LGBTS, Taobums, and our opinions regarding the topic.

[Aaron]

Recently Serene Blue, who is a moderator on this board made a statement that I think warrants answering, which is that we as a community can't decide whether or not the comments occurring in the Right Wing War Against LBGTS thread was hate speech or an unpleasant fact.

 

First I take offense to the term fact, because nothing stated in any link or statement is actually factual but rather circumstantial and subjective and much of the problem going on is that people are presenting this "evidence" as factual, when the sources are all biased and anti-gay to begin with.

 

With that said, my question is whether or not the comments going on in the above mentioned thread are actual hate speech or are they unpleasant truths? I think the answer is clear, but I would appreciate the objective analysis of the community.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Added neither for the agnostics among us.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Aaron

[thelerner]

I think the topic is heading for The Pit. Don't know about hate, but I found White Wolf's comments on homosexuality to be disgustingly deep in conspiracy theory, <ie dark, paranoid and unwarranted>.

[ralis]

Recently Serene Blue, who is a moderator on this board made a statement that I think warrants answering, which is that we as a community can't decide whether or not the comments occurring in the Right Wing War Against LBGTS thread was hate speech or an unpleasant fact.

 

First I take offense to the term fact, because nothing stated in any link or statement is actually factual but rather circumstantial and subjective and much of the problem going on is that people are presenting this "evidence" as factual, when the sources are all biased and anti-gay to begin with.

 

With that said, my question is whether or not the comments going on in the above mentioned thread are actual hate speech or are they unpleasant truths? I think the answer is clear, but I would appreciate the objective analysis of the community.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Added neither for the agnostics among us.

Given the source of the links, that are right wing fundamentalist in nature. I think it is hate speech. I will look on the Southern Poverty Law Center site and see if these groups are classified as hate groups.

[ralis]

Here is the Southern Poverty Law Centers analysis on the Family Research Council which is one of the links in question that was posted by WWROA.

 

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

[Thunder_Gooch]

I think lesbians are awesome!

 

We need more lesbians!

 

[Flolfolil]

that thread, very tldr. i'm not into the whole gay rights fight thing

 

can i get a quick summary of the contents of that thread and a list of the people that have a problem with what i do behind closed doors? thanks in advance.

 

i'm out! *z snap* mmmmhmmmm

[Seth Ananda]

I wanted to repost this from the trolling thread:

 

 

I personally think that it is totally ok to challenge the negatives In a persons culture, religion or belief system, as these are all 'add ons' to the person, and can be challenged or changed as they exist in the persons mind.

 

On the other hand, pointing out what you believe are 'negatives' in a persons Race is totally not ok. Ever.

It destroys that persons dignity and self esteem, and leaves them marginalised and angry.

 

The reason for this is, It is not something they have any power or choice over. One can not change ones Race,

 

The same goes for {most} Homosexuals. They have no ability to not be Gay. Most have been Gay since they were born.

 

Attacking something that people can not help, and that is totally natural, {found amply in nature} is plain rotten!

 

Like Racism, homophobia needs to be legislated against everywhere, and here at the TTB's.

[Birch]

Means I have to go through a thread I wasn't that into.

I didn't think stuff can be decided by polls. Haha

 

How about Aaron, you (or anyone else) just gets very very good at presenting their own POV? On this or on any topic. Just because bums x X +1 say whatever, doesn't make it so. I'm suggesting this because the people on this forum are (er, supposed to be) beyond 'majority rule' and very self-referential (as in 'know thyself') when they do comment. What this polling thing is showing is that that's not the case yet. Or, not as much as I thought. Whatevs.

 

[Seth Ananda]

How is this about majority rule? If anything it serves as a dark mirror to the blackness within the minds of several bigotry infested posters.

[Birch]

Because for many an issue, seems the polls are out and used as a way of defining the situation. I think that sets things up, and if not badly to begin with, it claims definition of an issue where none might be necessary. As in, open questions might be more necessary. To me this polling is pretty new. But I wouldn't say it's an improvement

[Thunder_Gooch]

[liminal_luke]

Personally, I prefer taobums topics more directly connected to cultivation issues but alright. I'd just like to say how the whole gay marriage debate effects me on a personal level. For four years now I've been in a gay relationship with a Mexican man. If we were a man/woman couple we'd have the option of getting married and moving to the US. Since there isn't federal gay marriage yet (state marriage doesn't count for immigration purposes) we can't.

 

If I had my druthers, everybody would be very accepting and welcoming of all sexual orientations. That's not going to happen and that's ok. If a religion wants to define marriage as between only a man and a woman for their purposes I suppose that's their business. But marriage isn't just a cultural or a religious term; it's a legal category. As such, it's important that we all have equal rights. If a straight us citizen can marry a citizen from another country and immigrate legally to the states why can't I?

[GrandmasterP]

Absolutely.

It makes no sense whatsoever that straight people can get married but LGBT aren't allowed to do so.

That's neither fair nor just and , hopefully; in England at least; the law will be changed soon. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and if any couple wants to get married rather than have a civil ceremony then they should be able to.

[thelerner]

I think what woke me up was the thought- What if I lived in a world that said my sexual attraction/lust for woman was wrong/immoral. How would I react if society told me my love for my wife was a psychological sickness and that we couldn't marry or have kids. I'd be pissed thats what. I'd fight against it.

 

On the other hand I don't like to much political correctness either. Truthfully its only by rubbing our ideas against each other that we have a chance to learn from each other. Not agree, but conflict can hone our own thinking and understand what's out there in the real world. White Wolf has the right to say what he thinks and we have the right to react. After that there's the hope we can keep it civil, which is hard on a subject that very personal.

 

Often the best we can do is state our truth and walk away.

Edited February 10, 2013 by thelerner

[eye_of_the_storm]

I think the topic is heading for The Pit. Don't know about hate, but I found White Wolf's comments on homosexuality to be disgustingly deep in conspiracy theory, <ie dark, paranoid and unwarranted>.

 

 

Prove me wrong and will happily remove all I have posted.

[Sanzon]

 

 

Prove me wrong and will happily remove all I have posted.

It's more about bias & delivery from my perspective. Skewed biases shift the context away from what the underlying issues may be. If you have consciously or inadvertently quoted from a site deemed a "hate group", the message presented is a negative one, rather than one based on an understanding of the humanity behind the situation. I can't be more neutral or fairer in my response toward your posts or the intent behind your posts.

[eye_of_the_storm]

About half the websites were Christian the other half Secular...

I posted around 100 references... the large majority of them are secular.

Gov/ Universities etc.

The Center for Disease Control was referenced many times.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is a United States federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services.

... prove me wrong and I will remove all of my posts.

Edited February 10, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[Sanzon]

I haven't read your sources & references. You may convince me by stating why is your objective of posting them. Is it to slight all the gay population, or to say that promiscuity is the issue and just happens to be male related by percentage, or perhaps something different?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Just left a post in the topic itself, but as to the "facts" posted by WWRN, they are obviously positioned to support a bias, however, if you want to fight against homophobia, here's your chance to look at the rationale that's causing it, so that you know the arguments needed.

 

The problem would arise if the posters just refuse to look at counter arguments, in which case their just spitting propaganda at people and nothing constructive can come of the time spent there. Unfortunately, this is more often than not what happens when dealing with ignorance, as this is how the people have managed to hold on to their ignorance/blissful illusion of being morally superior in spite of obvious realities.

[eye_of_the_storm]

I haven't read your sources & references. You may convince me by stating why is your objective of posting them. Is it to slight all the gay population, or to say that promiscuity is the issue and just happens to be male related by percentage, or perhaps something different?

 

As I said so so in the off topic thread

 

Freedom of expression is my concern.

 

One can't say no to homosexuals and also talk about freedom of expression haha

 

Promiscuity is the primary concern which is male related... (I think if people are in a truly loving relationship... promiscuity doesn't occur.... if however people wish to engage in such that is their choice.... I just would like it to be an informed choice)

 

This is self evident...

 

I don't know how many males have come on this board having addiction to pornography or excessive masturbation etc

 

And they desperately want help / ways to stop etc.

 

I don't think I have read one account from the females on this board having similar problems.

 

Females put males in check until they learn to harness such powerful energy. Pornography + TV and other media really isn't helping men.

 

But when you have Male X2....

 

There are no checks and balances...

 

So it is important that a few facts are made apparent so things don't run rampant.

 

Safe sex regardless of inclination.

 

It would be like someone saying drinking alcohol is perfectly healthy... well this isn't entirely accurate... all things in moderation etc.

 

If you want to drink yourself to death that is your choice however.

 

But we need to be clear about the consequences of such actions.

 

Edited February 10, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[Sanzon]

Would it be an assumption of me then to say you sound like a possible candidate for supporting gay marriage? That legitimizing gay relationships may lead to less promiscuity thus making steps towards a solution to the problem you have presented?

[eye_of_the_storm]

Marriage in the traditional church sense?

Seems really odd to me considering all the hate Christianity / any religious etc is getting at present.

Ive even known atheists to get married in a church, with a priest etc.... @_@

I fail to see the reasoning in this... haha

I myself subscribe to no Judaic/ Christian/ Islamic groups...

I study many beliefs

I try my best to look at all sides objectively.

So even for myself I would not demand marriage...

I think it best keep it secular if one has no interest / investment / practice with religious traditions.

So civil union I see no problem with.

Though again I see little need for the government to affirm my feelings.

If I and my partner agree upon marriage... one simply says...We are married! and that is that.

Edit: I think traditionally there was some pretty esoteric things regarding marriage... and marriage of spirits and so on...?

Edited February 10, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[Sanzon]

No, marriage in the legal lawful sense. There is a video I posted in the other thread titled "It Could Happen To You" that outlines logistical reasons for marriage in gay relationships. However leaving aside the religious overtones of marriage, it being an affirmation of commitment between two people, and encouraging commitment between two gay men, for example, by making the notion mainstream, and thus having an influence on the level of promiscuity between gay men. Your previous post makes me think this would be a next step in your line of thinking. I am taking a leap of faith here, to excuse the pun.

[eye_of_the_storm]

Even drug laws... I would abolish....All of them. As long as the information is out there so people understand what they are doing.

No government has the right to tell people what they can and can not do to their own body.

Information is all.

No government has the right to tell people what they can and can't say also.

Edited February 10, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[eye_of_the_storm]

As I said I have no problem with Civil Union.

I think the distinction needs to be made... and would allow for progress.

As religious organizations already have a claim to marriage and its meaning.

Well I would anyway...

Others may see it different and wish to call it differently...

All I can do is share my opinion... that is all.

But I think it is the balance that would make both parties happy.

I guess...

Edited February 10, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air