NationStates Jolt Archive

That's just insane. I've very much straight and very anti homosexual marriage. Every consider that maybe you are the closeted one?

Methinks thou dost protest too strongly.

Think about it; Why else would a person dread homosexual marriage than subconciously, that person thinks that it might somehow apply to him?

That's just insane. I've very much straight and very anti homosexual marriage. Every consider that maybe you are the closeted one?

Methinks thou dost protest too strongly.

Think about it; Why else would a person dread homosexual marriage than subconciously, that person thinks that it might somehow apply to him?

Not only that, but only someone in denial would say they were "very much" something.

I mean, Xboxica just saying he is straight would have been enough, but that "very much" just smacks of trying too hard.

Not only that, but only someone in denial would say they were "very much" something.

I mean, Xboxica just saying he is straight would have been enough, but that "very much" just smacks of trying too hard.

If that's all you have as a rebuttal, that's pretty weak.

Make an argument, give out points wait for counter-points. What you both did there was akin to saying "that's what you are, but what am I?". I thought adults were posting here should I now dumb my posts down and start calling people names.

If that's all you have as a rebuttal, that's pretty weak.

Make an argument, give out points wait for counter-points. What you both did there was akin to saying "that's what you are, but what am I?". I thought adults were posting here should I now dumb my posts down and start calling people names.

You did. Ever consider that maybe you are the closeted one? Sorry. :/

Plus, you are following psych models pretty well for that. Maybe you are the one exception - almost every rule has an exception, esp. in psych - but since none of us actually know you or your situation, it will seem that way even if we're wrong.

And I'm using "we" because I got a similar impression too, even though I haven't been bashing you or anything (I think it's immature too, and would rather not start). So again, :/

You did. Sorry. :/

I didn't mean that as an insult, just an observation.

So does that mean, by that psych model, that you can never really be totally for something. Like I really really love my kids. I really really hate pedophiles. Are those now false statements?

Gays shouldn't get to b married. For the very fact that the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Hey that was easy, look at that the very defintion of the word, should make it impossilbe. Just tell them to do the same thing under a different name i don' care if they go and have union blah, or w/e but they just can't call it marriage.

Just like negroes should have been happy with negro rights? I mean, they're the same as human rights, but we called them negro rights to avoid offending the KKK.

I didn't mean that as an insult, just an observation.

That's the problem with the internet. It's impossible to tell, a lot of the time, whether something is an insult, an observation, or a cry for help. The little visual and vocal cues we humans subconsciously process to give us a better idea of what the person talking to us means, exactly, are missing. Sarcasm, parody, grudging agreement, wheedling manipulation, pathetic attention whoring, whole-hearted concurrence...all these things can be mistaken for each other online.

So does that mean, by that psych model, that you can never really be totally for something. Like I really really love my kids. I really really hate pedophiles. Are those now false statements?

If I heard someone say, outloud, that they "really really love their kids," I would wonder who they are trying to convince. That's my skeptical nature. And the world IS filled with a plethora of assholes of all sorts.

That's human nature, after all. My fellow humans. I really really am a human. I swear. Seriously. I am. I have a birth certificate and everything. Well, of course a galaxy-travelling species would be able to forge a, to them, crude document. You're changing the subject. Look out behind you!!!

(runs.)

Gays shouldn't get to b married. For the very fact that the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Hey that was easy, look at that the very defintion of the word, should make it impossilbe. Just tell them to do the same thing under a different name i don' care if they go and have union blah, or w/e but they just can't call it marriage.
Also religious matters would totally ban gays all together.
And the seperation of Church and state, was originally ment to keep state out of Church not the other way around. Making it mutual is just stupid as ppl who r in state follow the teachings of the church.

They'll call it whatever the fuck they please, and you're powerless to stop it. Utterly, completely powerless. And your interpretation of the separation of church and state is not only laughable and ridiculous, it's also stating that EVERYONE follows a church, which they don't. Now, actually bring something to this debate that has a speck of substance or shut up and let us adults talk.

Xboxica, no, not really. I'm very happy with my girlfriend, my life with her is great, and I fully support gay marriage simply because I'm not some schizophrenic that assumes that a Big Voice In the Sky told me to hate fags (as the opponents of gay marriage are - that or they're closeted). You're following a much closer pattern than I am.

Do tell me, though: What would affect you if two men were allowed to marry? Or two women?

I still don't understand why this is such a huge issue. Guess its because I'm irreligious. *shrug*

BTW, does anyone know the etymology (I think that's the right word) of the word 'fag'? How did it go from bundle of sticks, to cigarette, to homosexual?

BTW, does anyone know the etymology (I think that's the right word) of the word 'fag'? How did it go from bundle of sticks, to cigarette, to homosexual?

The way I understand it, it was bundle of sticks, and then the last two became different in the two main dialects. In England, it turned into cigarette (because they're like burning sticks?), whereas in America, it turned into homosexual because once upon a time they were burned upon the aforementioned sticks.

Anyone who actually majors/very-much-studies this can correct me anywhere I'm wrong.

Oh, and here I was thinking something totally different as to where the homosexual thing came from.

Wrong stick.

I didn't mean that as an insult, just an observation.

So does that mean, by that psych model, that you can never really be totally for something. Like I really really love my kids. I really really hate pedophiles. Are those now false statements?

Possibly. Depends upon whether or not they are following Reaction Formation. I'd need to know your whole life story to actual know that for you....

Yes, you can be totally something. Theoretically. But you are less likely to be so totally something the more that you protest and loudly proclaim that you are. As I said, Reaction Formation. If you want someone to blaim - it's all Freud's fault! :/

Ah well. I'll go to bed and leave you folks to deal with XClosetica...

BTW, does anyone know the etymology (I think that's the right word) of the word 'fag'? How did it go from bundle of sticks, to cigarette, to homosexual?

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mfaggot.html

That's just insane. I've very much straight and very anti homosexual marriage. Every consider that maybe you are the closeted one?

Why do they always announce they are straight when attacking gay issues?

Why do they always announce they are straight when attacking gay issues?
Battle cry?