Debate and Discussion

Gay Rights.
El Cid at 2:28PM, Dec. 16, 2010
(online)
posts: 947
joined: 5-4-2009
isukun
…I have to wonder how his argument is any more intrinsically flawed than your theory that love and sexuality are unrelated.
I *think* what he meant to say was that love and sexuality are not the same thing. Might've just got caught up in hyperbole there, I dunno. But from his statement, KnaveMurdok seemed to be equating LOVE with nipple slips and dick waving… which doesn't sound all that romantic to me either! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
Abt_Nihil at 3:52PM, Dec. 16, 2010
(offline)
posts: 1,212
joined: 8-7-2007
Are you two desperately trying to misconstrue what Knave said? He was complaining about a scoiety in which anything related to sex is a taboo (thus producing symptoms like all-around hypocrisy, homophobia, misogynism, etc. etc.), while the depiction of violence is somewhat celebrated. That's easy enough to get, caps or no.

Suffice to say, I completely agree with him on this point.
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:44AM
El Cid at 4:14PM, Dec. 16, 2010
(online)
posts: 947
joined: 5-4-2009
Abt_Nihil
Are you two desperately trying to misconstrue what Knave said?
Fist of all, there is no “us two.” OJM was making a comprehensive statement with regards to Knave's argument; I was trying to point out where OJM may have misspoken, but have not addressed Knave's argument comprehensively.

Abt_Nihil
He was complaining about a scoiety in which anything related to sex is a taboo (thus producing symptoms like all-around hypocrisy, homophobia, misogynism, etc. etc.), while the depiction of violence is somewhat celebrated. That's easy enough to get, caps or no.
No one missed that this was his argument, but thank you for restating it anyway.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
Abt_Nihil at 7:51AM, Dec. 17, 2010
(offline)
posts: 1,212
joined: 8-7-2007
I apologize if I misconstrued your point. I included you because of your saying
isukun
from his statement, KnaveMurdok seemed to be equating LOVE with nipple slips and dick waving… which doesn't sound all that romantic to me either! :)
The “:)” wasn't lost on me, it just didn't seem to have much to do with what he said. My point is, I have no idea how anyone can think he was talking about love in the first place. He was simply talking about repressing sexuality…
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:44AM
Orin J Master at 11:23AM, Dec. 17, 2010
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
Abt_Nihil
My point is, I have no idea how anyone can think he was talking about love in the first place. He was simply talking about repressing sexuality…

yeah, they did that WALL'O'TEXT thing peopel love wehn they're not good at explaining (or possibbly understanding) their point. but since you missed it:

KnaveMurdok
We live in a culture that celebrates VIOLENCE over LOVE, where a PG-13 movie might contain lots of SHOOTING and people DYING, if you let a NIPPLE SLIP you have gained an R-RATING, and God forbid you should show a PENIS, your movie might not get made AT ALL.

they pretty much directly equate love with sex via the reproductive organs there. they also massive overreach how violence in interpreted in modern culture as lauded rather than unavoidable…but that's a different argument entirely.

now as for isukun's statement….love isn't inherently sexual, although it is often construed in exclusively sexual terms in media these days. mothers love their kids, people love their pets, far too many people love gossip news. there's been a level of confusion where culture has tried to blur the difference between the two through religion (where they want you to think loving god is as good as sex to help people abstain) and movies (where they have a much easier time making people look like they're having sex than being in love) but that doesn't actually make the two related.

the two are often connected, yes, but that's more because they are frequently complimentary elements, like choosing the right wine to have with your meal. it's not required exactly, but it adds to the full experience.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
Abt_Nihil at 4:57PM, Dec. 17, 2010
(offline)
posts: 1,212
joined: 8-7-2007
I've been proven wrong! So, I take it back ^^;

If anything, Knave seemed to have meant the sexual kind of love to begin with. I guess he didn't meant love in all available definitions of the term. I still think that if we take him to mean that, his argument makes sense.
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:44AM
isukun at 9:43PM, Dec. 18, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
love isn't inherently sexual

Love in the romantic sense IS inherently sexual, and that is precisely what KnaveMurdok was referring to. You're just getting hung up on semantics, here, and his argument isn't any less valid for it. I find it hard to believe that you honestly thought he was referring to filial love or some more generic all-encompassing concept rather than simply romantic love, given the context.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
ozoneocean at 11:33PM, Dec. 18, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
Well DADT for the US military is now out. Homosexual US military personnel can now serve openly. That's pretty good news!
In how many other militaries around the world is this possible?

On the downside, people can no longer use the claim that they're homosexual as a great excuse for getting out of the military. I heard that was popular during Vietnam when conscription was an issue.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:37PM
KnaveMurdok at 4:23AM, Dec. 19, 2010
(offline)
posts: 49
joined: 10-3-2006
I think perhaps I was not as CLEAR as I could have been.
The POINT I've been trying to make has only sparked MISUNDERSTANDING, leading to FURTHER CONTROVERSY!
As stated before, this is where we linger into the murky mires of OPINION, people are bound to get LOST from time to time.

I'd like to start off by saying that I do not believe that love and sex are the same thing, but I do think they are INTRINSICALLY CONNECTED, possibly even HOPELESSLY INTERTWINED.

Secondly, when I said LOVE, I think I meant to specifically refer to the ACT of love, as in MAKING LOVE.

To MAKE LOVE to SOMEONE you LOVE is a beautiful thing, but to MURDER someone in cold blood is in reality pretty terrible. In media, this mentality is reversed. We don't see much of affection in media because the human body is seen as vulgar. All too often, when the human form is utilized, it is done so in a CHEAP and TAWDRY way, and often this sexuality is used to SELL A PRODUCT, rather than to convey a FEELING.
On the flip side, it is often very SATISFYING to watch a MAIN CHARACTER mow down bad guys with an AWESOME GUN, and we get to see the blood splatter in VICIOUS DETAIL. I will admit to being guilty of this as well. Violence is FUN and EXCITING.

I am not saying that I WANT to see people FUCK in movies, that is not my endgame.

I am just shedding light on this POPULAR MINDSET, that has SHAPED our entire society.

We seem to be trained to HATE our bodies, to the point where seeing or even imagining them together makes us SQUEAMISH. LOVE and AFFECTION is considered PORNOGRAPHIC, even among the heterosexual. If we hold so much animosity towards even our own, so called “normal” sexuality, is it any wonder we as a civilization have such a hard time accepting gays?




As a side note. I am very sorry to hear my use of capitalization for emphasis bothers some of you so much. I'd like to think of myself as a polite person, but I honestly don't know any of you well enough to DRASTICALLY ALTER MY HABITS for, for the sake of making you feel more comfortable. If there is a FORUM RULE against capitalization, please bring it to my attention, and I will gladly follow it. In the absence of such a rule, I am sorry, you will simply have to DEAL with how I COMMUNICATE. Just try to imagine you are speaking to someone with an ACCENT you are not USED TO, it may take some time to learn to appreciate the subtle NUANCES.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:19PM
ozoneocean at 5:16AM, Dec. 19, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
KnaveMurdok
As a side note. I am very sorry to hear my use of capitalization for emphasis bothers some of you so much. I'd like to think of myself as a polite person, but I honestly don't know any of you well enough to DRASTICALLY ALTER MY HABITS for, for the sake of making you feel more comfortable. If there is a FORUM RULE against capitalization, please bring it to my attention, and I will gladly follow it. In the absence of such a rule, I am sorry, you will simply have to DEAL with how I COMMUNICATE. Just try to imagine you are speaking to someone with an ACCENT you are not USED TO, it may take some time to learn to appreciate the subtle NUANCES.
I think what bothers people more about it is that there's not necessarily any logic to it. Usually when someone uses CAPITALISATION, bolding, Italics, underline, or a MIXTURE of the FOUR, there's an easily discernible reason for that extra emphasis. :)

Your usage evokes the image of a person having a discussion and while doing so; shouting out one of the words every so often…



That said, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Carry on however you chose!
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:37PM
KnaveMurdok at 6:34AM, Dec. 19, 2010
(offline)
posts: 49
joined: 10-3-2006
ozoneocean
I think what bothers people more about it is that there's not necessarily any logic to it. Usually when someone uses CAPITALISATION, bolding, Italics, underline, or a MIXTURE of the FOUR, there's an easily discernible reason for that extra emphasis. :)

Your usage evokes the image of a person having a discussion and while doing so; shouting out one of the words every so often…



That said, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Carry on however you chose!

The only LOGIC that need apply to any form of EMPHASIS is to EMPHASIZE what one deems to be important. Therefor the words I CAPITALIZE are the ones I want you to PAY ATTENTION TO :P

I know that things I find important are by no means important to everyone else. THIS is why I think it seems RANDOM to a lot of people. Rest assured though, there is a method to my madness, this is not simply an attempt to ANNOY anyone.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:19PM
Orin J Master at 7:52AM, Dec. 19, 2010
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
ozoneocean
Well DADT for the US military is now out. Homosexual US military personnel can now serve openly. That's pretty good news!
In how many other militaries around the world is this possible?

On the downside, people can no longer use the claim that they're homosexual as a great excuse for getting out of the military. I heard that was popular during Vietnam when conscription was an issue.

so we should expect the draft soon. good to know, i'm off to provide evidence that i'm deeply emotionally unstable and therefore unfit to serve!

……maybe i'll just mail out snippets of kyupol's ramblings with my name on them.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
ozoneocean at 8:12AM, Dec. 19, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
Orin J Master
ozoneocean
Well DADT for the US military is now out. Homosexual US military personnel can now serve openly. That's pretty good news!
In how many other militaries around the world is this possible?

On the downside, people can no longer use the claim that they're homosexual as a great excuse for getting out of the military. I heard that was popular during Vietnam when conscription was an issue.

so we should expect the draft soon. good to know, i'm off to provide evidence that i'm deeply emotionally unstable and therefore unfit to serve!

……maybe i'll just mail out snippets of kyupol's ramblings with my name on them.
Haha! That would probably work toooo well… (strappy white jacket)

Turns out I was wrong in a way… article 125 of the Uniform Military Code of Justice (UMCJ) still prohibits homosexual behaviour in the US Military (but not necessarily limited to homosexual) (link)
925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

…so, it depends on how far you're willing to take your charade ;)

Looks like they'll have to fix up that.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:37PM
isukun at 9:39AM, Dec. 19, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Technically, that doesn't say the person would necessarily be kicked out of the military for that kind of action. The punishment for the offense is undefined. A court-martial could just overlook it and put you back on the front lines. For the most part, this is a highly overlooked part of the UMCJ. It technically applies to anything which may be considered penetration that doesn't involve genital on genital contact. Oral is covered under the same rule and you wouldn't need to have gay sex to pull it off, heterosexual oral and anal falls under this ruling, as well. How many people have you heard of that have gotten kicked out of the military for getting a blowjob from their girlfriend?

The really funny thing is that this rule doesn't apply to lesbians. They go on to further define “unnatural carnal copulation” and it requires an actual penis. You can legally make the argument that toys don't count.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved