Episode 3: Revenge of the Gays, Are You One Too?

Beast_enchantment · Post by **Beast_enchantment** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 6:48 pm

my chicken is infected · Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:28 am

No new posts in five days. We can do better than this!

universALLove · Post by **universALLove** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:46 am

my chicken is infected wrote:No new posts in five days. We can do better than this!

I thought it had been longer than that. By the way, I'm OUT now!

Beast_enchantment · Post by **Beast_enchantment** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:15 am

Omg it's so good to see this thread resurfaced! We were letting the side down!

This one's for you Nick

universALLove · Post by **universALLove** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:31 am

Beast_enchantment wrote:Omg it's so good to see this thread resurfaced! We were letting the side down!

This one's for you Nick

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A9KXkDMEPag&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A9KXkDMEPag&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

"closets are for clothes"

Lazario · Post by **Lazario** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:05 am

Beast_enchantment wrote:<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hv0azq9GF_g&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hv0azq9GF_g&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Love it!

Kate Bush is wonderful. I like her quite a bit. And, "Wow" is my favorite.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fRFQVMJf5eI&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fRFQVMJf5eI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Beast_enchantment · Post by **Beast_enchantment** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:18 am

Lazario wrote: Kate Bush is wonderful. I like her quite a bit. And, "Wow" is my favorite.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fRFQVMJf5eI&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fRFQVMJf5eI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Only she could do a chorus like that

I think this has to be my favourite:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ot3cVY1JESQ&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ot3cVY1JESQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

A true artiste!

Jack Skellington · Post by **Jack Skellington** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 6:50 pm

I remember when I first watched Kate Bush's Wuthering Heights on VH1, I laughed my @ss off, I was like WTF, that's kind of creepy.

But after I knew what Wuthering Heights is really about, I find the song very haunting and sad.

Cordy_Biddle · Post by **Cordy_Biddle** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:51 pm

Jack Skellington wrote:I remember when I first watched Kate Bush's Wuthering Heights on VH1, I laughed my @ss off, I was like WTF, that's kind of creepy.

But after I knew what Wuthering Heights is really about, I find the song very haunting and sad.

It was a very ambitious video for the time.

pap64 · Post by **pap64** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:31 am

While I am not gay today in class we had a discussion about same sex marriages and their effects on children.

The reason I bring this up is because the teacher said something that bothered me in all honesty.

We were discussing how teachers are likely to handle a case in which a child has two fathers or two mothers. In my opinion I said I wouldn't care because it is not my right to question my student's life and will only intervene if the kid is in a situation where his or her life is threatened or is behaving in a way that its affecting his or her development in school.

The teacher then proceeded to make the following question...

"I ask you, how does a same sex couple living together benefit society? Sure there is a personal benefit but how does this move society forward? The reality is that we need to keep the human population growing since disease and war is going to lower the numbers, and having same sex relationships is sending those numbers back.

When he said that I was cold and stunned. He was right next to me when he said it and I couldn't BELIEVE that he pretty much made a passive aggressive homophobic comment in a college class, especially in a class where we as teacher have to learn to be tolerant of this. A great deal of the class just stood there silent because the question and the comment that came afterwards were heavy as all hell.

It also bothers me because he is greatly exaggerating the future. Sure, I do see the human population getting smaller due to war, disease and disasters, but it won't be that bad. Also even IF homosexuality is accepted and people are free to have same sex relationships I doubt EVERYONE will become gay or lesbian to the point where no one is having babies.

There will still be heterosexual couples that will still have babies and I am pretty damn sure that the number of heterosexual couples will still be larger than that of homosexual couples, so again I doubt human growth will halt dramatically because two guys or two girls decided to get married.

Finally, is anyone bothered by the idea that we exist only to be part of society? Sure, I know the minute we are born we are part of a society, and yes the actions we do affect society and we contribute to it. But what about our own personal growth? The teacher made it sound like we only live to serve society, and pretty much made us look like guinea pigs that must mate before we face extinction...

Sorry if this was too heavy, but I didn't like how the teacher's "musings" felt more like a silent homophobic rant and it was unfair.

universALLove · Post by **universALLove** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:25 am

I totally agree with all your comments Papi!!! That is the most ignorant minded, mind numbingly stupid comment I've heard in quite some time!!!

singerguy04 · Post by **singerguy04** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:47 am

In any setting a comment like that should be unacceptable, but I'm surprised it was made in a college setting. At my alma mater he would have been run out of the city for saying something like that lol.

At least now I know of another reason for people to hate me, I'll help cause the extinction of the entire human race!!!! *thunder cracks* MUAH HA HA HA!!!!!

universALLove · Post by **universALLove** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:03 am

singerguy04 wrote:At least now I know of another reason for people to hate me, I'll help cause the extinction of the entire human race!!!! *thunder cracks* MUAH HA HA HA!!!!!

That was funny! Good one

SpringHeelJack · Post by **SpringHeelJack** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:15 am

Now that that teacher brought it up, childless couples don't benefit society either. I suggest we use a death panel to process these worthless couples into a high-quality slurry for the offspring of heterosexual couples to nurse on. I mean, I HAVE noticed that the Earth is dangerously close to being underpopulated, so those breeders better kick it up a notch.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:25 am

Er. The population of the earth has doubled in about 50 years. We're fighting for resources now, and that's set to get worse in the next few decades.
I think the world can survive the odd same sex pairing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World ... istory.svg

That said, I'm not sure about same sex couples adopting, because I think society will be cruel to such children. I know, without changing the accepted "norm" you won't be able to change society's attitudes. But really, should that burden fall on young children? Ironically, other young children would most likely not mind, but they minds would be poisoned by adults and most likely in teenage years it could become a major issue.

I don't think any person has a "right" to a child. Physical genetics and lifestyle choices (not that I am saying being homosexual is a lifestyle choice, but lots of people lead lives not ideally suited for bringing up children - be it due to crime, addiction, lack of responsibility, etc.) I don't think same sex couples should have the "right" to adoption. Although I know its done with the best of intentions.

Lazario · Post by **Lazario** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:16 pm

2099net wrote:Er. The population of the earth has doubled in about 50 years. We're fighting for resources now, and that's set to get worse in the next few decades.
I think the world can survive the odd same sex pairing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World ... istory.svg

That said, I'm not sure about same sex couples adopting, because I think society will be cruel to such children. I know, without changing the accepted "norm" you won't be able to change society's attitudes. But really, should that burden fall on young children? Ironically, other young children would most likely not mind, but they minds would be poisoned by adults and most likely in teenage years it could become a major issue.

I don't think any person has a "right" to a child. Physical genetics and lifestyle choices (not that I am saying being homosexual is a lifestyle choice, but lots of people lead lives not ideally suited for bringing up children - be it due to crime, addiction, lack of responsibility, etc.) I don't think same sex couples should have the "right" to adoption. Although I know its done with the best of intentions.

You make some very good points there.

But, I'll bet the thinking with the social workers and people in charge of finding children and young people without homes or in shelters (whatever they're calling them these days- certainly not Orphanages, right?) a home, is- anything is an improvement over the kids having to live in those shelters.

Did you ever see Homeless to Harvard? Well, I'm willing to also bet that movie's the G-rated version of what really goes down at some of those places.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:34 pm

Lazario wrote: You make some very good points there.

But, I'll bet the thinking with the social workers and people in charge of finding children and young people without homes or in shelters (whatever they're calling them these days- certainly not Orphanages, right?) a home, is- anything is an improvement over the kids having to live in those shelters.

Did you ever see Homeless to Harvard? Well, I'm willing to also bet that movie's the G-rated version of what really goes down at some of those places.

No, but I assume its some sort of expose? I'm sure many children's homes are terrible places. Not because the people in charge are bad people (or started out that way), but I guess circumstances over time mean you have to toughen up or risk having an emotional breakdown or similar if you become too involved. Lack of emotional responses and even a lack of a conscience can be a defence mechanism. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that.

But yes, we've had massive social security scandals over here in the UK recently over some terrible cruelty and abuse of a child who was tortured and murdered by his mother and her partner ('Baby P' if you want to look it up). And the social workers policy was to keep families together, their policy was taking a child into care was a last resort. Sadly, a conniving mother plus most likely lax social work (probably down to overwork) resulted in a tragedy.

But adoption and care is a difficult situation, and like most difficult situations I suspect that there are are no right or wrong answers. Ideally, the number of children in care would be minimal, and those that were would quickly be adopted by secure, loving families. But there's far to many parents these days simply not willing, let alone capable of handling their own children and so many childless couples are using fertility treatments to get their own children, the situation's only going to get worse. I must think time needs to be given to allow same-sex marriage to become acceptable in the eyes of most of the public, before children are adopted and in effect, dragged into the controversy.

Goliath · Post by **Goliath** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:22 pm

pap64 wrote:"I ask you, how does a same sex couple living together benefit society? Sure there is a personal benefit but how does this move society forward? The reality is that we need to keep the human population growing since disease and war is going to lower the numbers, and having same sex relationships is sending those numbers back.

That would have to be the biggest bullshit I've ever read. Overpopulation is the biggest threat to the planet today. If there's something we don't need now, it's more people! We already need two planets to provide for all the people, if we are going to keep living the way we do now. Especially now that India and China are becoming industrial giants soon. We're exhausting the planet, and that's no over-statement.

pap64 wrote:Also even IF homosexuality is accepted and people are free to have same sex relationships I doubt EVERYONE will become gay or lesbian to the point where no one is having babies.

But, see, that's the point: people don't become gay. They either are or they aren't. But it's not a choice. They need nobody's permission to be attracted to a person of the same sex.

pap64 wrote:Finally, is anyone bothered by the idea that we exist only to be part of society? [...] The teacher made it sound like we only live to serve society, and pretty much made us look like guinea pigs that must mate before we face extinction...

Actually, that's literally a facist idea.

Look, The Netherlands didn't fell apart when it became the world's first nation to legally recognise same-sex marriage. And when it became legal for same-sex couples to adopt children, the sky didn't come falling down. The Dutch didn't all "convert" to homosexuality. Children didn't become gay all of a sudden. God's wrath didn't come down on us.

And neither did it in Belgium, Spain, Canada or South-Africa. (Yes, a thirld world country is further ahead!) So whenever a crazy conservative is bashing gay-marriage, you just need one word to counter all their idiotic 'slippery slope'-arguments: "Holland!"

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:41 pm

Pap, I too have been bothered by the idea of having responsibility to a society, to serve a society, like that's what you are worth.

Look, being responsible and serving your society, those are things that should be taught, and yup, we should do.

But we do not have to do them or be forced to do them...and we especially don't have to do them to have worth.

We all are of worth by existing. Yep. We're all special as ourselves, living life. Period.

universALLove · Post by **universALLove** » Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:45 pm

I know this is kinda random but I just want to say... gays ROCK!!! I don't give a damn what religion says and I don't care about what society says!!! The world would be a MUCH duller place without them!!! We ALL NEED GAYS!!!

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Episode 3: Revenge of the Gays, Are You One Too?

The Gay Thread