|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bangbayed
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
And let's not forget:
| Quote: |
| Craig supported the Federal Marriage Amendment, which barred extension of rights to same-sex couples; he voted for cloture on the amendment in both 2004 and 2006, and was a cosponsor in 2008. However, in late 2006 he appeared to endorse the right of individual states to create same-sex civil unions, but said he would vote "yes" on an Idaho constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages when pressured to clarify his position by the anti-gay rights group Families for a Better Idaho. Craig voted against cloture in 2002, which would have extended the federal definition of hate crimes to cover sexual orientation. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig
C'mon, am I the only one to see the resemblance between seosan + Quack Addict and him?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
seosan08
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| moosehead wrote: |
| samcheokguy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| isn't it pretty common knowledge that those who are the most vehemently opposed to homosexuality are actually repressed homosexuals themselves? and the reason it's so threatening is because they'd have to come to terms with the very part of themselves they've always hated - you know, that good ol' self-loathing and all. |
the only problem with this logic is it isn't logical. In fact it makes no sense. J. Edgar Hoover was not a secret communist. The Pope is not a secret Jew. Arabs are not secret Jews. Catholic Hard-Liners don't really want to abort. Koreans don't wish they were Japanese, they want to kill them.
Why does/should it be true for gays? Because it is a way around any debate on the subject. There are valid arguments AGAINST having sex and reproducing period. Not very good ones, but good enough for various peoples at various times. But anybody who says "I'm against hommosexuality" is in addition to being a bigot, also 'on the down low'. Seems a bit unfair. |
why are you making blanket statements that have absolutely no factual basis whatsoever? 
you think the pope hates jews? huh?
and that Arabs hate jews? huh? honey I've been to the middle east - and I'm assuming you meant moslem people since they are often blanketed to be "arabs" since it the language they speak  and no, there isn't a huge fever of "jew-hating" going around
and there are Ks who actually do like Jpn - believe it or not -
also, ahem, for the record, I said people who are the "most vehemently opposed."
others are just plain foolish, ignorant, biased, bigots, take your pick. |
There are two primary psychological defense mechanisms which can explain this phenomenon we see over and over in those being most stridently opposed to homosexuality turning out to have the orientation themselves: reaction formation and identification with the aggressor.
There can be no doubt that the phenomenon occurs, and is not very rare. One only need look at all such cases we have seen, the most recent being that of Rep. Mark Foley who, within months of sponsoring the Adam Walsh Act which enhanced enforcement against soliciting minors over the internet, was forced to resign from Congress for soliciting male teens over the internet.
"Methinks he doth protest too much." |
You see the SAME BS mechanism in the sodomites. First, "homophobes," then it's "hater or bigot," then the "if you're against them, you must be one" BS. Then on to civil rights, then comparing themselves to blacks. Then it goes to hissy-fits, attacking and all the other garbage these people commit.
They just recently attacked a group of Christians, so much for a crowd that demands tolerance from everyone else. Do I see a pattern here?
Again, like I said. The won't attack ANYONE who'll fight back. They'll attack small blondes and old women........but that's about it. If they actually attacked someone willing to fight back, they'd be lying in a pool of disease infected blood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| seosan08 wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| moosehead wrote: |
| samcheokguy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| isn't it pretty common knowledge that those who are the most vehemently opposed to homosexuality are actually repressed homosexuals themselves? and the reason it's so threatening is because they'd have to come to terms with the very part of themselves they've always hated - you know, that good ol' self-loathing and all. |
the only problem with this logic is it isn't logical. In fact it makes no sense. J. Edgar Hoover was not a secret communist. The Pope is not a secret Jew. Arabs are not secret Jews. Catholic Hard-Liners don't really want to abort. Koreans don't wish they were Japanese, they want to kill them.
Why does/should it be true for gays? Because it is a way around any debate on the subject. There are valid arguments AGAINST having sex and reproducing period. Not very good ones, but good enough for various peoples at various times. But anybody who says "I'm against hommosexuality" is in addition to being a bigot, also 'on the down low'. Seems a bit unfair. |
why are you making blanket statements that have absolutely no factual basis whatsoever?
you think the pope hates jews? huh?
and that Arabs hate jews? huh? honey I've been to the middle east - and I'm assuming you meant moslem people since they are often blanketed to be "arabs" since it the language they speak and no, there isn't a huge fever of "jew-hating" going around
and there are Ks who actually do like Jpn - believe it or not -
also, ahem, for the record, I said people who are the "most vehemently opposed."
others are just plain foolish, ignorant, biased, bigots, take your pick. |
There are two primary psychological defense mechanisms which can explain this phenomenon we see over and over in those being most stridently opposed to homosexuality turning out to have the orientation themselves: reaction formation and identification with the aggressor.
There can be no doubt that the phenomenon occurs, and is not very rare. One only need look at all such cases we have seen, the most recent being that of Rep. Mark Foley who, within months of sponsoring the Adam Walsh Act which enhanced enforcement against soliciting minors over the internet, was forced to resign from Congress for soliciting male teens over the internet.
"Methinks he doth protest too much." |
You see the SAME BS mechanism in the sodomites. First, "homophobes," then it's "hater or bigot," then the "if you're against them, you must be one" BS. Then on to civil rights, then comparing themselves to blacks. Then it goes to hissy-fits, attacking and all the other garbage these people commit.
They just recently attacked a group of Christians, so much for a crowd that demands tolerance from everyone else. Do I see a pattern here?
Again, like I said. The won't attack ANYONE who'll fight back. They'll attack small blondes and old women........but that's about it. If they actually attacked someone willing to fight back, they'd be lying in a pool of disease infected blood. |
You are absolutely right that the psychodynamics involved are not limited to insightless, self-hating cryptohomosexuals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seosan08
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Or liberal wanker morons! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| seosan08 wrote: |
| samcheokguy wrote: |
| Hoover was a straight cross-dresser. Like most of them. |
More propaganda! |
What? That Hoover was a cross-dresser or that many cross-dressers are actually straight? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
samcheokguy
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Location: Samcheok G-do
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the only place a thread like this can end up is the butt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bangbayed wrote: |
And let's not forget:
| Quote: |
| Craig supported the Federal Marriage Amendment, which barred extension of rights to same-sex couples; he voted for cloture on the amendment in both 2004 and 2006, and was a cosponsor in 2008. However, in late 2006 he appeared to endorse the right of individual states to create same-sex civil unions, but said he would vote "yes" on an Idaho constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages when pressured to clarify his position by the anti-gay rights group Families for a Better Idaho. Craig voted against cloture in 2002, which would have extended the federal definition of hate crimes to cover sexual orientation. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig |
There are many such examples. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bangbayed
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| bangbayed wrote: |
And let's not forget:
| Quote: |
| Craig supported the Federal Marriage Amendment, which barred extension of rights to same-sex couples; he voted for cloture on the amendment in both 2004 and 2006, and was a cosponsor in 2008. However, in late 2006 he appeared to endorse the right of individual states to create same-sex civil unions, but said he would vote "yes" on an Idaho constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages when pressured to clarify his position by the anti-gay rights group Families for a Better Idaho. Craig voted against cloture in 2002, which would have extended the federal definition of hate crimes to cover sexual orientation. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig |
There are many such examples. |
There might even be some on this very page...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So how did it work out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moosehead
Joined: 05 May 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
from here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11187270?nclick_check=1
'Day Without a Gay' participation spotty
By LISA LEFF Associated Press Writer
Posted: 12/10/2008 01:54:40 PM PST
SAN FRANCISCO�A daylong work stoppage for which people were encouraged to call in "gay" to express support for same-sex marriage drew spotty participation Wednesday, with some gay rights activists praising the event and others questioning its value.
People who opted to take the day off from their jobs as part of the national "Day Without a Gay" were encouraged to perform community service, and charitable organizations across the country said they had volunteers showing up.
"Visibility is really important for the gay community, so after a lot of thought I decided I would come out and be visible with my colleagues at work and use the time working for the community," said Carrie Lewis, 36, a University of California health researcher who spent the day working at the Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center.
The protest, which a gay couple from West Hollywood organized through the Internet, was designed to demonstrate the economic clout of same-sex marriage supporters following the passage of voter-approved gay marriage bans in California, Arizona and Florida last month.
Participants also were asked to refrain from spending money or at least to patronize gay-friendly businesses for the day.
In San Francisco's gay Castro district, several residents and merchants said they endorsed the cause but did not think a work stoppage or spending boycott was practical, given the poor economy and how quickly the strike was organized.
"My employers have
Advertisement
always been there in every possible way. I didn't feel comfortable discomfiting them when they have gone out of their way to be there for me," said Paul Ellis, 51, a manager at Cliff's Variety hardware store.
David Lang, 44, a San Francisco gymnastics coach who said he conceived of a similar idea right after the election, said he thinks a coordinated job action would have been more successful if organizers had enlisted support from sympathetic employers, labor groups and industries.
"If we are going to make a huge impact and not be laughed at, then we have to take the time and make the time to communicate with all the parties. We could have shut down a lot of the hotels," Lang said. "In theory it's a great idea, but it's being done wrong and now that it's been done wrong, I don't think it will be done again."
Out and Equal Workplace Advocates, a San Francisco-based nonprofit group that promotes equality for gay and lesbian employees, suggested that gay marriage supporters could send an effective message beyond Wednesday by openly discussing the issue at their workplaces.
The organization was encouraging gay people who could not miss work to be open about their sexual orientation with co-workers and urging straight employees to speak up when they hear colleagues making homophobic jokes.
"When people go into the voting booth and vote against (gay) rights, they often have no idea they are voting against the person sitting next to them in the next cubicle or office," said Selisse Berry, Out and Equal's executive director.
Berry noted that only 20 states have laws to protect workers from being fired for being gay, making lesbians and gays reluctant to reveal themselves to co-workers in most jurisdictions.
"Constantly lying about our weekends at the water cooler or changing pronouns, that takes up so much energy that we could be putting into our jobs," she said.
Backers of "Day Without a Gay" organized evening rallies in San Francisco, Austin, Tex., Logan, Utah, and other cities so supporters could gather to discuss the next steps. Rallies also were held earlier Wednesday in Chicago and on several college campuses in California.
"The movement that fought for equality and succeeded in electing Obama president is really looking to make progressive gains now," said Mark Airgood, who used a personal day to take off from his job as a middle school teacher in Berkeley. "I think we really can, and I think this is an important day for that." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It sound like they might do a better job of organizing if they try it again next year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not gay, but I would have considered lying about it and banging out on a day of work if I thought I could get away with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seosan08
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| They think they're punishing anyone by NOT showing up!?! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| seosan08 wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
There are two primary psychological defense mechanisms which can explain this phenomenon we see over and over in those being most stridently opposed to homosexuality turning out to have the orientation themselves: reaction formation and identification with the aggressor.
There can be no doubt that the phenomenon occurs, and is not very rare. One only need look at all such cases we have seen, the most recent being that of Rep. Mark Foley who, within months of sponsoring the Adam Walsh Act which enhanced enforcement against soliciting minors over the internet, was forced to resign from Congress for soliciting male teens over the internet.
"Methinks he doth protest too much." |
You see the SAME BS mechanism in the sodomites. First, "homophobes," then it's "hater or bigot," then the "if you're against them, you must be one" BS. Then on to civil rights, then comparing themselves to blacks. Then it goes to hissy-fits, attacking and all the other garbage these people commit. |
BS? Not according to this study from the Journal of Abnormal Psychology:
Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?
Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.
| Quote: |
| The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds like it wasn't a good idea, they should stick to church invasions and prophylactic tossing.
Yes and by "they" I mean the gay community. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
