your life. Look at the ratio of identical Twins who are not both gay - same womb, same genes; different sexual identity? Someone is lying about there sexuality there according to propoenents of genetic homosexuality. God forbid it was the twin who believed that he was a homosexual!


Genes can be quite complicated, take left- and righthandedness for example. Identical twins can prefer different hands, 2 lefthanded parents gets more than 50% of thier children righthanded, but the lefthanded ratio is considerble higher.
The most sensible explaination (that also explains the population ratio) is that there's 2 genes where one always gives righthandedness, while the other gives a random (aka about 50-50) dominant hand. Those genes are expressed equally strong (or only one is used, randomly chosen).

And that is only the primary gene, it seems to more complicated than that, proven by ambidextricy for example (they still got a prefered hand though).

Short version, things can still be genetically based, but have a chance of variation that's decided very early, most likely before birth.

[PanzerJaeger]

Btw PJ, have you reconsidered your stance on gays lately? I seem to remember you saying in some "iran hangs another gay guy"-thread that "while gay people should be discriminated, killing them is just too much" or something to that effect...

I have never been particularly against homosexuality. It has always been rather obvious to me that physical attraction is not a conscious choice, regardless of whether one falls into the nature or nurture camps.

I used to be far more vocally against the Pride movement, especially the sexually charged atmosphere it produces, but lately I’ve come to view it as more of an unfortunate reaction. People who are treated with such contempt often act out. I don’t think the majority of gay people are out to destroy religion or family values. In fact, I think there are probably a good number of homosexuals who believe in a less regulated economy, lower taxes, a strong national defense, and the preservation of basic rights such as bearing arms who have been driven to the left.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the whole thing is a complete non-issue drummed up by people for three fundamentally flawed reasons: a)they just think its gross and want to legislate their own tastes, b)they believe its against their religion, or c)they have an innate fear that either they or their children could “catch” it.

In America, the Supreme Court line up has actually given us a realistic shot at overturning Roe Vs. Wade. That’s the social issue that should be our number one priority. Children are being killed every day in America while infertile couples desperately seek them, and it seems some on the Right want to waste limited time and resources on defining the virtually nonexistent differences between marriages and civil unions in the constitution, keeping gay support groups out of schools, and making sure not one “gay” cent makes it into their state coffers. Priorities!

[Rhyfelwyr]

I used to be far more vocally against the Pride movement, especially the sexually charged atmosphere it produces, but lately I’ve come to view it as more of an unfortunate reaction. People who are treated with such contempt often act out. I don’t think the majority of gay people are out to destroy religion or family values. In fact, I think there are probably a good number of homosexuals who believe in a less regulated economy, lower taxes, a strong national defense, and the preservation of basic rights such as bearing arms who have been driven to the left.

So homosexuals are now left-wing? Well you can take them back and make them part of your glorious fascist state.


I’ve come to the conclusion that the whole thing is a complete non-issue drummed up by people for three fundamentally flawed reasons: a)they just think its gross and want to legislate their own tastes, b)they believe its against their religion, or c)they have an innate fear that either they or their children could “catch” it.

In Health Education classes they tell people that it is completely normal to be attracted to the same sex. And they do this to children from under 10 years old, when some of them will still have no inclinations at all. And condsidering the ridiculously disproportionate time they spend on homosexuality I wouldn't be surprised if these children do think its completely normal and common. And now there is talk they will be teaching children these things from 6 years old, to help them with relationships apparently. Any sex education for children that age is a sickening thought. Gah! I just finished these classes a few years ago at school myself, why do I sound like a pensioner!:wall:


In America, the Supreme Court line up has actually given us a realistic shot at overturning Roe Vs. Wade. That’s the social issue that should be our number one priority. Children are being killed every day in America while infertile couples desperately seek them, and it seems some on the Right want to waste limited time and resources on defining the virtually nonexistent differences between marriages and civil unions in the constitution, keeping gay support groups out of schools, and making sure not one “gay” cent makes it into their state coffers. Priorities!

What child would want to live with homosexual parents? Its human nature to know that is not normal. I was, em, pretty innocent compared to other children my age at school, but even when I was young there was a gay (as in the stereotype) pupil a few years above me who creeped the hell out of me, so much so I would hold my breath walking by him. And its not like I was the only one, some of us used to avoid him like the plague.

[PanzerJaeger]

I fundamentally disagree with what you are saying here. This is the mainstream opinion of homosexuality.

I don't believe that there have always been "homosexual" people. There have always been "homosexual" acts, but people were less rigidly defined by "sexuality". I also believe that you are not born "gay", therefore you become "gay" at some point in your life. Look at the ratio of identical Twins who are not both gay - same womb, same genes; different sexual identity? Someone is lying about there sexuality there according to propoenents of genetic homosexuality. God forbid it was the twin who believed that he was a homosexual!

To me, homosexual acts are simply actions taken that I believe can and should be condemned by moral opinion, if not by law - In line with theft, sexual promiscuity, public masturbation, etc. We are able to come to conclusions about those things even though "they don't hurt anyone". It is one thing to do those things on your own time, but if you start advertising spots as "great places to masturbate" or "take a crap in the bushes" - people would probably get offended about that, too.

Opposition to homosexuality is only an "egregious humanitarian injustice" if is biologically determined. As it stands it is just a sexual perversion in my book. Sexual perversions should be frowned upon, particularly when they are being used to advertise a state as a den of sexual perversion.

It is good to see that I fundamentally disagree with PJ on this issue. I thought that we were reading out of the same book. Younger generations are buying these arguments and others like them in droves. It bodes well for the movement to make homosexuals a minority group in the future.


Regardless of nature versus nurture, it isn't a concious choice. By the time you start to become attracted to other people, the writing is on the wall. If you can honestly say that you could have gone either way and chose to be attracted to your amazing girlfriend, I've got some news for you. You're bisexual!

Trying to link homosexuality to things such as theft and public masturbation and all sorts of other genuinely harmful activities is a common tactic that just doesn't logically work, IMO. Taken on its own, there is really no reason to condemn same sex couples. If we start down the path of legislating our own tastes without justification, we begin to risk some of the things we truly value that may not be popular - hunting for instance.

We're not in complete disagreement though. I'm firmly with you on keeping them off Affirmative Action lists. :yes:

[Kralizec]

What child would want to live with homosexual parents? Its human nature to know that is not normal. I was, em, pretty innocent compared to other children my age at school, but even when I was young there was a gay (as in the stereotype) pupil a few years above me who creeped the hell out of me, so much so I would hold my breath walking by him. And its not like I was the only one, some of us used to avoid him like the plague.

A) nobody cares what kids want

B) kids won't start wondering about it until they've met other kids who think it's not normal, who think so because their parents think so

C) gayness isn't transmitted through the respiratory system, no point in holding your breath

Kids can be somewhat forgiven for being bigotted because they're stupid and don't stop to wonder why they're disgusted by the mere presence of homosexuals. It's the post-puberty people who never wonder about the reason for it who are responsible for this bigotry because they pass it down to their own kids.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A) nobody cares what kids want

Finding a suitable home for kids who need them is relevant to what is being discussed, so you shouldn't just dismiss it jokingly.


B) kids won't start wondering about it until they've met other kids who think it's not normal, who think so because their parents think so

So people are straight because of peer pressure? Amazing how despite a child's enviroment being irrelevant when it comes to homosexuals, other environments contribute to the masses of straight people.


C) gayness isn't transmitted through the respiratory system, no point in holding your breath

Yes but the point is that children can sense that it is not natural. And you can't blame it on my upbrinding, my parent's aren't religious and they have never mentioned anything to do with sex to me in my life. Which I am thankful of since it is disturbing when you hear of people being given "The Talk".


Kids can be somewhat forgiven for being bigotted because they're stupid and don't stop to wonder why they're disgusted by the mere presence of homosexuals. It's the post-puberty people who never wonder about the reason for it who are responsible for this bigotry because they pass it down to their own kids.

I am disgusted by homosexual people because they do disgusting things. The same way people are digusted by paedophiles and other perverted people. Speaking of which, I wonder when we will start accepting them?

[Kralizec]

So people are straight because of peer pressure? Amazing how despite a child's enviroment being irrelevant when it comes to homosexuals, other environments contribute to the masses of straight people.

That's not what I said. Kids start thinking gay kids are weird because of their peers (not actual "pressure" as it happens mostly on the subconscious level)

If you've been around kids enough you'll now that they start using phrases like "this is gay!" and calling eachother "fag" long before they seriously think about sexuality and when some of them still act as if girls are the fifth collumn in society. Why's that?

[PanzerJaeger]

So homosexuals are now left-wing? Well you can take them back and make them part of your glorious fascist state.

I'm speaking from an American perspective. Your hostility has been noted.




In Health Education classes they tell people that it is completely normal to be attracted to the same sex. And they do this to children from under 10 years old, when some of them will still have no inclinations at all. And condsidering the ridiculously disproportionate time they spend on homosexuality I wouldn't be surprised if these children do think its completely normal and common. And now there is talk they will be teaching children these things from 6 years old, to help them with relationships apparently. Any sex education for children that age is a sickening thought. Gah! I just finished these classes a few years ago at school myself, why do I sound like a pensioner!:wall:

I don’t think sex education for 10 year olds, much less 6 year olds, is appropriate at all. Blaming that on gay people is a false argument, though.

Unless your goal is to continue to make life miserable for gay people and keep them on the margins of society, I’m not sure what your issue is with telling children it is ok to be gay, though. Surely you have more of an understanding of human sexuality than to think that would have any bearing on basic attraction in the slightest.



What child would want to live with homosexual parents? Its human nature to know that is not normal. I was, em, pretty innocent compared to other children my age at school, but even when I was young there was a gay (as in the stereotype) pupil a few years above me who creeped the hell out of me, so much so I would hold my breath walking by him. And its not like I was the only one, some of us used to avoid him like the plague.

Wow. Just wow. I'm not sure who I feel more sorry for, you or that poor guy. One day, hopefully, you're going to feel very bad about that...

[Goofball]

I fundamentally disagree with what you are saying here. This is the mainstream opinion of homosexuality.

I don't believe that there have always been "homosexual" people. There have always been "homosexual" acts, but people were less rigidly defined by "sexuality". I also believe that you are not born "gay", therefore you become "gay" at some point in your life. Look at the ratio of identical Twins who are not both gay - same womb, same genes; different sexual identity? Someone is lying about there sexuality there according to propoenents of genetic homosexuality. God forbid it was the twin who believed that he was a homosexual!

To me, homosexual acts are simply actions taken that I believe can and should be condemned by moral opinion, if not by law - In line with theft, sexual promiscuity, public masturbation, etc. We are able to come to conclusions about those things even though "they don't hurt anyone". It is one thing to do those things on your own time, but if you start advertising spots as "great places to masturbate" or "take a crap in the bushes" - people would probably get offended about that, too.

Many places advertise themselves as great places to come and sneak through the woods, waiting to obliterate wildlife with high powered rifles. That is a much more disturbing activity than gay sex, and offends probably just as many people, if not more, than seeing a gay couple holding hands while they walk down the street.

And I can't believe you can say with a straight face that homosexuality should be illegal.

Good God man.

I thought you were a small government conservative who basically thought the less governmental interferance in peoples' lives the better. Now you want the government in peoples' bedrooms?


Opposition to homosexuality is only an "egregious humanitarian injustice" if is biologically determined. As it stands it is just a sexual perversion in my book. Sexual perversions should be frowned upon, particularly when they are being used to advertise a state as a den of sexual perversion.

That's not what was being advertized. SC was being advertized as a place where gay couples could see the sights and enjoy themselves in a discrimination free atmosphere.

Quite obviously false advertising.

[Lemur]

I am disgusted by homosexual people because they do disgusting things.
Every kink is disgusting except for the one that turns you on. Trust me, if you weren't into women the things men do in bed with them would seem silly, strange and possibly harmful. You're going to stick what in where and do what? For how long? Even oral sex is foul and disgusting if you look at it from the right angle.

Here's a crazy thought — why not let other people do what they want, so long as they're not hurting anyone? And don't throw the red herring of pedophilia into the mix, that's a cheap line of rhetoric that doesn't even make sense if you think about it.

[Goofball]

I am disgusted by homosexual people because they do disgusting things. The same way people are digusted by paedophiles and other perverted people. Speaking of which, I wonder when we will start accepting them?

Homosexuals don't do disgusting things. The do things that you find disgusting. There is a very big difference.

At any rate, as soon as somebody pulls out the old gem of comparing homosexuality and pedophilia, I know that there is no longer any point in carrying on the discussion, as their ignorance has at that point shown itself to be beyond my ability to penetrate.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Lemur and Goof need some time together in private. :beam:

Might I suggest South Carolina?

[HoreTore]

Which I am thankful of since it is disturbing when you hear of people being given "The Talk".

Nah nah, it wasn't all that when I got mine... My dad picked me up at a chicks house, asked who she was. I told him a little about her, and he said "Well, I sure hope you're using condoms, don't make the same mistake I did!" :beam: That was it.

[Viking]

I am disgusted by homosexual people because they do disgusting things. The same way people are digusted by paedophiles and other perverted people. Speaking of which, I wonder when we will start accepting them?

Now, homosexuals deal damage to nought, while paedophiles, they....guess what? Harm children. :yes:

I'm no "fan" of homosexuality (notably, minus lesbians), but what consenting adults do to each other in the bedroom is more or less none of my business; particularly something as harmless as sex between two people of the same gender.

[Tribesman]

Wow. Just wow. I'm not sure who I feel more sorry for, you or that poor guy.
Wow, Panzer
I must say you have surprised me throughout this topic .:2thumbsup:
I would myself add a few comments about that post you quoted , but a few :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:convey my thoughts just as well , but then as he is apparently being serious it needs a :dizzy2: to finish

[ajaxfetish]

I am disgusted by homosexual people because they do disgusting things. The same way people are digusted by paedophiles and other perverted people. Speaking of which, I wonder when we will start accepting them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent
You sound like you could afford a few more sex ed courses to straighten things out for you (no pun intended). It shouldn't take more than a few minutes of reading to understand how homosexuality and pedophilia are entirely unrelated.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

Of course I am not comparing paedophiles to gays. (Active) Paedophiles are not just undescribably disgusting but truly evil. Homosexual acts are just horrible. I think it was part of my point that they are in a completely different league. I am sorry that I was careless with that.

And the whole point of this is not that people are being told to go to South Carolina purely because the people there are tolerant to homosexuals. South Carolina was described as "so gay".

I might be getting flamed for making insensitive remarks but that advert clearly was not designed with subtelty nor consideration for the beliefs of the people of South Carolina. Considering religious folk are being branded as a power-hungry minority, I think it is strange that a lowly ranked official was able to begin this advertising campaign against the wishes of the majority of an entire state.

[CrossLOPER]

I think it is strange that a lowly ranked official was able to begin this advertising campaign against the wishes of the majority of an entire state.

You think the other kids are going to start making fun of South Carolina now?

[Tribesman]

I might be getting flamed for making insensitive remarks but that advert clearly was not designed with subtelty nor consideration for the beliefs of the people of South Carolina.

Subtelty eh ? For the locals like .
You mean something more along these lines
http://www.scpride.org/dnn/SCPride08/tabid/64/Default.aspx
Well there you go its official South Carolina is so gay

[ICantSpellDawg]

And I can't believe you can say with a straight face that homosexuality should be illegal.

Good God man.

I thought you were a small government conservative who basically thought the less governmental interferance in peoples' lives the better. Now you want the government in peoples' bedrooms?


You think right and wrong is determined by legality/illegality. Think for yourselves, don't let laws dictate your morality.

When did I say "homosexuality should be illegal"? I don't think it should be "illegal". I don't think binge drinking should be illegal, but I would be pissed as hell if my state called itself a destination for binge drinkers. Find me my own words since you have suggested that they exist. Quit using my mouth to put words in, don't you have your own?

PJ -I do agree that the number 1 focus should be overturning roe and doe, and that nearly all other issues should fall by the wayside if we had to pick one, but fortunately we can do more than one thing at a time.

[HoreTore]

Yes, you can do a lot of things. But by the gods, why do you want to spend that time trying to limit free sex?

The main point isn't what you think about homosexuality or whatever other sexual thingy you have a problem with. The main point is what the homosexual thinks. Your feelings or thoughts are irrelevant compared to that. If the homosexual wants to live his life with a person of the same sex rather than one of the opposite sex because that is what he wants, I cannot for the life of me imagine why that is any of your business at all. If it makes him/her happy, then it's all fine and dandy. Isn't that what the foundation of your nation is, that every person is entitled to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness? What right do you have to stop someone from doing what he/she thinks will give them the most happiness?

And don't give me the old "gay people can't procreate"-tirade. Whether a human wants to procreate or not is simply not the business of anyone other than the person in question.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Many places advertise themselves as great places to come and sneak through the woods, waiting to obliterate wildlife with high powered rifles. That is a much more disturbing activity than gay sex, and offends probably just as many people, if not more, than seeing a gay couple holding hands while they walk down the street.
Would those be...

large bore guns?

:wink3:

:7shipcaptain::indian_chief: :helmet: :biker:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Lets not get into too much of a neanderthal-bigot tizzy. This is about whether it was appropriate to use Carolinian state appropriated funds to advertise South Carolina as a homosexual hotspot throughout Europe. It isn't my money, so I don't really have a say - but the article was about whether people should get pissed about it.

I simply understand why they are pissed - and I have said it is like advertising South Carolina as a Sado-masochism hotspot. Not an illegal activity unless practiced graphically in public, but would you want your advertising money to go to something like that about your own state? I doubt it - hence the resignation of a state employee and the inquiry. Get over it.

[Lemur]

I dunno, TuffStuff, I would be pretty amused if I found out that Wisconsin was being marketed in Germany as the "butt spanking capitol of the Midwest." Come on, that would be hilarious. Especially once the Germans showed up, looking lost, asking about spankings.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Gah! The person responsible for the ad campaign ought to be promoted to a federal tourist bureau, not fired.

Gays are just another demographic, like single travellers, families with kids, singles, Jews, ethnic minorities, adventure seekers or culture lovers.

And the specifics of the gay demography make them extremely desirable tourists: a lot of DINKY's (double income, no kids) with matching large disposable incomes; there are few places on this planet that gays can travel to in dignity or even safety, which is a big boon for those places that do welcome gays; and gays are very much concentrated in big cities - with all the cultural preferences and high incomes that brings.

Everybody is fighting for the gay tourist market. In the civilised world they are at least, ie, Northwest Europe and assorted spots elsewhere. And I dare say that most gays on top of their head would only ever name New York and San Fransisco as places they'd like to visit. So, an ambitious, clever, great marketeer starts a campaign to inform affluent London gays (a million or so?) that America is also Savannah, and Atlanta, and South Carolina, and that it has more culture than any European cares to admit - that America, in short, is full sights to behold. And next he finds himself fired by an unholy alliance of hicks and fundamentalists. What a disgrace. What a pantomime.

What's next? People being fired for promoting America as a great place to visit for European Jews? Like, imagine all those Jews engaging in sex in America when they come over? An ad campaign advertising America as a great place for taking your children on holiday being pulled for promoting paedophilia? Advertising America's enormous natural parks - surely an invitation for nature lovers to engage in bestiality?
And don't say these examples are silly. We all know how slippery slopes work...

[ajaxfetish]

I simply understand why they are pissed - and I have said it is like advertising South Carolina as a Sado-masochism hotspot. Not an illegal activity unless practiced graphically in public, but would you want your advertising money to go to something like that about your own state?
That would pretty much be the pinnacle of awesomeness. I'd love to see something that funny penetrate our little bubble here in Utah. ~:)

Ajax

[Tribesman]

What a pantomime.

But Pantomime is so gay .
Caledonian do you hold your breath at the pantomime just in case ?
I bet you had a real panic attack when they shout "he's behind you"

[Adrian II]

But Pantomime is so gay .
Caledonian do you hold your breath at the pantomime just in case ?
I bet you had a real panic attack when they shout "he's behind you"Did you know Pantomime was totally accepted in Ancient Greece and Rome? :yes:

[Tribesman]

Yes but Adrian look what happened to those gay cultures , they lost out to real men who wore trousers:yes:
I mean seriously if this starts in South Carolina who knows where it will end , perhaps it could even spread to Utah
:oops:too late..http://utahpridecenter.org/utahpride/index.php/Get-Involved/Partners-Sponsors.html OMG they get adverts from hotels and banks and everything , is even Utah business chasing the pink dollar .
Its the end of civilisation I tell ya , I am outraged .
Though of course it is rather telling that they advertise Bud Light because that excuse for a beer is just so gay .

[CountArach]

Because of people such as yourself. Unfortunately, when making vacation plans they have to factor in things such as whether the population of their destination will question their normalness. :dizzy2: Who wants to go somewhere to relax in a hostile environment?

The whole gay issue is an embarrassing blight on modern conservative ideology. It completely ignores libertarianism in sake of a "moral majority" and religious pandering. The best part is that its all based off of the same old testament writings that approve of slavery and forbid eating pork, among other fun codes Christians tend to ignore. If certain groups of Christians had an understanding of the bible as a whole, not just specific passages, I find it hard to believe they would be able to reconcile the teachings of Christ with the current treatment of gay people in that community. It constantly astounds me that the people who hold Jesus above all else are reliably the most openly hate filled group of people in this country. (This is, of course, not directed at all Christians.)

1.There have always been gay people.
2.There will always be gay people.
3.You cannot become gay. Social acceptance of it will not increase or decrease homosexuality.

The sooner we on the Right stop making this an issue, the sooner it will cease to be an issue. There is so many more important things to concern ourselves with. I understand that the Republican party has to pander to the rednecks and hicks among us, just like the Democrats have to go after the inner city ghetto losers with welfare promises; but I for one don’t want to be associated with the lowest common denominator.
...wow...

[Rhyfelwyr]

But Pantomime is so gay .
Caledonian do you hold your breath at the pantomime just in case ?
I bet you had a real panic attack when they shout "he's behind you"

Haha obviously I do not still do that, that was when I was a child. Children do obsessive stuff like that, after I had salmonella I would'nt eat meat unless it was burnt to a crisp. My point is children don't always react rationally, but they take gut reactions to things.

Honestly, which side of this argument is abusing completely unfounded stereotypes? I have only ever said that homosexual acts are wrong, and have always maintained that homosexuals should not be defined by their sexuality. Hence my opposition to the advert, which blatantly targets this.

And yet in what seems to be a total reversal of the traditional roles the other side of the argument is adament that gays must revolve their life about being gay. Plus I get hit with all the stereotypes myself. I seem to be seen as a right-wing, pro-family values, product of a religious upbringing, which are are all incredibly wrong.

[CrossLOPER]

...after I had salmonella I would'nt eat meat unless it was burnt to a crisp.
Ahem.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogenic#Carcinogens_in_prepared_food)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Carcinogens, I remember reading something about them in one of the Al Gore v Unabomber quotes.

:help:

[Viking]

Lets not get into too much of a neanderthal-bigot tizzy. This is about whether it was appropriate to use Carolinian state appropriated funds to advertise South Carolina as a homosexual hotspot throughout Europe. It isn't my money, so I don't really have a say - but the article was about whether people should get pissed about it.

I simply understand why they are pissed - and I have said it is like advertising South Carolina as a Sado-masochism hotspot. Not an illegal activity unless practiced graphically in public, but would you want your advertising money to go to something like that about your own state? I doubt it - hence the resignation of a state employee and the inquiry. Get over it.

If the ad had said that South Carolina is a great place for homosexual activity. But it doesn't, so your rants are nothing short of absurd.

[Goofball]

You think right and wrong is determined by legality/illegality. Think for yourselves, don't let laws dictate your morality.

I certainly do not think that. I can think of many things that are illegal that are not wrong or immoral, and vice versa.


When did I say "homosexuality should be illegal"? I don't think it should be "illegal". I don't think binge drinking should be illegal, but I would be pissed as hell if my state called itself a destination for binge drinkers. Find me my own words since you have suggested that they exist. Quit using my mouth to put words in, don't you have your own?

I can't put any words in your mouth, it's too full with both your feet in it:


To me, homosexual acts are simply actions taken that I believe can and should be condemned by moral opinion, if not by law - In line with theft, sexual promiscuity, public masturbation, etc.

Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you...

[ICantSpellDawg]

I certainly do not think that. I can think of many things that are illegal that are not wrong or immoral, and vice versa.



I can't put any words in your mouth, it's too full with both your feet in it:



Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you...

I meant what I said. The acts should be condemned by moral opinion if they shouldn't by law. Where did I say that they should be illegal?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Only one side of this argument has been filled with prejudices and stereotypes.

No-one ever said homosexual acts should be illegal.

[HoreTore]

I meant what I said. The acts should be condemned by moral opinion if they shouldn't by law. Where did I say that they should be illegal?

Oh, you just want to condemn people.... That'll work out great for the suicide statistics.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh, you just want to condemn people.... That'll work out great for the suicide statistics.

Not people - acts.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Oh, you just want to condemn people.... That'll work out great for the suicide statistics.

And does it make these people feel better integrated into society when marketing groups tell them to go on holiday to different places than anyone else just because of something that they must feel pretty uncomfortable about in the first place if it is worth killing themselves over?

Because so far all TuffStuff and myself has said is basically "we think your sexual acts are immoral, but you are not defined by those".

But everyone else seems to be saying "you are gay, you always will be gay, most of the world hates you because you are gay, and you are so defined by the fact that you are gay that you must even travel seperately from the majority of the world".

:whip:

[Louis VI the Fat]

But everyone else seems to be saying "you are gay, you always will be gay, most of the world hates you because you are gay, and you are so defined by the fact that you are gay that you must even travel seperately from the majority of the world".

:whip:I think most of us on the 'prejudiced and stereotyping' side of the argument would love for gays to just be able to travel around in safety and dignity. Like, you know, the majority of the world. Or for gays to just go to school without being ostracised like a freak.

Have a heart. They're not lawyers you know.


I really don't see the problem with any of this. I am not sure at which of these three levels gay SC is promoted, but I don't mind any:
Gays being invited to see the local sights in a non-threatening atmosphere. That is, a tolerant mind being promoted.
Or gays being targeted as a separate demographic, the way a lot of advertissement is targeted at specific market segments.
Or South Carolina promoting it's varied gay activities.

I mean, really, what's the big deal. It's 2008, come on. Is Panzer the only reasonable conservative left? ~;)


And what's up with all that talk about sex, sex, sex in you and Tuff's posts? My first association with this thread was of two gays checking out the local museums. Yet the two of you fill three pages with sexual posts..?:inquisitive:
I note that you ended your last post with a sensual whip (:whip:) - anything you'd like to share with us? ~;)

[ajaxfetish]

Because so far all TuffStuff and myself has said is basically "we think your sexual acts are immoral, but you are not defined by those".

But everyone else seems to be saying "you are gay, you always will be gay, most of the world hates you because you are gay, and you are so defined by the fact that you are gay that you must even travel seperately from the majority of the world".

:whip:
And South Carolina seems to be saying, "you are gay, we hate you because you are gay, and you must travel to some other part of the world. Oh, and sorry for those ads that falsely suggested we are tolerant. They were a mistake."

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

And what's up with all that talk about sex, sex, sex in you and Tuff's posts? My first association with this thread was of two gays checking out the local museums. Yet the two of you fill three pages with sexual posts..?:inquisitive:

I think the problem is that me and Tuff see the ad as targeting something else compared to what you see.

Because you believe homosexuality to be something that utterly defines people, not just in the eyes of the world but the way they must act, the way they think of themselves, and where they go on holiday. And in that sense the advert appears to target a market segment in your eyes.

When I see the advert, I see it as targeting people because of their sexual practises. Because unlike you, I believe that these acts happen to be one immoral thing that these people do. Behind these acts are people, who have more to them than what they do in the bedroom! Therefore, there is no reason to suggest that a homosexual should like South Carolina more/less than a straight person. Do you think there is?

[Geoffrey S]

That latter point was addressed more than adequately earlier on. There are plenty of places where a gay couple cannot go on holiday, where chances are they will be treated poorly if seen walking hand in hand, audible lewd comments made behind their back. Why on earth would they want to go to such a place?

The advertisement implied that South Carolina was above such demeaning and petty practices. Apparently, South Carolina disagrees. Their loss.

[Goofball]

I meant what I said. The acts should be condemned by moral opinion if they shouldn't by law. Where did I say that they should be illegal?

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood. I read that to be the same type of statement as, for example, "That guy is dishonest, if not an outright crook." To me that is an "at best/at worst" type of statement, meaning you believe the first idea to be true, and would also support the second idea, if not as strongly.

The fact that you included homosexual behaviour in the same category as theft and public masturbation (things that most people believe should be illegal), led me to believe that you were saying homosexual acts should also be illegal.

Forgive me if I misunderstood.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And so rather than making it clear that South Carolina would be tolerant they said "South Carolina is so gay!"

[Viking]

But everyone else seems to be saying "you are gay, you always will be gay, most of the world hates you because you are gay, and you are so defined by the fact that you are gay that you must even travel seperately from the majority of the world".

:whip:

Yes, most likely they will always be gay. :dizzy2: Will you one day cease being hetero perhaps? Most likely not. You could just as well ask them to cease being white, oh ya.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Will you one day cease being hetero perhaps?

No, but it happens doesn't it?

[Viking]

No, but it happens doesn't it?

Does it?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, I've seen on documentaries there are married prisoners with several children who claimed to be 100% straight, only to go into full homosexual relationships in prison.

[Viking]

Well, I've seen on documentaries there are married prisoners with several children who claimed to be 100% straight, only to go into full homosexual relationships in prison.

'Claimed' is the key; either way.

Anyhow, I'm not going to read this thread over again, word for word, but really, I cannot see where anyone said that someone should be classified homosexuals for the rest of their life if they themselves should not agree with it (nor can I possibly see why anyone would suggest that). Drop the strawmen.

[Geoffrey S]

Well, I've seen on documentaries there are married prisoners with several children who claimed to be 100% straight, only to go into full homosexual relationships in prison.
Joey, have you ever been to a Turkish prison?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Strawmen like saying homosexuality should be illegal?

And the market classes them as homosexuals, that is where this whole thread stems from is'nt it?

[Viking]

Strawmen like saying homosexuality should be illegal?


Strawman like suggesting that I have ever implied that Tuff wanted homosexuality to be illegal.



And the market classes them as homosexuals, that is where this whole thread stems from is'nt it?

No, it targets homosexuals (no pun intended :beam:).

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well it has to classify them to target them doesn't it?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood. I read that to be the same type of statement as, for example, "That guy is dishonest, if not an outright crook." To me that is an "at best/at worst" type of statement, meaning you believe the first idea to be true, and would also support the second idea, if not as strongly.

The fact that you included homosexual behaviour in the same category as theft and public masturbation (things that most people believe should be illegal), led me to believe that you were saying homosexual acts should also be illegal.

Forgive me if I misunderstood.

I agree - The figure of speech was incorrectly used. It was Mind-Bottling, if you will.

[Viking]

Well it has to classify them to target them doesn't it?

No. It does indeed say that it is possible to target a specific group of population based on their sexuality. Why? Because of what PJ stated. :yes:

[HoreTore]

Well, I've seen on documentaries there are married prisoners with several children who claimed to be 100% straight, only to go into full homosexual relationships in prison.

That's called "being in the closet". Check it up sometime. It's a nice side effect you get when you have a society condemning them.

[HoreTore]

And so rather than making it clear that South Carolina would be tolerant they said "South Carolina is so gay!"

That's called marketing jargon. Deal with it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's called "being in the closet". Check it up sometime. It's a nice side effect you get when you have a society condemning them.

Its not a closet case. Gimmie a break - men have sex with men in prison because they like to have sex and there are no other alternatives. If a gay guy started sleeping with ladies, would you call him an out-of-closet-case?

Just a guy being a guy.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's called "being in the closet". Check it up sometime. It's a nice side effect you get when you have a society condemning them.

Like the Spartan "Sacred Band" soldiers all miraculously came out of the closet at once when they were couped up in their little barracks?

[CrossLOPER]

Like the Spartan "Sacred Band" soldiers all miraculously came out of the closet at once when they were couped up in their little barracks?
I think they were already pretty much openly gay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes) when they were drafted.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It was always encouraged though.