[QUOTE=Glaber;28268612]The mental image you get when you hear the word. Tell me, what do you think of when you see a Rainbow, or read the word "gay"?
You know Before gay became the mainstream word for Male homosexual, you'd hear it use in Christmas carols and the Flintstones Theme song in the context of happy. But now if a song has the word gay in it, the context is homosexual.
In the case of the Rainbow, It use to be associated with Unicorns, pots of gold, and the story of Noah's Ark. But only just recently did it start getting used to represent homosexuals for their movement. [/QUOTE]
i'm not getting your point
[QUOTE=Glaber;28268612]The mental image you get when you hear the word. Tell me, what do you think of when you see a Rainbow, or read the word "gay"?
You know Before gay became the mainstream word for Male homosexual, you'd hear it use in Christmas carols and the Flintstones Theme song in the context of happy. But now if a song has the word gay in it, the context is homosexual.
In the case of the Rainbow, It use to be associated with Unicorns, pots of gold, and the story of Noah's Ark. But only just recently did it start getting used to represent homosexuals for their movement.
You're the one with that keeps thinking it has a christian connection, Not me.
You know, If you're going to keep making that assertion, why don't you dig up the post where I make the connection? Because every time it seems that you're the one who thinks I believe that, especially because it's been documented to happen even before the formation of the Christian religion.[/QUOTE]
Is Glaber angry that the gays have stolen the rainbow from the unicorns? LOL.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28268612]The mental image you get when you hear the word. Tell me, what do you think of when you see a Rainbow, or read the word "gay"?
You know Before gay became the mainstream word for Male homosexual, you'd hear it use in Christmas carols and the Flintstones Theme song in the context of happy. But now if a song has the word gay in it, the context is homosexual.
In the case of the Rainbow, It use to be associated with Unicorns, pots of gold, and the story of Noah's Ark. But only just recently did it start getting used to represent homosexuals for their movement.[/QUOTE]
So tell me, why are these bad things or even problems?
[QUOTE=Glaber;28268612]The mental image you get when you hear the word. Tell me, what do you think of when you see a Rainbow, or read the word "gay"?
You know Before gay became the mainstream word for Male homosexual, you'd hear it use in Christmas carols and the Flintstones Theme song in the context of happy. But now if a song has the word gay in it, the context is homosexual.[/quote]
This isn't because of gays, this is because that is just what people started calling them. And gay is a better word for it anyway than homosexual. Besides, language changes over time.
[quote]
In the case of the Rainbow, It use to be associated with Unicorns, pots of gold, and the story of Noah's Ark. But only just recently did it start getting used to represent homosexuals for their movement.
[/quote]
Rainbows have been used for that and still are. However, they have also (not just for homosexuals) been used widely as flags, dating back even to the 16th century, to represent hope, change, piece, diversity and other meanings. In fact, In italy currently there is the PACE flag, which is a rainbow with the words PACE over it. So yes, they use it, but so does everyone else.
[quote]
You're the one with that keeps thinking it has a christian connection, Not me.
You know, If you're going to keep making that assertion, why don't you dig up the post where I make the connection? Because every time it seems that you're the one who thinks I believe that, especially because it's been documented to happen even before the formation of the Christian religion.[/QUOTE]
The statement you made was that "Works for me. It gives them the same rights without the taking over of another word or symbol." You may not be claiming that it's necessarily christian, but you are claiming that allowing gays to use the word marriage would somehow corrupt or ruin marriage for everyone else, which is a decidely conservative christian viewpoint, one you have exhibited in the past.
[editline]24th February 2011[/editline]
and the association of rainbows with unicorns was really made at about the same time as rainbows being associated with gays, so that doesn't really coutn
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;28268825]
Rainbows have been used for that and still are. However, they have also (not just for homosexuals) been used widely as flags, dating back even to the 16th century, to represent hope, change, piece, diversity and other meanings. In fact, In italy currently there is the PACE flag, which is a rainbow with the words PACE over it. So yes, they use it, but so does everyone else. [/QUOTE]
To add to your point let me list everything that straight people dominate/own:
1) Movies
2) Art
3) Literature
4) Commercials
5) Popular Culture
6) History
7) Politics
8) News
It could go on forever.
[QUOTE=Jimpy;28269001]To add to your point let me list everything that straight people dominate/own:
1) Movies
2) Art
3) Literature
4) Commercials
5) Popular Culture
6) History
7) Politics
8) News
It could go on forever.[/QUOTE]
to be honest
i'm not sure straight people own those per se
as gay people could do any of those and have
[QUOTE=Glaber;28268612]
In the case of the Rainbow, It use to be associated with Unicorns, pots of gold, and the story of Noah's Ark. But only just recently did it start getting used to represent homosexuals for their movement.[/QUOTE]
When I hear rainbow I think of that Dio song actually
and if you're thinking about unicorns every time you see a rainbow I think you might be a tad gay
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;28269030]to be honest
i'm not sure straight people own those per se
as gay people could do any of those and have[/QUOTE]
Heterosexuality completely and utterly dominates these things. Hell, white people still utterly dominate media and culture. If you want me to list reasons why I can.
[QUOTE=Jimpy;28269200]Heterosexuality completely and utterly dominates these things. Hell, white people still utterly dominate media and culture. If you want me to list reasons why I can.[/QUOTE]
do it
Not helping, You would do better using the Scott Pilgrim Movie or Graphic novels (Just finished book 6)
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;28269211]do it[/QUOTE]
1) Movies/Films/Television – Homosexuals being portrayed in the media is a recent occurrence. One of the first openly homosexual characters on television was in 1977, and it is debatable whether he was homosexual or not because he frequently had heterosexual flings. Also the show was highly toned down by the executives in order not to offend watchers. This ‘homosexual’ character was also acted by a straight man with the scripts being written by straight writers. That’s the issue with most homosexual characters portrayed in the media. They are not actually homosexual characters, they are simply portrayed as such while the minds behind them being straight. If we focus on homosexual films throughout history you will find the same thing. However instead of the stereotypical portrayals of gays in television, in film you will find that their lives are deemed as destructive and frequently lead to suicide. It wasn’t until the past 20 years that that started to change, however media is still ripe with stereotypes and offensive portrayals as well as ‘toning down’ for the heterosexual audience. Glee could be one example. First of all the main homosexual character on Glee is still pretty stereotypical in his portrayal (at least he is actually gay I suppose). There was at one point where the main gay character and his love interest could have kissed but the writers decided it wasn’t a good idea, while throughout the rest of the episode heterosexual teens are making out and having sex.
What I want you to focus on here is that it wasn’t till the 1970s that stereotypical/offensive portrayals had the ability to come in to the spotlight, and it wasn’t even till recently that less offensive portrayals were able to be shown.
To own or dominate something gays would have to make a significant impact on the media, which has not been possible because investors/executives remain scared of a heterosexual audience being offended. Most gay films no matter how good remain hidden even among gays.
Seriously do I have to continue it's not hard to figure out the rest. Heterosexuality dominates and in most cases in the past heterosexuality has literally pushed down homosexual media. Book publishers afraid to post lesbian novels not actually geared toward heterosexual men but homosexual women... Obscenity laws in the U.S. barring homosexual films... Sure it may no longer be illegal to create homosexual materials, but for the most part it is still very shunned.
Maybe i'm venting some Limbaugh here, but I personally can't stand the marriage debate. Maybe something in my subconscious is being stubborn, but in my eyes the word "marriage" means a union between a man and a woman in the same way that "tricycle" means a bike with three wheels. Civil unions provide ALL the legal benefits (at least in a perfect world, with them implemented properly) and they don't conflict with ANYONE'S views of religion or annoying word definition stuff like that.
But that's not good enough- they want to be able to CALL it marriage. Why? What's the point in arguing over what it's CALLED for crying out loud? Homosexuals being married does nothing to "destroy family values hurr" like so many Republicans like to say- but the fact that they want to be able to call it marriage seems as imposing upon Christianity/religion as religious people not allowing ANY kind of union between homosexuals is upon homosexuality.
It's a stupid debate, in my eyes. There should be [B]NO question about giving homosexuals equal rights under the law[/B], even through a union. Just because I don't believe it's marriage doesn't hurt anybody, doesn't take anyone's rights away, and leaves all problems solved.
[QUOTE=Canesfan;28270113]Maybe i'm venting some Limbaugh here, but I personally can't stand the marriage debate. Maybe something in my subconscious is being stubborn, but in my eyes the word "marriage" means a union between a man and a woman in the same way that "tricycle" means a bike with three wheels. Civil unions provide ALL the legal benefits (at least in a perfect world, with them implemented properly) and they don't conflict with ANYONE'S views of religion or annoying word definition stuff like that.
But that's not good enough- they want to be able to CALL it marriage. Why? What's the point in arguing over what it's CALLED for crying out loud? Homosexuals being married does nothing to "destroy family values hurr" like so many Republicans like to say- but the fact that they want to be able to call it marriage seems as imposing upon Christianity/religion as religious people not allowing ANY kind of union between homosexuals is upon homosexuality.
It's a stupid debate, in my eyes. There should be [B]NO question about giving homosexuals equal rights under the law[/B], even through a union. Just because I don't believe it's marriage doesn't hurt anybody, doesn't take anyone's rights away, and leaves all problems solved.[/QUOTE]
separate but equal cough cough
[QUOTE=Glaber;28265216]Works for me. It gives them the same rights without the taking over of another word or symbol.[/QUOTE]
And please stop. You make defending my point of view so much harder.
[editline]24th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Prismatex;28270261]separate but equal cough cough[/QUOTE]
Are homosexuals not being allowed the same nice facilities?
Well I suppose in some cases they aren't, but that has nothing to do with the marriage argument.
You can make the comparison but in any way other words it doesn't make any sense.
[QUOTE=Canesfan;28270113]Maybe i'm venting some Limbaugh here, but I personally can't stand the marriage debate. Maybe something in my subconscious is being stubborn, but in my eyes the word "marriage" means a union between a man and a woman in the same way that "tricycle" means a bike with three wheels. Civil unions provide ALL the legal benefits (at least in a perfect world, with them implemented properly) and they don't conflict with ANYONE'S views of religion or annoying word definition stuff like that.
But that's not good enough- they want to be able to CALL it marriage. Why? What's the point in arguing over what it's CALLED for crying out loud? Homosexuals being married does nothing to "destroy family values hurr" like so many Republicans like to say- but the fact that they want to be able to call it marriage seems as imposing upon Christianity/religion as religious people not allowing ANY kind of union between homosexuals is upon homosexuality.
It's a stupid debate, in my eyes. There should be NO question about giving homosexuals equal rights under the law, even through a union. Just because I don't believe it's marriage doesn't hurt anybody, doesn't take anyone's rights away, and leaves all problems solved.[/QUOTE]
Let me guess, you're religious. If you're not, then I'll be genuinely surprised on how your thinking works.
Marriage is in almost every religion, not just Christianity. Some religions say marriage is between two people who love each other, others say its between a man and a woman. Who are you to pick which is the right definition of marriage? Who are you to say that religions are allowed to control people's happiness? Just because somebody will get individually offended, does that mean two people shouldn't be allowed to marry? What about separation of church and state?
Gays can still be legally discriminated against as they still can't get married, even though civil unions exist.
[editline]25th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Canesfan;28270267]Oh. Sorry. Are homosexuals not being allowed the same nice facilities?[/QUOTE]
No, they're not.
Marriage in the context that we take it today is a modern term. It is not something owned by religion. The religion owned marriage is a marriage that's primarily importance was on property and wealth. Marriage today is about love. Every couple deserves to have a marriage that is defined by love.
Anyways civil unions and marriages are not equal at all under the law. They are still quite distinctively different. States don't have to recognize civil unions if they chose not to, where as marriage is recognized by all.
I admit i'm changing my views reading through all this. Nice to see decent arguments instead of box wars. I guess the points raised above about marriage being about love and the presence of marriage before Christianity have done the most to make me think.
[QUOTE=Canesfan;28270267]
Are homosexuals not being allowed the same nice facilities?[/QUOTE]
it's not the same thing as the Seperate but Equal laws that affected blacks, but it's the same mentality
Here's the issue; marriage is as much a symbolic union as it is a legal one, and by calling it a "civil union" instead of a "marriage" they are denying that symbolic element, while also saying that same-sex marriage is somehow not as good as opposite-sex marriage.
If they were the same thing, then they would be called the same thing; but by making them call it a civil union, the conservative right is saying "you may have the same rights, but it's still not as valid as a real marriage, so you can't call it that."
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28271579]it's not the same thing as the Seperate but Equal laws that affected blacks, but it's the same mentality
Here's the issue; marriage is as much a symbolic union as it is a legal one, and by calling it a "civil union" instead of a "marriage" they are denying that symbolic element, while also saying that same-sex marriage is somehow not as good as opposite-sex marriage.
If they were the same thing, then they would be called the same thing; but by making them call it a civil union, the conservative right is saying "you may have the same rights, but it's still not as valid as a real marriage, so you can't call it that."[/QUOTE]
This is one of the points I wanted to make but I couldn't find a good way to put it.
[QUOTE=Brage Nyman;28266870]Even the middle east? :allears:[/QUOTE]
Someday when they learn that their silly fairy tale book has no real value in life.
[QUOTE=Canesfan;28265093]Even as a strong Republican I support this. Civil unions are the best answer to the problem. It gives homosexuals equal rights under the law without causing problems with the more religious side by actually calling it "marriage."
Hope more states follow suit.[/QUOTE]
Why should the religious side have a monopoly on the word 'marriage'. Its just a word, the concept is universal and the word should be available to everyone. Cavemen probably got married in some way, their religion may or may not have been involved. Does it mean that the only people who are allowed to be called married are those who follow ancient paganism? NO, when the fuck will all the retards get over it!?!
I live in Massachusetts, where Gays get married! Ha HA!
[QUOTE=superdinoman;28274720]Someday when they learn that their silly fairy tale book has no real value in life.[/QUOTE]
are you seriously trying to claim that a written text, true or not, with decent historical and moral ideas contained within is without value?
At the very LEAST, it contains a decent amount of cultural values and ideas of the time, and serves as an interesting subject
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.