Prop 8 struck down.

[Noelle]

I'm not sure I understand.  Could you elaborate on what kinds of "special" privileges you're referring to?  And maybe you could tell me how it's inappropriate to be "slapped in the face" with the sexual activities of gay couples, when we're slapped in the face with references to hetero sex every time we turn around?

I can't speak for the OP, and maybe this isn't quite on the same page, but for me, I find it irritating when I talk to my gay friends and all they can talk about is how gay they are and how much of a shame it is to see so many straight people around them and just turn everything into a 'gay or straight' label. It almost seems as if they've dropped all their interests and things that make them uniquely 'them' to become some kind of annoying stereotype. It's irritating not because they're gay, but because they let it become their only defining trait. I understand that realizing you're gay is a big event and that it can feel very liberating to finally be open about it, but let's be honest...there's more in the world than the fact that you're attracted to the same gender. It's not (or at least shouldn't be) a defining characteristic of who you are.

Come to think of it, this is probably on a completely different page all together, haha.

And actually, on the subject of being "slapped with hetero references", it makes sense to play towards the majority. If you go to China, you see movies and film with predominately Chinese/Asian actors. Gays have become increasingly prominent in the media, but it demographically wouldn't make sense to portray gays and straights 50/50 given your audience is predominately straight. It's not really discrimination so much as it is...well...playing the demographics :P

[Hunter]

It's irritating not because they're gay, but because they let it become their only defining trait. I understand that realizing you're gay is a big event and that it can feel very liberating to finally be open about it, but let's be honest...there's more in the world than the fact that you're attracted to the same gender. It's not (or at least shouldn't be) a defining characteristic of who you are.

+1

[schnookums]

Gays (SOME gays, specifically) have been acting like being gay is this big liberating blah blah etc. etc. because for the longest time (and it STILL IS GOING ON) being gay was considered a dirty, scummy, shameful, diseased thing that you HAD to hide away lest people were to think you were physically and morally defective. Many gays "shove it in your face" as a way to fight back against the attitude that only heterosexuals are allowed any sort of display of sexuality without being considered the scum of the earth.

[Hunter]

Gays (SOME gays, specifically) have been acting like being gay is this big liberating blah blah etc. etc. because for the longest time (and it STILL IS GOING ON) being gay was considered a dirty, scummy, shameful, diseased thing that you HAD to hide away lest people were to think you were physically and morally defective. Many gays "shove it in your face" as a way to fight back against the attitude that only heterosexuals are allowed any sort of display of sexuality without being considered the scum of the earth.

Being obnoxious is being obnoxious.

[Wolfy]

No, but there are incidents like Matthew Shepard.

That's true. o3o

[Wolfy]

Gays (SOME gays, specifically) have been acting like being gay is this big liberating blah blah etc. etc. because for the longest time (and it STILL IS GOING ON) being gay was considered a dirty, scummy, shameful, diseased thing that you HAD to hide away lest people were to think you were physically and morally defective. Many gays "shove it in your face" as a way to fight back against the attitude that only heterosexuals are allowed any sort of display of sexuality without being considered the scum of the earth.

O-o..It actually wasn't that long ago that "Being Gay" was considered a Mental Illness...

Which of course, gave us such 'wonderful' (note the sarcasm marks..I really think they are idiotic. o3o) PSA as this:

Boys Beware



o-o

Edit: previous one wasn't the full version..this is, As far as I know. I..also have no idea why the ratio is like that. o-o

[Will]

And actually, on the subject of being "slapped with hetero references", it makes sense to play towards the majority. If you go to China, you see movies and film with predominately Chinese/Asian actors. Gays have become increasingly prominent in the media, but it demographically wouldn't make sense to portray gays and straights 50/50 given your audience is predominately straight. It's not really discrimination so much as it is...well...playing the demographics :P

However, any time this particular complaint is brought up, it's somebody saying "I don't want to see or hear anything about that, grrrr!  Keep it behind closed doors!"  That isn't playing the demographics; that's total suppression, and it makes absolutely no sense.  I also don't understand where you're coming from with the concept of "50/50."  I didn't say anything about making it all even. I just think it's silly to make gay people censor themselves about their sex life any more than a straight person. :P

[Noelle]

Nah, it's not about keeping it behind closed doors. I treat gay PDA the same way I treat hetero PDA -- I really just don't like excessive PDA in general, small gestures I can tolerate, but any flamboyant displays from anybody is uncomfortable :| I think maybe people who word it as "I don't mind gay people, I just don't want it shoved in my face" (and so forth) may have similar feelings, but are wording it rather dubiously. I wonder sometimes if it's not so much the fact that they're gay so much as A) they're not used to seeing same-sex PDA (even if they don't mind gays) and/or B) they just confuse it with not liking PDA in general.

The 50/50 thing wasn't so much a direct reply to anything you said...Just elaborating on my thoughts, I suppose. It seems sometimes like people expect equal representation in the media, and while that would be nice and idealistic, monetarily and for the sake of ratings/viewership, it doesn't make sense to. And I agree, nobody should be held to a different standard due to their sexual preference -- like I said, I no more care to see hetero displays of sexuality in inappropriate places than homosexual types.

[Florence]

I know that I'm going to get all kinds of flack for saying this:

I really don't care what you do in your bedroom but when you slap it in my face then demand 'special' (their word, not mine) privileges, I have an issue.  If you want to be treated differently because of your bedroom activities, go look somewhere else for sympathy because I'm tired of hearing about it.

The equal chance to pursue happiness is 'special'?

I can't speak for the OP, and maybe this isn't quite on the same page, but for me, I find it irritating when I talk to my gay friends and all they can talk about is how gay they are and how much of a shame it is to see so many straight people around them and just turn everything into a 'gay or straight' label. It almost seems as if they've dropped all their interests and things that make them uniquely 'them' to become some kind of annoying stereotype. It's irritating not because they're gay, but because they let it become their only defining trait. I understand that realizing you're gay is a big event and that it can feel very liberating to finally be open about it, but let's be honest...there's more in the world than the fact that you're attracted to the same gender. It's not (or at least shouldn't be) a defining characteristic of who you are.

I think the problem is you have a lot of really boring gay friends xD I'm only bi, and, thanks to my constant debates about this kind stuff, I end up talking about being gay/bi waaaaay more than my boyfriend, who IS gay, does. xD In fact, he rarely ever talks about it. Mostly he just talks about songs he has stuck in his head, Pokemon or other such nerdy/cute things xD That's not to say that no gay people are like that, but in my experience it isn't that big of a majority, though as previously stated, there is definitely a reason so many do act like that.

Being obnoxious is being obnoxious.

Yeah, who cares what kind of torment caused so many gay people to act this way, the important thing is that you're annoyed by it. Honestly, I find the constant stream of straitness from the media to be obnoxious. I seriously do. I mean, I'm bi, I like women too, but I'm just so sick of it. Every single thing Man meets Woman, Man charms Woman, Man sleeps with Woman, The End. It's dull, boring and obnoxious. I've seen it over and over again, and it's honestly gotten to the point where there needs to be some major catch, like... one or both of them are insane, some horrible past trauma, inter-species (not animals, fantasy/sci-fi species :I), incest etc. for a straight love story to really interest me. I mean, there are exceptions, but I'm going on a tangent. The point is that the constant stream of heterosexuality from the media has actually made me sick of straight romance. How come no one seems to be up in arms over that, but when there's like... two gay people kissing in a street, people start acting like it's the most horrifying thing in the world.

[Brandon]

There tend to be more straight people then gay people across the world so demographically when youre making a romantic movie they focus on straight aspects more then bisexual or homosexual ones. People who are straight understand straight romances while they likely dont understand bisexual, homosexual, or trisexual (as in love triangles) ones.

There is no reason that a homosexual (male or female) or bisexual or trisexual romance plot couldnt work but someone would acctually have to have the balls to make one. Remember the entertainment industries dont like to take big risks and considering bigotry, religious belief, misunderstandings, and probably other reasons its easy to see why they dont want to tackle that hurdle. Think about it when was the last time we saw an actual gay relationship in popular media? Pretty sure it was in the early playstation games with the lesbian heroines (i forget the game name) but you see mentions of homo and bisexuality in the video game industry. Metal gear solid 2 and Alpha protocol are two I can think of off the top of my head with refferences to both (although both were portrayed as the villains being bi/gay). Then you have bioware making leaps and bounds with RPGs having bisexual/homosexual relationships the player can participate in and pursue but I dont really consider them relationships because of the limited scope of the romances

[Oniya]

Think about it when was the last time we saw an actual gay relationship in popular media?

Brokeback Mountain?

[Trieste]

The Bird Cage... Jeffrey... Priscilla Queen of the Desert... Something's Gotta Give showed it a little one-sided, but it was there... I never saw In and Out but heard it was a gay romcom. And what about movies like Philadelphia? Talk about widespread appeal among gay, straight, and undecided.

Yeah. Love is love, Brandon, and relationships between gay people are still human relationships. There is plenty for people to identify with across sexualities.

Also, please stop lumping polyamory and this "trisexual" thing into the same category as gay relationships. They have different sets of challenges, and they are two different issues with only minor overlap.

[Hunter]

Yeah, who cares what kind of torment caused so many gay people to act this way,

That's like saying that it's okay for me to beat up random people on the street because I was bullied in school.

[Will]

That's a poor analogy; nobody is being beaten up or harmed in any way.  They're just making you uncomfortable. :P

[Hunter]

That's a poor analogy; nobody is being beaten up or harmed in any way.  They're just making you uncomfortable. :P

Oh really?  I'm actually asexual because of the way my brain and body are wired: sex in general isn't interesting (even as a recreational activity).  And yes, I also get tired of the constant stream of sexual content that appears in the various medias.  Your behavior can not only make me uncomfortable, it can also cause PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE.

Enough, I'm done.  It's obvious that it's not a debate but the typical one sided slamfest that always appears here.

[Will]

I've never heard of a condition in which PDA could lead to serious psychological trauma.  O.o  Regardless, we are sexual creatures by nature (exceptions such as yourself notwithstanding).  Sex will forever and always be a part of our culture, and I think hiding or suppressing it TOO much (some things are still TMI, of course) is an exercise in futility.

[Trieste]

Roight. Is time for cooldown.

Edit: Unlocked. Play nice, please.

[Jude]

So, to get things back on track, apparently the Federal Judge that made the ruling is gay.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

My problem with people following that vein of argument is that if Prop 8 had been upheld by a heterosexual judge, there would be no issue there.  Even if the judge was a Christian heterosexual judge there still wouldn’t have been an issue made over the decision at least in that regard.  This judge is gay and strikes down Prop 8, then there is an issue with his bias.  Seeing a double standard there.

[Jude]

Depends.  You have to look at the demographics involved.  Lets say the judge was hetero; what percent of hetero judges support same-sex marriage?  Well, if it's anything like the general population, 35-40%.  What percentage of homosexuals support same-sex marriage?  Probably 90% or more.

If a judge has a characteristic that is likely to produce a ridiculous bias, it's clearly not a fair ruling.

EDIT:  Especially when the ruling grants more privileges to the minority he or she is a member of.  A hetero judge would not be giving straight couples anything even if they ruled for Prop 8.

EDIT2:  Kind of a no brainer that it's a serious conflict of interest when you stand to gain heavily from a decision you're asked to impartially make.  To re-iterate, heteros would've gained nothing.

[Lyell]

I've never heard of a condition in which PDA could lead to serious psychological trauma.  O.o  Regardless, we are sexual creatures by nature (exceptions such as yourself notwithstanding).  Sex will forever and always be a part of our culture, and I think hiding or suppressing it TOO much (some things are still TMI, of course) is an exercise in futility.

I don't know if Hunter was being serious or not, but it's rather infuriating to have examples and analogies shot down by simple prospect of "that's not close enough to what's really happening, so your analogy is invalid." Then that person creates a (possibly, - again, not sure) hypothetical situation to explain your own backwards logic to you and then have it dismissed again because "that's just the way we're wired." How about I say to you that it's just the way we're wired to segregate ourselves based on our differences and similarities? We do it all the time, with our religeon, the things we buy, the people we socialize with. And we've done it for a long time. All the way back to caveman days when we separated tribes based on how we hunted and where we wanted to stay.

On a slightly less comfortable note I could also say we're wired to violently oppose those who challenge the percieved norm. The Crusades, The Salem Witch trials, The Civil War, any war really. So why is it appropriate to suppress some things and not others?

[Florence]

Oh really?  I'm actually asexual because of the way my brain and body are wired: sex in general isn't interesting (even as a recreational activity).  And yes, I also get tired of the constant stream of sexual content that appears in the various medias.  Your behavior can not only make me uncomfortable, it can also cause PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE.

Enough, I'm done.  It's obvious that it's not a debate but the typical one sided slamfest that always appears here.

I know Hunter said he was done, and I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but there's only so much we, as a society can really do to avoid "psychological damage". There are people "psychologically damaged" by seeing all sorts of things, and if we go out of our way to avoid any of it, we're going to have no culture at all, because any sign of culture is going to offend/annoy/disgust someone. I am a rather liberal person, but there's only so far we can go trying to be PC and unoffensive before we start censoring everything that makes life interesting, just because someone may be "psychologically damaged" by it.

Quite frankly, if signs of affection between two consenting human adults is such a horrifying and traumatizing event for someone, they're not exactly going to be able to handle life in general very well, are they? It also begs the question why one would be on a site catering very much towards human sexuality, but... that's not the topic here, so I'll stay on point. The fact is sexuality is a part of life, it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats, but people need to be able to handle seeing people display affection/sexuality without being traumatized by it.

Now, I'm NOT trying to sound too... aggressive or anything. I admit, this is an issue I'm passionate about, but I am not trying to start a fight or anything by saying that. I think it's a valid point. To sum it up nice and neatly: We can only bend over backwards so much to protect people's mental health before we end up destroying everything good in life.

Edit: Also, just to stress my above point... if I do seem a bit too confrontational, just let me know >_>; I'm still trying to find the proper balance of passion and civility for discussing here.

[Hunter]

I don't know if Hunter was being serious or not,

Oh I'm VERY serious.  If you do a little research into Asperger's Syndrome, you find out that part of the package is a very low to non-existent sex drive.  ANY kind of public intimacy makes me uncomfortable.  I don't care if it's gay, straight, or whatever.

[Zakharra]

 Well  you can't expect people to not be affectionate in public. I mean holding hands, cuddling, hugging, some kisses. To expect that is unrealistic.  Even in  movies, that's unrealistic to expect. Sex is something that drives the race as a whole. Without sex, none of us would be here. Sex also sells. So it's not going away anytime soon. If ever.

[Will]

I don't know if Hunter was being serious or not, but it's rather infuriating to have examples and analogies shot down by simple prospect of "that's not close enough to what's really happening, so your analogy is invalid." Then that person creates a (possibly, - again, not sure) hypothetical situation to explain your own backwards logic to you and then have it dismissed again because "that's just the way we're wired." How about I say to you that it's just the way we're wired to segregate ourselves based on our differences and similarities? We do it all the time, with our religeon, the things we buy, the people we socialize with. And we've done it for a long time. All the way back to caveman days when we separated tribes based on how we hunted and where we wanted to stay.

So that means it should be forcibly institutionalized?  You're free to segregate yourself, or not.  Isn't that how it should be?

On a slightly less comfortable note I could also say we're wired to violently oppose those who challenge the percieved norm. The Crusades, The Salem Witch trials, The Civil War, any war really. So why is it appropriate to suppress some things and not others?

That causes damage, it hurts people.  That is the difference.  It is my opinion that widespread references to sex in media does no real damage to anyone.  I didn't mean to be hurtfully dismissive of Hunter's assertion to the contrary; if there is a such a condition medically recognized, I would love to hear about it for my own education.

Oh I'm VERY serious.  If you do a little research into Asperger's Syndrome, you find out that part of the package is a very low to non-existent sex drive.  ANY kind of public intimacy makes me uncomfortable.  I don't care if it's gay, straight, or whatever.

"Uncomfortable" is a long way from serious psychological trauma.