RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community

RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

dovie -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 7:41:24 AM)
decided to make a pot of coffee before i finish reading this thread-wowsa...

MarsBonfire -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 7:43:57 AM)
Darcy and the dark, Yep. We seem to be talking in two different directions. We seem to be talking about "sexual freedom for all legal minorities" and you're into some kind of hair splitting, how many angels can dance on a pin" thing. Yes, you can be into BDSM and not be either gay or into porn. But everyone should have the right to "persue their happiness" even if they are gay, are into porn, are straight, or are just into BDSM. THAT is what we're talking about. You seem to be on a different page entirely. The original question was, how can anyone into BDSM (ar any alternative sexuality) support the conservative agenda, which has always used us (GLBTQS- BDSMers)as scapegoats for their political gain? Why do conservative BDSMers have a death wish when it comes to their own freedom? But your reactions to this have got me wondering... Why are YOU so vehemently against being lumped together with other sexualities?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 7:49:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark quote: I believe we are just at different points here. You seem to assume that being into a Ds relationship is equal to being into porn, and that Ds means that you will be or have a gay experience. These are not automatically inclusive. quote: I would ask this question before I can attempt an answer. Do you identify with being 'part of the Ds community'? the.dark. No, Dark, I do not in any way think that being part of the d/s community (a term that encompasses any relationship containing bdsm activity) with watching porn, being gay or having gay experiences. Just as I do not think that blacks, Hispanics and Asians are the same group. What I do think is that minorities have the same problems with those who espouse white supremacy. Likewise, anyone with any alternate sexuality.....whether it be homosexuality, a desire for bdsm or d/s relationships, a desire to enjoy adult entertainment, are subject to bigotry from those in the sexual mainstream who believe that anything outside of the parameters of their own personal interests is wrong and should be stampped out. And, as I do identify myself as part of the d/s community, I believe in making common cause with those who also have an alternate sexual/relationship preference. I do not view myself as gay, for example, but I do recognize that anyone who wants to discriminate against gay people probably also is not going to look too kindly on my relationship choices and therefore I will stand with those who are gay to present a stronger front against such undesirable situations. There is a school of social thought, mostly from the right wing, that believe that consensual BDSM activity is by it's nature illegal. The most common argument for this is that a person cannot consent to be assaulted and that bdsm activity is, by it's nature, assault. It is difficult to not see the similarities to the old standard homophobic reasoning that gay people are dangerous since they will "recruit" and victimize straight people, especially minors. Are the situations the same? No. Are they analagous? Yes. And so, it makes sense to join with those with similar situations to fight an injustice against both communities. So, let me say again as clearly as I can, that I do not think that d/s entails homosexuality, enjoyment of adult entertainment or any given set of activities. I do think that by it's nature, an orientation towards d/s puts those who have it in the sexual minority and those who are antagonistic to sexual minorities are antigonistic to us.

rulemylife -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 7:53:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 Clinton's treatment was payback for what occurred to both Bush Sr and Ronald Reagan. Learn about something called the October surprise. What was the level of evidence needed to start an investigation. You will be surprised by all that was required to go after republicans ;) Then learn about from the actual negotiations of carter and the Iranians why the hostages were released at that time. At no time did the investigation ever interview anybody from the carter administration. You couldn't actually have the truth in it ;) It's a little difficult having faith in your long-term memory of events dating back to the Carter administration when you apparently don't remember that we had a discussion about your October surprise theories just a few days ago on another thread. As for the rest of your post, it was a bit disjointed, so you'll have to clarify for me exactly what you were trying to say.

Aynne88 -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 8:02:30 AM)
Right on Kaine! It is amazing the issues the aren't that these kind of people use to justify their hate, fear, and ignorance, while hiding behind the giant lie that anyone is shoving anything down their throat. Although, the thought is tempting...[;)] The case of Clinton obsession these two have is absolutely stunning, even here in CM land. quote: ORIGINAL: KaineD quote: ORIGINAL: MissSepphora1 I don't personally know anyone who is waging a war against gays. But I do personally know a lot of conservatives who are tired of having the liberal PC susie-has-two-mommys gay agenda being shoved down their and their childrens' throats. Myself included. I don't care what you do behind your closed doors, trust me I am terribly serious about that. I wonder if the general public, liberals included, would be just as gung-ho for kids books called My mommy has a slave, or having beat the sub family night? Ridiculous logical fallacy. Do the gay books you refer to go into detail on the sex life of homosexuals? No? Then you don't have a leg to stand on, really. You're just making yourself look silly. How oversensitive are you that the existence of a "susie has two mommies" book drives you nutso? Your post is another example of those who are extreme on the right just aren't living in the real world with the rest of us and have to imagine controversies and agendas where there are none.

RCdc -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 8:16:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire But your reactions to this have got me wondering... Why are YOU so vehemently against being lumped together with other sexualities? To answer your question directly - I'm not. I do however find it uncool that people like neat little boxes that they can try and stuff into a cuboard and shut away and just bring it out to make a point. Maybe, I don't believe that people should be lumped into different catergories or pigon holes. I am totally into gay marriages but then, I am into the thought of marriage fullstop(if that is a persons desire), regardless of genders and orientation. If there was just 'marriages' (for example) then there would be no need to talk about 'conservative agendas' or 'gay agendas'. If everyone had equal 'rights' such as gay adoptions and blacks fostering whites and visa versa, then the issue of sex ed classes (as discussed earlier in the thread for example) wouldn't be an issue, because when speaking of social issues such as divorce or wills, that would cover everyone and there would be no need to seperate things into neat little boxes. Idealistic? Sure! If my friends announce they are commiting to a relationship with each other, the last though on my mind is their sexual orientation, gender or race whatever. My initial thought is 'wow cool - they are happy together and found someone!'. People get so riled up about belonging to some group or 'community'. I get that it's about feeling a part of belonging and it's security in a way. But I tend to view people as individuals first instead of generalising like the majority of this topic has done. But hey, lame attempt at trying to make it seem as though I might have 'issues' with others sexuality. Fact is, I see people/human beings first and foremost and I don't dig generalisations. And on an aside, I don't agree with your idea that third trimester abortions should have a court/judge involvement. Conservatives, gay, dyslexic, asian, dominatrix, male worm - whatever - some people seem to have issues with it... I just chalk it up to people being pretty clueless and a lot to do with fear - which go hand in hand. the.dark.

TheHeretic -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 8:20:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales There is a school of social thought, mostly from the right wing, that believe that consensual BDSM activity is by it's nature illegal. The most common argument for this is that a person cannot consent to be assaulted and that bdsm activity is, by it's nature, assault. And you are basing this assertion on what exactly, Spinner? In fact, I'm pretty sure it was mentioned earlier in the thread that the set of laws most likely to result in police involvement in consensual BDSM are the laws championed and trumpeted by the liberal side of the coin. It's right wing because you say it is? "Spinner" indeed. I'm also wondering about your presumption that individuals should be basing their political outlook on their sexual preferences first, and above all other considerations. That seems like a very shallow, egocentric way to decide where one stands on the vast expanse of issues that confront us.

maybemaybenot -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 8:22:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales Interesting comment there, Sepphora.....since I don't know a single gay or lesbian who at some point in their lives been a victim of violence by strangers outraged that they are "faggots", "dykes" or other interesting pet names. Why would gays want that stopped anymore than, say, a black person would want to see lynching ended? Must be a liberal plot. Please show me any supporting data that shows that gay bashings are predominantly executed by conservitive party affilaited criminals. quote: But I do personally know a lot of conservatives who are tired of having the liberal PC susie-has-two-mommys gay agenda being shoved down their and their childrens' throats. Myself included. Once again, the 'what about the children defense'....how about the agenda that says if a couple has been together for 30 years, and one goes into the hospital, they deserve the right to go in and see them? Not the "privlidge", the RIGHT...just as a married person has the right to see his partner? I've been a nurse for 30 years, 25 of those years I worked in hospitals. I have NEVER personally wittnessed or refused anyone from visiting their family, loved one, friend or co worker. If you are talking about the ICU, which is family only, well.... if you tell me you are Bobby's cousin, I ain't gonna ask to see your family tree. My dominant of 17 years was in ICU frequently during his last year, I visited daily. I was his * cousin *. So, flipping what ? I couldn't expound the true nature of our relationship to the hospital staff.. I wasn't there to make a statement, I was there to care for and be with some one I loved. I worked on an AIDS unit in the early 80's thru the early 90's. 95% of my patients were gay. Their lovers visited, there freinds visited. If they wanted privacy for closeness they simply closed their door and did whatever they did. Exactly like the straight folks did on my unit and other units. Or how about the part of the agenda that says that if two people share a house for twenty years, and one dies without a will, that the property goes to his or her life partner, rather than to a relative that will get it whether he had a relationship with the deceased or not? I shared my life for 17 years with above said dominant, not married, when he died, I got nada. His family took everything. We were stupid and didn't make proper legal arrangements. As far as I know gays are not prohibited from writing wills any more than we were. I currently have a patient, who is straight, been with the same woman for 43 years, never married. he has an iron clad will leaving everything to her. Why? To protect her from his family members who might try and take their house and belongings from her. How about the right to put your partner on your insurance....or do your taxes as a couple...or do any one of the million things that heterosexual people take for granted and are denied, as a matter of law and policy to homosexuals. Well, here is Massachusetts gay folks CAN marry and do all those things. However, if they chose not to be married and work at my company or many others companies they can insure their unmarried partners. However, I, a straight woman cannot add my straight male partner to my insurance. That's what the liberal state of Massachusetts has done for me. I am " punished " for not marrying or being gay. So this heterosexual has no idea about these wonderful things " that millions of heterosexuals take for granted " are . They certainly do not apply to this heterosexual, living in the most liberal state in the country. mbmbn

Evility -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 8:33:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales How can anyone who is in the d/s world to the point of being on this board support the conservative agenda. I just these "How dare thee?" posts. Yawn.

RCdc -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 8:40:31 AM)
Then I would suggest delusion on your part. I do apologise if that sounds insulting, it isn't meant to be although I can read that it sounds it - I just am at a loss for words at your assumption. Just because someone identifies with being gay or of an alternative sexual practice, does not automatically mean they are going to fight for your rights or stand by your side. It doesn't make them more understanding or supportive. Seriously, and please forgive me moderators for this - but - with an assumption like that, you should also be saying that all BDSMers should be more sympathetic to rapists (I have tried to use a less subversive example and not one of the three biggies) because it's an 'alternative sexual/power abuse practice'. I had a friend who is openly lesbian. The minute she found out I liked handing my authority over to another, she freaked. I was of course, sick. I also needed to see a doctor. I was letting down all females and opening myself to abuse. Of course, these are her individual thoughts. NOT because she is a lesbian. NOT because she is female. NOT because she is a anti-abortion campaigner. I have another dear friend who is gay. He believes I rock. He thinks Darcy is the hotest guy and would 'do him' if he wasn't so 'fricking dominant to me'. He is supportive of us, not because he is gay. Not because he's a man. But because of his own individual thoughts. Being into Ds, being part of any community - particularly one where sexual preference is a large if not whole part doesn't make it immune, doesn't make people more accepting and doesn't make them more tolerant. It's dangerous on a personal level to assume that... and it's silly to assume that a DS community is immune to hate or the irony of hypocrasy. the.dark.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 8:47:14 AM)
I am not going to quote your entire post because my response can boil it down to two main issues: First, I never said that gay bashing is a conservative phenomenon. What I DID say is that gay bashing is a large and important problem and part of the answer to that problem is to educate people that gays are not a threat, not a sick or dangerous group and that not only is violence against gays unnecessary but no more to be tolerated than racial violence. If there is any doubt that action is needed, I need only to think from an official statement issued by Archdioceses of New York in which the cardinal said "While we do not condone violence against homosexuals, it should be understandable that their lifestyle can cause disgust and lead to such violence from moral people". As for your examples as to how unmarried homosexuals are treated akin to unmarried heterosexuals, you ignore the basic difference between the two groups. You could have married your Dom of 17 years at any time. In fact, in any state, two unmarried heterosexuals can marry at any time they choose. Gay couples do not have this option and this option. Should the be given this option, I will agree that unmarried heterosexual couples and unmarried homosexual couples should be treated equally. While this option is denied them, they are victims of a legislated, discriminatory and punitive situation that is unbecoming in a country that prides itself on it's policy of equal justice to all.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 8:57:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Seriously, and please forgive me moderators for this - but - with an assumption like that, you should also be saying that all BDSMers should be more sympathetic to rapists (I have tried to use a less subversive example and not one of the three biggies) because it's an 'alternative sexual/power abuse practice'. Well, I didn't think it possible but you have actually managed to offend me deeply. To even compare bdsm activity to rape, or the other three biggies you managed to insert while claiming you weren't, is not only offensive but just the sort of thought that is used against those of us who practice such things. If you consider that there is any way that the argument that a rapist is practicing an "alternative sexual/power" practice has any validity at all is not only wrong on a factual level, it is frankly repellent to me. If your point is that since a rapist could claim that, there is as much validity in the statement there is in someone practicing bdsm activities claiming that it is a relationship preference, you show absolutely no ability to judge a lie from the truth. As for your point that there are some lesbians who react with an irrational dislike of d/s and bdsm activities, I am not suggesting standing with them. I am suggesting that people of good will, who believe that what activity consenting adults consensually engage in is not a matter to be used against them or cause them to be in a position of being discriminated against should stand together in order to bring about a more just situation in our society.

RCdc -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 9:09:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Seriously, and please forgive me moderators for this - but - with an assumption like that, you should also be saying that all BDSMers should be more sympathetic to rapists (I have tried to use a less subversive example and not one of the three biggies) because it's an 'alternative sexual/power abuse practice'. Well, I didn't think it possible but you have actually managed to offend me deeply. To even compare bdsm activity to rape, or the other three biggies you managed to insert while claiming you weren't, is not only offensive but just the sort of thought that is used against those of us who practice such things. If you consider that there is any way that the argument that a rapist is practicing an "alternative sexual/power" practice has any validity at all is not only wrong on a factual level, it is frankly repellent to me. If your point is that since a rapist could claim that, there is as much validity in the statement there is in someone practicing bdsm activities claiming that it is a relationship preference, you show absolutely no ability to judge a lie from the truth. As for your point that there are some lesbians who react with an irrational dislike of d/s and bdsm activities, I am not suggesting standing with them. I am suggesting that people of good will, who believe that what activity consenting adults consensually engage in is not a matter to be used against them or cause them to be in a position of being discriminated against should stand together in order to bring about a more just situation in our society. Then you offend yourself because I never made that point - you did. I just threw it out there in the open as to what your assumption can lead to. Just more assumptions. And not very good ones at that. For the record, I never suggested that 'there are some lesbians who react with a dislike'. I gave an example that a person who was a friend reacted negatively. Not because she was a lesbian or because she was gay but because of herself. So now you are suggesting that only 'people of good will' should not be discriminated against? The thing is - who chooses who is of 'good will'. You? Or the conservatives you so oppose? Choose the side. But don't be a hypocrite. the.dark.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 9:36:17 AM)
quote: just these "How dare thee?" posts. quote: ORIGINAL: Evility quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales How can anyone who is in the d/s world to the point of being on this board support the conservative agenda. I just these "How dare thee?" posts. Yawn. The origianal intent of my post was not a "How dare you" but rather a "Why do you"? Yes. It seems to me that conservative, right wing, "moral America" agenda is directly opposed to and dangerous to anyone who practices an alternative lifestyle in any manner. I therefore asked why someone would align with a group that I feel is directly opposed to their right to practice their lifestyles in peace. So far, by the way, I have not gotten a single response saying "I am conservative because" and then setting out a reason. I am sure there are some out there, but what I have gotten so far is at best a petulant "I can be a conservative if I wanna" and at the worst the general "Look how rotten the liberals are". Again, I ask what issues conservative d/s community members consider more important than their civil liberties that cause them to overlook the part of the agenda that would be just as glad to see them disappear from the face of the earth?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 9:39:45 AM)
quote: So now you are suggesting that only 'people of good will' should not be discriminated against? The thing is - who chooses who is of 'good will'. You? Or the conservatives you so oppose? Choose the side. But don't be a hypocrite. the.dark. I say that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation. I stand with those who believe that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, political affiliation, gender or sexual orientation. Could you kindly tell me where the hypocrisy is in this belief?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 9:40:48 AM)
My 'conservative' weekend... Actually it began Thursday afternoon, when my beth drove down to Long Beach to pick up a friend of ours who she's know for most of his life. she was a, if not a pseudo-mom to him, at least as close to him as any aunt. He lives in the 'gayborhood' of LB; appropriate since he is an out of the closet homosexual. He was coming to stay in our guest room, which rarely goes a weekend without being occupied. They went shopping together and he made us a nice authentic Mexican tostadas dinner for us all Thursday night. Friday he, beth, and her 21 year old daughter went to the Fashion District (Sorry WldHrt!) to pick up fabric for this year's Halloween costume. On the way home, they stopped at 'Rough Trade' to look at a new harness for Andy to wear when he joins us as we once again for head to SF the last week in September, for the Folsom Street Fair. One last stop before heading back to 'The Hill' was at a store front 'CA-Dispensary' and with our Doctor's prescription in hand, made a selection from the many samples available and purchased some marijuana; using a credit card and paying the soon to raised State sales tax. Saturday, after taking Andy back to LB, we came back to the house and participated in a documentary film. We were interviewed by a film company, who has had a couple of their productions appear on 'Showtime', for 2 1/2 hours. We were asked about our life together as Master/slave. We disclosed a lot of our personal life, how we met, and many of the intimate details. Our participation involved no compensation and we did it in the hopes of illustrating that people involved in WIITWD, or the 'lifestyle' in any of its definitions, are not represented accurately by those appearing on 'Jerry Springer' type exploitation shows. Today, we have a couple of our close 'community' friends coming over to our house to discuss how they want to have it set up and decorated for the wedding they are going to have here next week. I make enough money to facilitate us enjoying a great life. I've worked and developed assists in the seven figures, had disaster and crisis in my life were I lost it all; and am working on trying to retire in 2-3 years. I pay as little tax as my accountant deems I can get away with. I don't see a need to pay more. I think the Administration's policies, funded by Congress, are fiduciary irresponsible and will not succeed. I think economic redistribution is a fairy tale which decreases self accountability and motivation. Rewarding failure generates more failure and, in this case, reliance on government. Were I to let my 'conspiracy theory' part of cynical perspective take control, I could built an argument that it was a deliberate effort to a desired goal of those in power. I think Affirmative Action is racist and serves to perpetuate racism creating an acceptance that some people are 'more equal' than others. One of the key reasons it must be perpetuated is that without it - people receiving money on both polar ends of the argument would be out of business. Their job and livelihood depends on keeping AA on the books. Through it, every black person in position of authority will have the self doubt that they are a AA/eeo hire; and every bigoted person seeing them in authority can point and say that the job didn't go to a 'white' person for the same reason. Prop 8 in CA was a misplaced law. Once again it provided a 'more equal' status to one group of people. Currently every person has the same ability to marry the same gendar. Pity that they love a gendar same as their own and that 'marriage' isn't 'legal'; but then again, neither is marring 2 or more people. Neither is marrying your sister, daughter, son, or bother. You can't get married at all prior to a certain age and you can't marry anything not legally defined as 'human'. I voted for Prop 8 because, if you want to eliminate one aspect of the law of marriage eliminate them all. Meanwhile, lets look at some of the same sex perks presently enjoyed. While in Vegas, beth and I were required to use separate steam and spa facilities after our 'couples massage'. Same sex partners had the ability to enjoy the facility together, we were separated - unfair! There are plenty of 'un-fair' statutes on the books; exposing nipples in public is gendar biased. Get rid of them all, or create more hypocrisy by selectively getting rid of some, based upon personal agenda. I've been called 'neo-con', 'con', racist, homophobic. I see that as a representing the frustration and lack of cognitive argument of the name caller; needed a label to rally behind in lieu of a salient counter-point. My 'conservative' ideals are that people should have no law that impedes them from doing whatever they want to do with themselves and/or consenting partners. That includes wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet. You want to address the 'insurance' element - exclude coverage, or make it more expensive if there are consequences resulting from the personal choice you make. You may note that personal choice and accountability is an ongoing theme. I think charity is important and critical for society - I don't think charity should be a function of government. With today's technology, I don't think one US soldier should be deployed to defend, or liberate, any other country, nor should they be used to protect any 'special interest' industry that happens to be headquartered in the US. I belief all import tariffs and restrictions should be reciprocal. All government subsidies should be eliminated. PACs and special interest groups somehow deemed illegal. I think any industry or business found to have employed workers who are not citizens of the US should be fined $100k per employee and their owners incarcerated upon second offense. The tax code should be eliminated and replaced with a national 'consumption' tax on every transaction by any entity, commercial or personal; corporate jet, private home, jar of jelly. Am I a "conservative in the D/s Community"? Agree on defining 'community' first and then let me know. Define me anyway you like; as I said on another topic - It would bother me if it bothered me.

rulemylife -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 9:44:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic And you are basing this assertion on what exactly, Spinner? In fact, I'm pretty sure it was mentioned earlier in the thread that the set of laws most likely to result in police involvement in consensual BDSM are the laws championed and trumpeted by the liberal side of the coin. I must have missed that. Which laws are those? quote: I'm also wondering about your presumption that individuals should be basing their political outlook on their sexual preferences first, and above all other considerations. That seems like a very shallow, egocentric way to decide where one stands on the vast expanse of issues that confront us. I think the point he is trying to make, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that liberals don't equate politics with social morality the way conservatives do. And you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't ever remember having a liberal version of the Moral Majority.

maybemaybenot -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 9:55:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales I am not going to quote your entire post because my response can boil it down to two main issues: First, I never said that gay bashing is a conservative phenomenon. What I DID say is that gay bashing is a large and important problem and part of the answer to that problem is to educate people that gays are not a threat, not a sick or dangerous group and that not only is violence against gays unnecessary but no more to be tolerated than racial violence. If there is any doubt that action is needed, I need only to think from an official statement issued by Archdioceses of New York in which the cardinal said "While we do not condone violence against homosexuals, it should be understandable that their lifestyle can cause disgust and lead to such violence from moral people". As for your examples as to how unmarried homosexuals are treated akin to unmarried heterosexuals, you ignore the basic difference between the two groups. You could have married your Dom of 17 years at any time. In fact, in any state, two unmarried heterosexuals can marry at any time they choose. Gay couples do not have this option and this option. Should the be given this option, I will agree that unmarried heterosexual couples and unmarried homosexual couples should be treated equally. While this option is denied them, they are victims of a legislated, discriminatory and punitive situation that is unbecoming in a country that prides itself on it's policy of equal justice to all. As far as I know, The Archdiocesse of NY is a religious establishment, not a political one. The Muslim religion promotes the death penalty for homosexual activities. The Dalai Lama has said that homosexuality is not allowed in Buddism. I am not saying it's right, but I am not out to change the tenants of any one's religion. I agree with you about educating people, but reality is not everyone is open to being educated. -+ You just can't legislate morality, acceptance or tolerance. You can make laws for folks who do not adhere to a law regarding a certain moral or social issue, but that's it. People are still going to do what they are going to do and think what they are going to think. As to your second paragraph, my point was that gays who chose not to be married, are entitled to more than I am entitled to. <remember they can marry in my state > Funny thing, some of the gays here don't marry either, just like I didn't chose to marry. They, however get the full * benifits * of being married by virtue of their sexual preference. And just a little FYI: my company is a national corporation, they offer full benefits to gay partners of their employees in all 40 something states they do business in. My previous job was also for a national corporation, again, full beneifts to gay partners of employees, none to unmarried partners of straight employees. What I find disturbing is this: snip:" Should the be given this option, I will agree that unmarried heterosexual couples and unmarried homosexual couples should be treated equally". Which seems to me to be saying is... well, the fact that you are being treated unequally and gays are given more rights than you, is okey dokey with me, cuz there are some gays not being treated equally elsewhere. Call me one of those radical thinkers, but I susbscribe to the notion that if it is offered to one group, it should be offered to all. mbmbn Do not misunderstand me, I am not saying everything is hunky dory, but you seem to see this as an unjustice to " minority groups" in general, when in fact it exisits for many people. You also seem to be saying that it is a "conservative thang", as I pointed out, in liberal Massachusetts, the Libs have no problem discriminating. They just chose different folks to dicriminate against.

thishereboi -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 10:41:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: just these "How dare thee?" posts. quote: ORIGINAL: Evility quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales How can anyone who is in the d/s world to the point of being on this board support the conservative agenda. I just these "How dare thee?" posts. Yawn. The origianal intent of my post was not a "How dare you" but rather a "Why do you"? Yes. It seems to me that conservative, right wing, "moral America" agenda is directly opposed to and dangerous to anyone who practices an alternative lifestyle in any manner. I therefore asked why someone would align with a group that I feel is directly opposed to their right to practice their lifestyles in peace. How dare you or Why do you? Actually it sounded more like how can you be so stupid, but maybe I was reading more into it than you meant. Either way I am getting real tired of people telling my what my political views should be based on my lifestyle. So far, by the way, I have not gotten a single response saying "I am conservative because" and then setting out a reason. I am sure there are some out there, but what I have gotten so far is at best a petulant "I can be a conservative if I wanna" and at the worst the general "Look how rotten the liberals are". I did, but you must have missed it. I am more conservative because I believe in more of the ideas coming from the right than the left. Again, I ask what issues conservative d/s community members consider more important than their civil liberties that cause them to overlook the part of the agenda that would be just as glad to see them disappear from the face of the earth? Not in any particular order.....the economy, education, enviroment and welfare reform, just to name a few. The fact that I see these things as important, does not make them more important than civil liberties. It just means I look at the whole picture and not one or two issues.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Conservatives in the D/s Community (2/22/2009 10:43:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot. What I find disturbing is this: snip:" Should the be given this option, I will agree that unmarried heterosexual couples and unmarried homosexual couples should be treated equally". Which seems to me to be saying is... well, the fact that you are being treated unequally and gays are given more rights than you, is okey dokey with me, cuz there are some gays not being treated equally elsewhere. Call me one of those radical thinkers, but I susbscribe to the notion that if it is offered to one group, it should be offered to all. Once again, the issue comes to a basic point. An unmarried heterosexual couple can CHOOSE to get married and enjoy all the protections and benefits that that civil contract offers. If the do not get married, it is because they choose not to enter into that civil contract and take advantage of those protections and benefits. A gay couple cannot chose that option. They are legally prevented from entering into that civil arrangements, no matter the depth of their commitment, their willingness to abide by its responsibilities as well as reaping it's benefits or the effects that this will have on their lives. As long as this is the case, any bone they are thrown to say "see....we're not all that bad, we just don't want you getting married." is like saying that in the old south, a black and a white could ride the same bus, but the blacks had to sit in the back. I would also like to point out an apparent inconsistency in your posting. First you say that we should not count the religious antipathy for homosexuals as anything that the government should be concerned with, yet point out that some companies allow same sex couples to take advantage of couple's insurance privileges. Let's keep in mind that there is no government requirement for a company to allow same sex couples to be recognized in any way. It is a private decision made from company to company. And many companies are not so inclined to give a same sex couple the "privilege" of any benefit. Again, allowing two people of the same gender the same rights and choices as two people of different gender is not favoritism. It is equality.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875