Forums | MacLife

Cosmetics reporter to leader of national political party in five years? I'm impressed.....even a little envious.

Prepare for the most fahbulous anschluss evah!

resedit wrote:

What phrase would you have me use instead?

Seriously - suggest one.

If you're only referring to sexual activity?  Because that's what you mean when you say "homosexual lifestyle," correct?

I asked you numerous times in the other thread if you recognized the negative connotation that the term often (not necessarily always) carries.  You didn't answer.

However, I'm guessing that you do recognize the negative connotation, and it's only referencing sex.  Sex is a part of life for many, but it usually doesn't define their "lifestyle."  The whole discussion arose in the context of marriage, anyway.

But this all makes sense to me, and it goes back to your believing that homosexuality is a "choice."  Perhaps it does seem like a completely different "lifestyle" to you, based on that point.

at least you seem interested in learning. maybe.

from here, I'm guessing 'orientation' might work. But, ya gotta drop the disaproval crap. Snooping into anyone's bedroom is wrong.

Unless you've got history of anti-gay votes and agendapushing and have a wide stance in airport men's rooms.

resedit wrote:

I'm more than happy to use a different phrase just to avoid the bull smurf semantic arguments [...]

If that is the case, it would have been better if you had chosen a term that wasn't coined specifically because it carries with it the notion that being gay is a choice, from the beginning.

.tsooJ

resedit wrote:

daemon wrote:

at least you seem interested in learning. maybe.

from here, I'm guessing 'orientation' might work. But, ya gotta drop the disaproval crap. Snooping into anyone's bedroom is wrong.

Unless you've got history of anti-gay votes and agendapushing and have a wide stance in airport men's rooms.

When did I say I wanted to snoop into someone's bedroom?
I have NEVER EVER NOT ONCE supported a law that does any such thing except when a child is involved.

You guys need to stop making assumptions about me. I post often enough you should be able to search and see what I have actually said, and if you still aren't sure, you can always ask instead of making your blatantly incorrect assumptions and then getting judgmental based upon them.

Look. I'm not saying 'by law'. I'm saying de facto. Someone is gay. A switch goes on in your brain. You go inside the bedroom in your head. And disapprove.

It's like saying only missionary is acceptable. You like doggie. I don't like you even though I have to work with and otherwise interact day to day.

It's not good.

A quick story about a summer contract coworker. She was all born again and disapproving this and disapproving that. A real church lady type. After about the first week, I never even said "Good morning" to her that whole summer. As Labor Day approached, I asked if she had noticed that I hadn't said a word to her for a couple months even though our paths crossed every day. She claimed she hadn't.

I told her it was on purpose. And that I had never done such a thing before. And that it was in 'reply' to her virulent views (uhh...I am not gay; or bi - so it's not a personal affront. It's principle.). She didn't get it.

Ribtorus wrote:

I think Resedit's opponents in this thread have made themselves a bit ridiculous over the word lifestyle; who can use it and in what context, without it offending.

Maybe they're worried that the dog won't be ready to eat an invading alien armada.

resedit wrote:

Alien wrote:

resedit wrote:

I'm more than happy to use a different phrase just to avoid the bull smurf semantic arguments [...]

If that is the case, it would have been better if you had chosen a term that wasn't coined specifically because it carries with it the notion that being gay is a choice, from the beginning.

Please note that I didn't.
It was bedstuy who actually brought the phrase into the thread.

Um, no.

You "defined" "the homosexual lifestyle" as "two people of the same sex smurfing."

.tsooJ

That ain't religion, res. It's bigotry cloaked in a frock.

Ribtorus wrote:

I think Resedit's opponents in this thread have made themselves a bit ridiculous over the word lifestyle; who can use it and in what context, without it offending.

It's a neutral enough word in just about any context, and if I learned anything from TV and Will & Grace, there are lifestyle choices that anyone can make which serve to enhance or diminish apects of their identity, including sexual. That is a choice, and that's part and parcel of "lifestyle".

Personally it would take a bit more than this to "offend" me, and the context of the discussion arose in more of a "what do you even mean by that?" way.

If you think it's wrong for homosexuals to have sex, then say that.  Widening that condemnation to include one's entire "lifestyle" is often a tactic used by those who seek to deny rights to homosexuals (or who just like to go on and on about whatever other sorts of bad behavior that they're certain homosexuals like to engage in). 

It's harder for me to get passed the suggestion that people choose what gender they're attracted to.

And of course, the 'choice' can be a good one or a bad one. Once the 'bad' is decided then that person can be condemned.

The same 'authority' that can condemn any brand of sexuality or sexual activity can condemn them all. Let's see...oral sex? Off the list of 'good'. ETC.

My life is mine. Including personal preferences. It is not open for debate or admonishment or condemnation.

Nor should anyone else's.

The same argument can apply to abortion, I anyone wants thread 8zillion and 1.

In a nutshell - people were specifically looking to have a fight with me, plain and simple.
That's trolling, and is probably against the rules of the board.