social topic

(user is banned)

2005-10-01 05:20:08 pm

of course, single sex schools suck, but I would never again have something with a girl from my school. It kills your reputation.

nate

2005-10-01 05:24:50 pm

how many people went to this school?

Izo

2005-10-01 05:36:26 pm

soaking through

I'm in a thousand person single sex secondary school, and there is currently one gay guy (I know about) in our year. I think mixed schools require a certain amount of maturity, that many people at normal secondary age don't have.

EDIT: Is it offensive to use gay as a noun? I've never been sure. :/

Chanoire

2005-10-01 05:36:44 pm

Religiously, I cannot approve of homosexuality. But I don't approve of sex outside of marriage, either. I'm not rude or cold to people who practice either, because in most contexts it's absolutely irrelevant to whatever we're interacting about. I don't understand how people who are violent toward homosexuals can think that two wrongs make a right.

Regarding marriage...I do consider it a sacrament, a union that should be between one man and one woman for the rest of their lives. Given how this has been abused by heterosexual couples, I'm not particularly inclined to make the distinction between marriage and whatever unions gay people have, because the term is already used for relationships which far from that original definition. Thus, oddly, I find that I don't really care that much about gay marriage. If the lifestyle is considered socially acceptable, then drawing this line that says people in that committed relationship can't gain legal recognition of it seems petty. Saying that sure, they're fine, we're tolerant, they're our equals but they can't marry seems like the "separate but equal" fiction that was used for segregation, or policies that wouldn't allow women to take certain roles. It seems hypocritical to say that gay couples are fine socially but not legally.

Living in Berkeley, I've known at least one gay couple with children, and as mothers of a young son I doubt they'll be splitting any time soon. They didn't bother getting 'married' when San Francisco's mayor was authorizing marriage licenses for gay couples because they didn't really see the point; they already knew they were together and didn't need that strictly symbolic gesture. I don't know whether they'd have felt different if those marriages were actually accepted and legal everywhere, or whether they were using the same reasoning that many hetero couples do of "we don't need a piece of paper to show we're together" in deciding not to marry.

I also think I'd be fine with all legal relationships being considered civil unions and the marriage part being strictly religious. This would allow the people who want to have that legal commitment have it (regardless of orientation), and the people who are religious able to treat their union as in accordance with their beliefs. There seems to be a strong division between legality and morality in the modern concept of marriage anyway, so why not make it explicit? However, society and language are both slow to change and I don't think that such a switchover would go over too well.

Oh, and Nate, you're not condemned to live in a bigoted country for the rest of your life. You could move. ;)

Religiously, I cannot approve of homosexuality.  But I don't approve of sex outside of marriage, either.  I'm not rude or cold to people who practice either, because in most contexts it's absolutely irrelevant to whatever we're interacting about.  I don't understand how people who are violent toward homosexuals can think that two wrongs make a right.

Regarding marriage...I do consider it a sacrament, a union that should be between one man and one woman for the rest of their lives.  Given how this has been abused by heterosexual couples, I'm not particularly inclined to make the distinction between marriage and whatever unions gay people have, because the term is already used for relationships which far from that original definition.  Thus, oddly, I find that I don't really care that much about gay marriage.  If the lifestyle is considered socially acceptable, then drawing this line that says people in that committed relationship can't gain legal recognition of it seems petty.  Saying that sure, they're fine, we're tolerant, they're our equals but they can't marry seems like the "separate but equal" fiction that was used for segregation, or policies that wouldn't allow women to take certain roles.  It seems hypocritical to say that gay couples are fine socially but not legally.

Living in Berkeley, I've known at least one gay couple with children, and as mothers of a young son I doubt they'll be splitting any time soon.  They didn't bother getting 'married' when San Francisco's mayor was authorizing marriage licenses for gay couples because they didn't really see the point; they already knew they were together and didn't need that strictly symbolic gesture.  I don't know whether they'd have felt different if those marriages were actually accepted and legal everywhere, or whether they were using the same reasoning that many hetero couples do of "we don't need a piece of paper to show we're together" in deciding not to marry.

I also think I'd be fine with all legal relationships being considered civil unions and the marriage part being strictly religious.  This would allow the people who want to have that legal commitment have it (regardless of orientation), and the people who are religious able to treat their union as in accordance with their beliefs.  There seems to be a strong division between legality and morality in the modern concept of marriage anyway, so why not make it explicit?  However, society and language are both slow to change and I don't think that such a switchover would go over too well.

Oh, and Nate, you're not condemned to live in a bigoted country for the rest of your life.  You could move. ;)

DJGrenola

2005-10-01 05:46:52 pm

I used to share a flat (apartment) with a homosexual. It was quite a strange period for both of us, as he was trying to get to grips with the whole thing and I was trying to get to grips with the fact that someone I'd known for three years turned out to be gay.

It proved to be a strange learning curve for both of us, but the thing that rubbed off on me was how tortured he was about it all. He didn't want to be a homosexual, he didn't want to be different, he didn't want to have to spend the rest of his life branded a queer or whatever. It's important to realise that it's not something they choose to do, and a lot of them hate themselves for it. Many are unable to tell their parents. IMO they tend to deserve sympathy for what could be considered a behavioural abnormality rather than derided as weirdos.

As for the US of A thing - I admit I've never read it, but isn't the constitution full of stuff about god ? I reckon that's the root of the problem right there. I seem to remember a survey that the majority of Americans think their nation has been specially blessed by god. None of that stuff ought to be in any fundamental legal document, let alone the damned constitution.

I used to share a flat (apartment) with a homosexual. It was quite a strange period for both of us, as he was trying to get to grips with the whole thing and I was trying to get to grips with the fact that someone I'd known for three years turned out to be gay.

It proved to be a strange learning curve for both of us, but the thing that rubbed off on me was how tortured he was about it all. He didn't want to be a homosexual, he didn't want to be different, he didn't want to have to spend the rest of his life branded a queer or whatever. It's important to realise that it's not something they choose to do, and a lot of them hate themselves for it. Many are unable to tell their parents. IMO they tend to deserve sympathy for what could be considered a behavioural abnormality rather than derided as weirdos.

As for the US of A thing - I admit I've never read it, but isn't the constitution full of stuff about god ? I reckon that's the root of the problem right there. I seem to remember a survey that the majority of Americans think their nation has been specially blessed by god. None of that stuff ought to be in any fundamental legal document, let alone the damned constitution.

SABERinBLUE

2005-10-01 05:59:24 pm

Cook of the Sea

Quote from DJGrenola:

As for the US of A thing - I admit I've never read it, but isn't the constitution full of stuff about god ?

Naw, that's an urban legend.

DJGrenola

2005-10-01 06:02:05 pm

hmm, seems you're right. kindly ignore my ramblings about that then.

Radix

2005-10-01 06:12:15 pm

The declaration of independence says "that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". I think that's about the only mention aside from the explicit granting of freedom of religion and the explicit forbiding of a government sponsored religion in the bill of rights.

Of course our money says "in god we trust" but that's wasn't added until 1864 at first, and not on paper money until the 1950s.

SABERinBLUE

2005-10-01 06:29:45 pm

Cook of the Sea

Many people in America seem to think that the constitution advocates Christianity and/or a Christian state. These people, almost categorically, have not read the document.

Mr. Aran

2005-10-01 07:08:38 pm

everybody knows it's true

Quote from Radix:

The declaration of independence says "that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". I think that's about the only mention aside from the explicit granting of freedom of religion and the explicit forbiding of a government sponsored religion in the bill of rights.

Of course our money says "in god we trust" but that's wasn't added until 1864 at first, and not on paper money until the 1950s.

And now Man is kicking Him out of everything.

Yoshi348

2005-10-01 07:20:27 pm

PAGE BREAKER

Ready and willing.

Nate... I can understand compressing the often lame everyday chit-chat, but I hope you're not thinking of putting all conversations of the caliber you started in here, rather than you just felt, hey it needed a topic to start and I felt like getting this off my chest.

Kridly

2005-10-01 07:41:24 pm

Quote from Chanoire:

Religiously, I cannot approve of homosexuality. But I don't approve of sex outside of marriage, either. I'm not rude or cold to people who practice either, because in most contexts it's absolutely irrelevant to whatever we're interacting about. I don't understand how people who are violent toward homosexuals can think that two wrongs make a right.

Thats me right there. I ain't gonna start debating; been there done that, doesn't really affect much of anything. I will probably still read this topic though. This topic imo is a boardwalk inside the boardwalk.

Chanoire

2005-10-01 08:17:50 pm

Quote from Yoshi348:

Nate... I can understand compressing the often lame everyday chit-chat, but I hope you're not thinking of putting all conversations of the caliber you started in here, rather than you just felt, hey it needed a topic to start and I felt like getting this off my chest.

Would it be an option to split off particularly self-contained topics into their own topic, then? Though I seem to recall that the homosexuality discussion has been done here before, while I was still lurking.

nate

2005-10-01 09:42:28 pm

Quote from Chanoire:

Oh, and Nate, you're not condemned to live in a bigoted country for the rest of your life. You could move. ;)

was actually wondering if someone would point that out when i was working on my opening salvo. i have an extremely strong sense of home, probably inherited from my penchant for storing my then physical location with every memory. i also didn't find the parts of germany or japan that i visited particularly inviting (though they were a blast to see), so i believe i will be staying here at home if at all possible. and as an active voter, i intend to tickle my home in the right direction at every opportunity, however tiny i might seem next to the beast republic.

Quote from Chanoire:

Quote from Yoshi348:

Nate... I can understand compressing the often lame everyday chit-chat, but I hope you're not thinking of putting all conversations of the caliber you started in here, rather than you just felt, hey it needed a topic to start and I felt like getting this off my chest.

Would it be an option to split off particularly self-contained topics into their own topic, then? Though I seem to recall that the homosexuality discussion has been done here before, while I was still lurking.

the purpose of the social topic is to absorb what would have been smaller, shorter-lived topics ... so at first glance it seems as though it would be okay to split off healthy 'groups' of discussion into their own topics.

the trouble is, this is exactly what leads to the situation the social topic is trying to prevent: the boardwalk is a graveyard of burned-out topics, whose content might be used to ignite new conversation, but the topic in question is too old to be necro'd, and if it is necro'd nonetheless, the necromancer is chastised and the topic locked. because this topic will never be locked and will never become old, it has none of those problems. feel free to make standalone topics if you think they will generate enough traffic, but don't expect the mods to show you any mercy in terms of off-topic posting in there or locking if things stray too far from usefulness.

[quote="Chanoire"]Oh, and Nate, you're not condemned to live in a bigoted country for the rest of your life.  You could move. ;)[/quote]
was actually wondering if someone would point that out when i was working on my opening salvo. i have an extremely strong sense of home, probably inherited from my penchant for storing my then physical location with every memory. i also didn't find the parts of germany or japan that i visited particularly inviting (though they were a blast to see), so i believe i will be staying here at home if at all possible. and as an active voter, i intend to tickle my home in the right direction at every opportunity, however tiny i might seem next to the beast republic.

[quote="Chanoire"][quote="Yoshi348"]Nate... I can understand compressing the often lame everyday chit-chat, but I hope you're not thinking of putting all conversations of the caliber you started in here, rather than you just felt, hey it needed a topic to start and I felt like getting this off my chest.[/quote]Would it be an option to split off particularly self-contained topics into their own topic, then?  Though I seem to recall that the homosexuality discussion has been done here before, while I was still lurking.[/quote]
the purpose of the social topic is to absorb what would have been smaller, shorter-lived topics ... so at first glance it seems as though it would be okay to split off healthy 'groups' of discussion into their own topics.

the trouble is, this is exactly what leads to the situation the social topic is trying to prevent: the boardwalk is a graveyard of burned-out topics, whose content might be used to ignite new conversation, but the topic in question is too old to be necro'd, and if it is necro'd nonetheless, the necromancer is chastised and the topic locked. because this topic will never be locked and will never become old, it has none of those problems. feel free to make standalone topics if you think they will generate enough traffic, but don't expect the mods to show you any mercy in terms of off-topic posting in there or locking if things stray too far from usefulness.

Yoshi348

2005-10-01 09:43:53 pm

PAGE BREAKER

Ready and willing.

I'm fine with the conversation happening here without a split (unless a lot of other people aren't fine with it). This is sort of a different style from a regular topic as it's more... conversational.

I just want to make sure that doesn't mean that these heavy lifting topics won't end up getting shunted into here at gunpoint. Otherwise, what's the point of having a boardwalk forum anymore? (It also might be a little more awkward to moderate because we can't lock it, but that's totally managable.)

EDIT: Took me two more posts to realize Nate squeezed between me and Chanoire up there.

nate

2005-10-01 09:50:16 pm

definitely agree with heavy lifting topics remaining separate topics. actually, the distinction is only in the eyes of the creator, at least until the forum either responds, in which case the creator was correct, or doesn't respond, in which case the creator was less correct and the topic is heavily edited and eventually locked or forgotten.

arkarian

2005-10-01 09:50:17 pm

red chamber dream

In response to Nate's posts: Yeah. I'm thinking that topics such as "Shining!!!" should just be talked about in here, while stuff like "Your first few posts on M2K2" would require their own topic. Basically, a lot of this is up to the users. If you feel that your idea couild generate a whole lot or responses, then, by all means, make a new topic. This thread is for smaller things that might only get interest from a few other people, maybe only a few posts in response. For example, Nate's homosexuality thing is probably a bit too involved of a topic to talk about in here, but it was just something to start us off. I'm not going to be too strict if someone makes a new topic about something, rather than posting it in here. It's topics like "Paradox?" that I would immediately lock and say, "go to the Social Topic, please."

Also, Yoshi, shouldn't be too hard to moderate this topic. The only thing I'm really going to do is delete really stupid, really short, or really unintelligible posts. Which there may or may not be a lot of; we have yet to find out.

In response to Nate's posts: Yeah. I'm thinking that topics such as "Shining!!!" should just be talked about in here, while stuff like "Your first few posts on M2K2" would require their own topic. Basically, a lot of this is up to the users. If you feel that your idea couild generate a whole lot or responses, then, by all means, make a new topic. This thread is for smaller things that might only get interest from a few other people, maybe only a few posts in response. For example, Nate's homosexuality thing is probably a bit too involved of a topic to talk about in here, but it was just something to start us off. I'm not going to be [i]too[/i] strict if someone makes a new topic about something, rather than posting it in here. It's topics like "Paradox?" that I would immediately lock and say, "go to the Social Topic, please."

Also, Yoshi, shouldn't be [i]too[/i] hard to moderate this topic. The only thing I'm really going to do is delete really stupid, really short, or really unintelligible posts. Which there may or may not be a lot of; we have yet to find out.

CALFoolio

2005-10-01 10:07:13 pm

Most of the US will eventually be ok with homosexuality. Change never happens quickly in the US. And sudden liberal movements are always followed by conservative backlashes like with the women's rights movement. Hopefully, like women's rights, gay rights will improve greatly after a few decades.

I think the biggest reason why homophobia is so strong is because most people haven't really interacted with gays or lesbians. So they'll follow whatever second-hand sources they have like religion.

And lastly, GO GO GOOGLE ADS XD

Snytbaggen

2005-10-02 01:44:41 am

Sorry, just had to... Rolling Eyes

tomatobob

2005-10-02 03:34:28 am

One shall stand, one shall ball.

My thoughts on homosexuality are pretty much my thoughts for life, do what you want as long as it doesn't affect me.

From the religious stand point homosexuality is wrong, and while I believe that, I also believe that you should not treat people differently because of sexual orientation or for any reason for that matter.

I think the problem is that people don't understand homosexuality, and what people don't understand, they mock. If one becomes homosexual from choice, that's their personal decision and I respect that, if it's biological, then they can't do anything about it and there's nothing anyone else can do about it, so you can't judge them as "bad" people. In reality though, it doesn't matter is some one's homosexual or not becasue it isn't anyone's business than their own and what they do in their private life doesn't affect me so I don't need to know about it.

arkarian

2005-10-02 12:15:12 pm

red chamber dream

Has anyone heard the song "Remedy" by Seether? I'm not really into Seether much, but I heard that song on the radio yesterday at work and loved it. It's weird, though, since I don't usually listen to the radio at all (I don't like it). I'd rather listen to CDs, I guess because I like to be in control of what I hear.

nate

2005-10-02 12:20:18 pm

i neither listen to the radio nor watch tv. ;P and i haven't heard said song. but i have marked it down to eventually hear!

arkarian

2005-10-02 12:44:07 pm

red chamber dream

Quote from njahnke:

i neither listen to the radio nor watch tv. ;P and i haven't heard said song. but i have marked it down to eventually hear!

Dunno if you'd really like it or not. Sort of rock/(nu)metal blend. Usually not what I'm much into, but this is a great song. And hey, at least it's not ska. :P
But yeah, I don't watch TV either. The only time I listen to the radio is at work, when that's all we have.

nate

2005-10-02 01:01:50 pm

have to say it's hard to beat queens of the stone age in my mind.

Kridly

2005-10-02 02:33:55 pm

I put that song on the latest CD I made. Below is the track list.

"Welcome Home" Coheed and Cambria
"Lower Norfair" Stemage
"Steps Ascending" Thursday
"Haunted" Evenescence
"Remedy" Seether
"Maridia" Stemage
"The Complicated Song" Weird Al Yankovitch
"Signals Over The Air" Thursday
"Scars" Papa Roach
"My Last Breath" Evenescence
"One Step Closer" Linkin Park
"Marches and Manuevers" Thursday
"Take Care" Copeland
"Boss Medley" Stemage
"Jet Black Newyear" Thursday
"Out of My Way" Seether
"Between Rupture and Rapture" Thursday
"Going Under" Evenescence

And I named the CD my "L3E+ ]V[1X" with a bunch of cool sharpy stuff on the CD.