The Simtropolis Closet

[defcon pilot 0]

Agreed! Viva la slogan! (I have no idea what the literal translation is... I just know that it means "support" something... I think. )

vid, how many times have you been banned from ST?

[Simen 1]

They dont dare ban him in the fear of being looked at as racist

[vidioman 21]

I have been banned once or twice, warned countless times. Promised not to do it countless times. Broken that promise countless times. It's been happening more often, though. They're getting stricter.

If I said that stuff at other forums, none of it would be deleted. And there are more offensive people out there. They only censor the stuff here ~-Edited-~ Vid you know better -TMS

(and part of it, shock value. )

[Duke87 1,070]

Personally, I am against forced editing of posts, and were I to have my own forums, I would not have moderators. I beieve in free speech, and that means you can post whatever you want, no matter how much it offends people.

Things must be kept in their proper place though. I'd have a seperate special forum for threads with "mature content", discussion of adult topics, or flamefests.

Unfortunately, I know of no forum on the internet where this is the case. Way too many people support the idea of censorship. Censorship is morally wrong.

Not only that, but (In the US anyway) the constitution guarentees us this right. I thus really question the FCCs rules about what you can and can't put on the air, as well as why forums with post content rules are so rampant.

So there, forum moderators editing others posts is unconstitutuonal.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: vidioman

I have been banned once or twice, warned countless times. Promised not to do it countless times. Broken that promise countless times. It's been happening more often, though. They're getting stricter.

quote>

"How long am I banned for this time?" is not a game we are interested in playing. We do not have unlimited time. People can use up all of their chances.

Originally posted by: Duke87

Personally, I am against forced editing of posts, and were I to have my own forums, I would not have moderators. I beieve in free speech, and that means you can post whatever you want, no matter how much it offends people.

quote>

Well, when you have your own forums, you can do that.

Originally posted by: Duke87

So there, forum moderators editing others posts is unconstitutuonal.quote>

Dirk's sandbox; Dirk's rules. and, last I heard, the US Constitutional doesn't apply outside the borders.

[thatmonkeysim 8]

thanks Ski for clearing that up

[Zelgadis 638]

Translation of what SkiGeek said: Welcome to the dirktatorship!

Now back to talking about gay stuff. No? Alright, Tinky Winky, get 'em!

ISF

[defcon pilot 0]

<<<---edited for inappropriate links--->>>

[Boggy1 45]

Ok well, I've been rarther ill for the past couple of days, and I still am but have made myself be better for a few hours so I can entertain my cousin.

So yeah, what happened.

Well, my friend is being heavily bullyed because his brother is gay. It's gone so far that he has suspended himself for about a week just so he can be away from school.

So I told my mum about this on the way back from school in the car. So the subject of the brother being gay came up and I noticed my mum had sort of gone all distant and cold. So I sort of confronted her and she stopped the car and we had a long long chat about the issues with me being gay.

Apparently I had told her I never wanted to talk about it again a few weeks ago :S

But anyway, we had a nice chat and stuff, and it all went fine.

On a side note, did you receive my two PMs I sent about a week ago?

[defcon pilot 0]

Well, let's see... They were about Freelancer and CJs... Wait, were you talking to me?

Anyway, interesting story. My mom doesn't mind talking about gayness: She hates homophobes, too.

[vidioman 21]

My mom still refers to them as faggots. Oh, she has nothing against faggots. She just finds the really girly ones annoying. Like that TV show, designer guys or whatever.

I can't stand it either. You just want to slap them!

Oh, but you can't! :-o

^^Look at that!

WTH don't the smilies match up with anything?!! Jeez!

We need a ":-0" smilie.

[thesonofgray 0]

I thought I'd pop my head in (or out of?) the closet and say hello.

I'm a gay 20 year old and have a bf of 4 years (and still going strong!). It's very nice to know Simtropolis is accepting of everyone no matter their sexual orientation.

I've read the majority of the posts on this thread and, honestly, I think ignorance is the main enemy of the gay community. That's why I strongly support a thread like this on ST. The majority of the people I know who hate gays just don't know any and are only exposed to the awful stereotypes on TV.

Concerning religion (hopefully this doesn't get edited out), times change. Society changes. How many amendments does the U.S. constitution have? How many social movements has the world experienced? Too many to count. I know this will be shot down till the end of time by many people, but why isn't there a living bible or something? I mean, how many things in the bible are totally outdated? Many things.

On the origins of homosexuality: I find this extremely fascinating. I've read many texts and studies on this and it seems to me, the more we study, the more we cross out possible answers...and until what is left? Genetics-nope, Nuture-nope, Choice-definately not, etc, etc.

I have an interesting proposition. I am a strong believer of evolution. Just look around, every living thing adapts and evolves to its environment. (I'll leave the origins discussion out since that isn't the topic and it will just be deleted by admins) But I think everyone can agree that to a certain degree, living things adapt to a changing environment.

So...what would the human race, naturally, do to counter the problem of overpopulation? I mean, deep in our DNA code, could something be changing to counter the fact that the world population is definately increasing-possibly beyond the Earth's ability to sustain the population? It might be a very far reaching answer to a very complicated question, but it crossed my mind nonetheless.

And for those who need an example of what I mean: look at an accurate drawing of a caveman or an ancient human. Their jaws are very elongated to accomodate more teeth for chewing. So why don't we look like that now? Humans discovered fire and therefore learned to cook the meat they ate. Cooked meat requires less chewing and therefore our jaws shrunk to adapt to our new needs. So what does the human race do to counter overpopulation?

For those who are having a hard time being who they are, whether inside or from outside sources, all I can say is hang in there. Try your hardest to surround yourself by people and communities that accept who you are. I am lucky to be in a very accepting university and city, and to be surrounded by people who love me-for being me.

Well that's my 2 cents. I hope this thread stays open and the individuals inside it stay civilized. I think everyone should be open to civilized debate, since that is the only way to educate and correct people's misconceptions about the gay community. Oh and sorry for the legthy post.

[defcon pilot 0]

Don't worry. I like reading length posts.

Ignorance is one of the worst things in the world... It is the enemy of freedom, and it is a tool used in religion. Religious people never question their teachings. And, of course, as we all know, we have to question if we want to truly understand, right?

Also, not all of ST is accepting everyone even in spite of orientation. I've met quite a few "anti-gay" people out there.

Your proposition is quite an interesting one, and it is something I as well have been thinking about, although I never did equate it with genetics. According to the theory, the number of homosexuals will decrease if the available living space rises (there is room for more people). It also states that the number will go up whenever there is an overcrowding situation. So what you're saying, basically, is that nature has found a way to balance the population. Hmm. Makes sense. I like your idea.

[Boggy1 45]

Woot! My crush, today, like totally hugged me then slipped his hand into mine!!

[thesonofgray 0]

There are anti-gay as well as anti-anything in any community, especially one as diverse as ST. I am just happy that ST tolerates a thread such as this, because maybe some of those anti-gay individuals have never met an average, decent homosexual, and a thread like this allows for that interaction. And whether if that interaction occurs or if anyone is corrected in their misconceptions, at least it has an opportunity to.

As for the proposition on homosexuality causes, I don't know what you would equate it to. I'm not an expert in biology or genetics, but I would imagine something would have to change in the DNA structure of humans to accomidate any evolution. But it is an intruiging question.

I was digging through my bookmarks and I found an old article about homosexuality that I thought would be of interest. It's fairly long and found here, but what I wanted to share here was this paragraph: The most common Christian and Muslim objection to homosexuality is that it is unnatural and "goes against the order of nature". There seems to be little evidence for this. Miriam Rothschild, the eminent biologist who played a crucial role in the fight to decriminalize homosexuality in Britain, pointed out at the time that homosexual behaviour has been observed in almost every known species of animal. Secondly, it could be argued that while the biological function of sex is reproduction, most sexual activity today is not for reproduction, but for recreation and emotional fulfillment, and that this too is a legitimate function of sex. This being so, while homosexuality is unnatural in that it cannot lead to reproduction, it is quite natural for the homosexual in that for her or him it provides physical and emotional fulfillment. Indeed, for him or her, heterosexual behaviour is unnatural. Thirdly, even if we concede that homosexuality "goes against the order of nature", we would have to admit that so do many other types of human behaviour, including some religious behaviour. The Roman Catholic Church has always condemned homosexuality because of its supposed unnaturalness - but it has long idealized celibacy, which, some might argue, is equally unnatural. Another Christian objection to homosexuality is that it is condemned in the Bible, an argument that is meaningful to those who accept that the Bible is the infallible word of God, but which is meaningless to the majority who do not accept this. But while there is no doubt that the Bible condemns homosexuality, it also stipulates that women should be socially isolated while menstruating, that parents should kill their children if they worship any god other than the Christian God and that those who work on the Sabbath should be executed. Few Christians today would agree with these ideas even though they are a part of God's words, and yet they continue to condemn homosexuality simply because it is condemned in the Bible.

I hope that doesn't get edited out my the mods. I just wanted to share that because it supports my claim of a living bible. I have no qualms with people of faith, I just think that with all things lasting, it should be able to adapt with change.

Ok enough with the philosophy of gayness. I was wondering, since we have such a diverse group here, what it's like to be gay in your part of the world?

I live in Austin, TX and if anyone knows the city, they know it's probably the most liberal area in Texas. There is a large gay population in the city and our mayor (hetero) even dressed up as a transvestite for some festival play thing. We were the only county in Texas to overwhelmingly oppose a proposition that would define marriage as "between one man and one woman". It's not all utopia over here though. Our police force is attributed to being not so open (racially, etc) but it seems that any crimes like that are given the attention they deserve.

So what's it like where you live?

[villarule 2]

top post

[RiverCocytus 0]

(Regarding the above post) Hmm... I would posit that they are misinterpretting the Law of Moses, and as it relates to the New Covenant.

As for the term 'Anti-Gay', could you define what you'd consider Anti Gay? I am interested to know... It is a term bandied about, but I'm interested in what different people consider Anti Gay.

I'm certain some people would label me as such; given my position as a committed Christian. However, it would be interesting to see what opinions/views on the matter are.

[defcon pilot 0]

Well, here in my county, gay people are highly persecuted, even in spite of the fact that many of us are liberal.

@RC: About your sig: Are you talking about the Bush administration? Because he's been doing most of the flying... Straight into the ground. Or are you talking about conservatives in general? Because I personally have no problem, so long as they're actually conserving. And not poking fun at us liberals. But enough of that. Back on topic.

I'm the only gay rights activist in my area. Everyone else either hates 'em or doesn't care.

[Dereko 0]

I think it is interesting that some people think it is okay to discriminate against people based on sexuality but that it is wrong to discriminate based on race, sex, religion, etc. It is rather contradictary, but then again in the past people thought it was okay to discriminate based on race, sex, and religion but times have changed and that behavior is now viewed as abhorent. I think people who discriminate against people because of their sexuality will find themselves on the wrong side of history.

[thesonofgray 0]

Dereko: I believe you are right. Every minority had their era of persecution by the majority. I won't be surprised that in a couple of decades (hopefully not too many), being gay won't be that big of a deal.

defcon: I'm sorry to hear that. Maybe in the future you can relocate to a place that is more accepting? Or, even better, sway the minds of the public.

Edit: Wait, you're from California? I would think since San Jose is so close to SF, they would be more accepting of gays.

RC: It's interesting you used the word misinterpret to refute my quote. It seems from my experience that the bible has many interpretations and can practically be interpretted to mean anything. And it's up to a select few (humans) in the oligarchy to define which interpretation is right.

In my opinion, the term anti-gay would refer to the belief that the act of being a homosexual and living the life of an open homosexual is wrong, immoral, and should be admonished. An easily recognizable analogy is if you were anti-african american, since you would believe black people are somehow wrong or should be admonished. If someone is committed to discriminating against homosexuals and restricting their rights and seeing them as less than human, then I would call that person anti-gay.

[CTslicker 0]

Originally posted by: hello_SC4

Originally posted by: Boggy1 Stuff happened today. And I'll tell you about it later because my head is killing me.quote>

Same here.. I asked a friend of mine who's in on my "ways" to do some snooping on this guy that goes to my school.. His schoolmate is a friend of this friend of mine.. I just hope the whole school won't be looking oddly at me when I come to school Monday..quote>

Ummm I said it once, i said it twice and i'll say it over and over again if i have to... U R - O B S E S S E D That poor guy is terrified from what i've told him and he said i mustn't tell u a thing (and believe u me... i only told him the basics)

[defcon pilot 0]

@CTslicker: OK, I couldn't understand most of that...

@thesonofgray: Yes, I'm from California. And sadly, you thought wrong. BTW, I'm not exactly gay. I'm more heterosexual, though vid likes to refer to me as being bisexual. People look at me strangely anyway, though. Maybe I ought to lose the picket signs.

[vidioman 21]

I told him no one would understand.

[RiverCocytus 0]

Heh, I'm glad you appreciate my sig. It does not relate to the Bush Administration; nor to conservatives really. Its just a play on words on 'right wing'. My old sig said 'Come to the Right Wing, we have AC". But when people get political, they usual lose literary nuance

But that being said, I'm extremely conservative. I believe my Mother and I are what they call 'Crunchy Conservatives'. We're the kind of conservatives who wouldn't mind living on a farm in a life of hard work and prayer. Or going to war and dying for what we believe in. Among my religious principles and convictions, I hold fast to:

"Live Free or Die."

It makes me shiver whenever I think about it. Man, like William Wallace in Braveheart is like, "FREEEEEEDOM!!!!".

Other aphorisms I think are very apropo:

"The Tree of Liberty is Watered by the Blood of Patriots"

"The cost of Freedom is eternal vigilance."

don't forget the USA's old motto:

"Don't tread on me"

As a reply to a definition of 'anti-gay', I would like to know if you differentiate between admonishing -actions- and admonishing -people-. Some people do not see a difference, but I do. And, about interpretations of the Bible, I see that you have made your decision.

I do not consider myself anti-gay, but my position is very complicated. There is not always a linear progression in the evolution of mankind; so we cannot assume that either tolerance or intolerance is, based on its nature, moving us toward the Singularity or away from it. I don't feel that this is an appropriate place for me to get into my opinions, ideas and arguments about the subject, as it seems I have already intruded.

Ciao for now.

[thesonofgray 0]

You haven't intruded at all!  (well, from my point of view - the originator of this thread might differ though) And I'm very glad that you expressed your beliefs.  If I wasn't then I would be a hypocrite.  (I think everyone has the right to express their opinions, as long as it's civil and appropriate - and I think it's both) Plus, I always like a good debate.

I understand your point about admonishing actions being different from admonishing people, and when I "came out" I had a few friends who still wanted to be friends, but thought that my actions (living a homosexual life) were wrong and that I should change.  Unfortunately those friendships didn't last that long.

I've heard of the belief that being a homosexual isn't wrong or a sin but that acting on homosexual tendencies (i.e. having gay sex) is wrong and a sin.  Much like heterosexual sex before marriage and murder.  I have an issue comparing being and acting myself ... to murder.  But then again, I don't really take issue to heterosexual sex before marriage as long as it is consenting and protected.

We just have very different views on this subject.  And I have no problem with that.  What I have a problem with is when people force their beliefs on others.  And I, living in the U.S., feel like my rights as a human in a "free" nation are being restricted because of Christian (and other religious) groups/individuals/politicians don't understand the Establishment Clause in the First Amendement (separation of church and state).  But, again, like everything else in this wonderful country, that is also up for debate.

"Live Free or Die" - That is exactly what I intend to do

[defcon pilot 0]

"Crunchy conservatives"? Heh heh. Well, if you have that kind of dedication, then it would be best focused on learning.

[defcon pilot 0]

Sorry for the double post, but my browser can't load the new text editor.

We forgot to celebrate the 50th anniversary of this thread! Oh well... We can celebrate the 51st anniversary, then!

So... Happy 51st!

Let's celebrate with some Gay-tor-ade!

[vidioman 21]

defcon pilot | "Crunchy conservatives"? Heh heh. Well, if you have that kind of dedication, then it would be best focused on learning.

My definition of "free" means "not being restricted by someone elses religion" and "being able to choose your own religion" so I feel religion should not be a good enough arguement for banning something like that. Gay marriage doesnt ahve to be performed in the church, but they can if they want. That seems like a good compromise to me. Government leaves church alone, church leaves government alone. (If this gets censored, round of drinks on me at the moose factory) The age of consent for anal sex in Canada (except ontario and Quebec) is 18 because they felt it was unhygenic and younger people would 'do it wrong'. A valid point, with no religious background. "Because the bible says so" isnt a good enough reson to make something legal. But, why does the bible say it's wrong? There must be a better reason. "X Said So" can be broken down farthur, and thats what should be done when the religious right argues. Leave God out of it.

~-where are those drinks? -~ TMS

[defcon pilot 0]

They didn't spend much time reading because they worked on a farm?quote>

What I meant was that, if one has the willpower to do such hard work, one ought to do that hard work with their brains.

On a lighter note, I noticed that you've switched to all italics.

[thesonofgray 0]

I get blasted from both sides for this, but I don't even support gay marriage.

But let me explain.  I've always associated marriage as the union of two people under god.  I don't believe in a god (or one in the sense of worship), so I don't feel the need to be united under something (someone?) I don't believe in.

I do, however, strongly believe in civil unions for everyone (hetero/homo-NOT animals) who don't associate with a religion.  The fact that the government meddles in marriage is wrong (tax breaks, certain rights).  It should only administer and recognize civil unions and leave marriage to the churches/mosques/etc.

It really bothers me that I have been faithful and wish to spend the rest of my life with a person who I truely love, but I don't receive the same benefits from the government because that love is between men and not between a man and a woman.  Not exactly equality, eh?

(Heh heh, I said eh.)

But that's just my opinion.