A few days before this year’s election, a co-worker and I debated the merit of California’s Proposition 8. Of all the arguments he presented, what struck me the most was his outright accusation of me lying when I declared as a heterosexual man I was never sexually attracted to men, much less having the desire to “experiment,” as he put it, growing up. What he sees as a society full of gay sexual predators ready to corrupt our youngsters in luring them away to their peculiar “immoral lifestyle” was incomprehensible to me. Then I realized this is who he is: a faint feminine mannerism betrays his deep desire he desperately tries to hide amid all the bravados and anti-gay rhetoric. Hence lies the paradox: the most vitriolic homophobic bigots are most likely closet homosexuals themselves. It is absolute horrifying to them that they harbor this deep seated fantasy that its manifestation is outward aggressive behaviors toward homosexuality they themselves subconsciously suppressed. In psychopathology it is classified as a form of cognitive dissonance in which the afflicted can not reconcile their inner desire with the outside societal norms or expectations.
In no way am I making a sweeping statement that all homophobes are severely repressed homosexuals themselves. After all, many garden variety bigots and religious nutcases or just simply ignoramuses joined the ranks of “agents of intolerance” in denying equal rights for gay people, giving California a black eye on the night of what should be the celebration of the last vestige of racial barrier being broken by Obama’s victory. The irony of, if the exit polls are to be believed, the great turnout of African Americans and other minority groups for Obama helping defeat Prop 8 has not gone unnoticed to many political observers and TV commentators. Yet I will leave the postmortem analysis to others and concentrate on debunking some myths and misinformation advanced by the opposing camp.
>Myth # 1: homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle by degenerates and weirdos.
No it is not. It is no more than you can choose to breathe or not, or choose the pigment of your skin. These are the biological functions everybody is predisposed to by his or her DNA. If you believe there is a choice, then the only logic conclusion is that you are attracted by the same sex sexually. There is no way around it. Only if you are aroused by the sight of a homosexual activity are you willing to “choose” to “experiment” it. Others like me are so secure in our knowledge of our own sexual orientation that we are simply not threatened or tempted by it.
>Myth # 2: Gay rights struggle is not part of the civil rights movement championed by the civil rights pioneers.
Bull. Of course they are very much the same struggle. It is a struggle for human dignity; it is an aspiration to be treated equally as productive citizens in a civilized society; it is asking everybody be judged on their ability and merit, rather than a DNA sequence which determines the color of one’s skin, or one’s sexual orientation. These are the given rights under protection from our constitution that apply to everyone, rather than a charity granted to them as a concession from the society. They don’t owe the rest of us an apology by demanding their unalienable rights but the other way around: we owe them an apology for denying their rights for so long. Any unjust suppression of civil rights of any group is an affront to our own morality and dignity. To perpetuate a wrong on the heel of making mends with another is unconscionable.
>Myth # 3: slippery slope. Gay marriage will lead to sanctioning polygamy and bestiality marriage.
The Mormon church, of all people, spent twenty million dollars to help pass Prop 8. It conjures up images of old men marrying teenage girls and preteen girls again and again. It is said the church hierarchy has disavowed this practice, but the propensity of the “rogue” rank-and-file members still straying to the old teachings of Joseph Smith is well documented. Admittedly bringing up the Mormons is perhaps a cheap shot. Still, linking polygamy to homosexuality is totally without historical/anthropological evidence. All societies have practiced some forms of polygamy in the past, and most have evolved to render it a historical relic. It is not intellectually tenable proposition to argue for polygamy in the name of equality if gay marriage is sanctioned. Moreover, social zietgeist never doubles over to the past for guidance.
I can’t but chuckle a little when I heard of the argument that animals would become our spouses if gay marriage is legalized. (Sorry LiaoKang, we don’t see things eye-to-eye on all issues.) No rational mind can possibly jump to such a bizarre conclusion and I will not attempt to dissect that genius brain its pathology for first conjuring up this brilliant analogy. Suffice it to say a major hurdle for marriage between people and animals is that somehow the elevation of leagl personhood to the animals is the prerequisite to a legal marriage. If PETA has its way and this unlikeliest turn of fortune ever becomes a reality, then God save us all, for we have much bigger problems at hand than worrying about bestiality and canine marriages. Outside of the vegan community, the carnivorous nature of our being will lead us to murder charges for killing chickens! It will also redefine cannibalism when we are salivating at a piece of foie gras. (The fact that we passed the proposition to give chickens more space on the same night denying gay rights is almost comical if we can get over with the tragedy of it.)
>Myth #4: Historical definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.
Wrong. It was between a privileged man and a bunch of women. In U.S., there were forty some odd states that had interracial marriage ban on the books as late as in 1967. Think about it, Barack Obama’s parents would not have been able to get married if they didn’t meet in Hawaii, or a handful of other states.
Invoking history is a lame excuse to impede progress. Human race has a shameful past: we sanctioned slavery; we sanctioned racism and sexism; we were barbarians and killed civilians indiscriminately when we waged wars against each other. We are a better people now. We should look forward to the future, instead of looking back to our sorry past.
Finally the question: why marriage? We already have laws legally protecting their equal rights, isn’t it only semantic? Well, let me turn the question on its head and ask, why not? Really, what does it harm you? They are not asking you to sacrifice your rights. They are not asking you to live their lifestyle. If two people are in love and want to live their lives together, isn’t it our moral obligation to encourage them in a society where heterosexual divorce is rampant and love is so casual and transient?
I’ll conclude with the quote from the ageless wisdom of one Confucius: Don’t do onto others what you want not others do unto you.
- Re: Arguments against the ban on gay marriageposted on 11/11/2008
Your arguments fell short of the beautiful language. But at least this helps people in understanding your thinking. - Re: Arguments against the ban on gay marriageposted on 11/11/2008
and doing. - Re: Arguments against the ban on gay marriageposted on 11/11/2008
You are welcome to take a crack at it and tell us why it fell short.
moab wrote:
Your arguments fell short of the beautiful language. But at least this helps people in understanding your thinking. - posted on 11/12/2008
tar wrote:
You are welcome to take a crack at it and tell us why it fell short.
我看大可不必了。 还是一切都按照 GAY PEOPLE 说的为好了。 GAY们不是说,GAY现象绝非文化所逼,更非环境所迫,而是天造地设,打娘肚子里一出来就铁定了吗? 用这位煤焦油的科学语言来说,就是GAY的性倾向在DNA里写好了,改是绝对改不掉了。所以,GAY由DNA决定,就和黑人的种族已经被DNA锁定了一样,无法自己选择。因此,不能歧视GAY,就和不能歧视黑人是一个道理。
姑且不论黑人中的大多数是否愿意把他们的翻身得解放运动和同性恋结婚运动相提并论,暂且就认了这个理吧。我举双手赞成给GAY同志和黑人一样的一场解放 - 让GAY们享受婚姻的合法权利, 但是。。。。。。
但是有一个小小的条件,GAY们一定会欣然接受的。这就是只有GAY们才可以享受gay marriage的权利 -不能让普通的不具有同性恋的人去搅这个混水,凑这个热闹,这就和不能让一个白人去申请Affirmation Action照顾一个道理。
黑人的DNA是写在脸上的,无需特殊的认证手续便可断定。 那么,怎么去断定一个人是不是GAY呢?好消息是,根据GAY们的说法,科学家早已证明了GAY和DNA有关。
所以,今后两个GAY要申请结婚,先测一下双方的DNA,如果双方具有GAY的特殊基因的,一律批准结婚,否则就没门。这岂不是两全其美的好事情?
怎么样,GAY们有勇气接受这个根据GAY的说法设定的条件吗?
- Re: Arguments against the ban on gay marriageposted on 11/12/2008
歧视可能基于先天的原因,比如种族,性别,也可能基于后天的原因,比如宗教,文化。无论出于什么原因的歧视都应该反对。同性恋可能出于先天的生物原因或后天的非生物原因,但都不该成为被歧视的理由。
- Re: Arguments against the ban on gay marriageposted on 11/12/2008
gz wrote:
同性恋可能出于先天的生物原因或后天的非生物原因,但都不该成为被歧视的理由。
同性恋可能出于后天的非生物原因? 很有创意的观点! 不妨说出来给大家听听,是什么“后天的非生物原因”导致同性恋的? 各大教会恶毒攻击同性恋时就是这么说的。他们说,同性恋出于后天的非生物原因,而后天的东西是可以改变的。所以可以强迫同性恋“患者”接受精神“治疗”。
我只是担心你这种伟大的创意会给风起云涌、波澜壮阔的gay marriage运动埋下了一个祸根。。。。。。 - posted on 11/12/2008
good news,and there will be more!
...........
NEW HAVEN, Conn. – While there's anger and recriminations in California's gay-rights movement after voters there banned same-sex marriage, gay couples in Connecticut are at the opposite extreme: They're getting ready to pick up marriage license forms.
Superior Court Judge Jonathan Silbert has scheduled a hearing Wednesday morning to enter the final judgment in the case that allows same-sex marriages in Connecticut. Once entered, couples can pick up marriage license forms at town and city clerk's offices.
It's unclear how many couples will wed. According to the state public health department, there have been 2,032 civil union licenses issued in Connecticut between Oct. 2005 and July 2008.
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 on Oct. 10 that same-sex couples have the right to wed rather than accept a civil union law designed to give them the same rights as married couples.
The health department had new marriage applications printed that reflect the change. Instead of putting one name under "bride" and the other under "groom," couples will see two boxes marked "bride/groom/spouse."
Only Connecticut and Massachusetts have legalized gay marriage. - posted on 11/12/2008
You know, letting gay people wear pink star was the official policy of the 3rd Reich. Hitler would have been proud of you for your DNA test idea.
But let's not stop there, let's also start DNA testing for idiots like you. We all know you are a dumbass, and yet the word is not carved on your forehead. Scientists also know idiocy is herediary, perfect for your program. ;-)
哈哈一笑 wrote:
tar wrote:我看大可不必了。 还是一切都按照 GAY PEOPLE 说的为好了。 GAY们不是说,GAY现象绝非文化所逼,更非环境所迫,而是天造地设,打娘肚子里一出来就铁定了吗? 用这位煤焦油的科学语言来说,就是GAY的性倾向在DNA里写好了,改是绝对改不掉了。所以,GAY由DNA决定,就和黑人的种族已经被DNA锁定了一样,无法自己选择。因此,不能歧视GAY,就和不能歧视黑人是一个道理。
You are welcome to take a crack at it and tell us why it fell short.
姑且不论黑人中的大多数是否愿意把他们的翻身得解放运动和同性恋结婚运动相提并论,暂且就认了这个理吧。我举双手赞成给GAY同志和黑人一样的一场解放 - 让GAY们享受婚姻的合法权利, 但是。。。。。。
但是有一个小小的条件,GAY们一定会欣然接受的。这就是只有GAY们才可以享受gay marriage的权利 -不能让普通的不具有同性恋的人去搅这个混水,凑这个热闹,这就和不能让一个白人去申请Affirmation Action照顾一个道理。
黑人的DNA是写在脸上的,无需特殊的认证手续便可断定。 那么,怎么去断定一个人是不是GAY呢?好消息是,根据GAY们的说法,科学家早已证明了GAY和DNA有关。
所以,今后两个GAY要申请结婚,先测一下双方的DNA,如果双方具有GAY的特殊基因的,一律批准结婚,否则就没门。这岂不是两全其美的好事情?
怎么样,GAY们有勇气接受这个根据GAY的说法设定的条件吗?
- posted on 11/12/2008
tar wrote:
You know, letting gay people wear pink star was the official policy of the 3rd Reich. Hitler would have been proud of you for your DNA test idea.
But let's not stop there, let's also start DNA testing for idiots like you. We all know you are a dumbass, and yet the word is not carved on your forehead. Scientists also know idiocy is herediary, perfect for your program. ;-)
看看看看,狐狸这下子露出尾巴了。哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈。你瞧你话都说到哪去了。都哪个年代了,今天的GAY害怕LABELING吗?他们自信得很呢!你当他们还怕谁呀?要不是他们自己跳到大街上,法庭上,电视台上高喊他们是GAY,鬼才晓得他们是GAY。
还亏你的妈妈养你时给了你一点语言DNA,还认得几个斗大的字。出一道题目考你:你的逻辑半脑里除了糨糊,还装有什么?唉,说来这也不能全怪你,天生的就不能改嘛。
言归正传。 除了GAY们自己,并没有别人说他们的DNA有别于常人呀? 要不是他们自己跳出来声嘶力竭地高喊他们的DNA有别于常人,谁知道还有这码子事?既然你们标榜自己DNA超常,那么干嘛不干脆来个痛快,找出来,然后理直气壮地申请合法权利?现在说你是个GAY,难道有什么不光彩吗? 你看看加州那八千上街游行的,有谁像你那样躲躲闪闪的?
我从来就不反对,也不怕DNA测验嘛。你说我的DNA是个傻瓜又如何?我本来就是傻瓜。 傻瓜不照样可以娶妻生子,快快活活过日子吗?你们这些聪明绝顶的天才们,唉,不说了,再说你要跳海了。
- Re: Arguments against the ban on gay marriageposted on 11/12/2008
忍不住还是要说两句笑话。 您的大作《Arguments against the ban on gay marriage》,开场白那一段,分明是“此地无银三百两”嘛。不打自招也不是这么个用法。本来您引以自豪的事,何必羞羞答答的。 我这么笨,都不会这样做的。 - posted on 11/12/2008
我本来就是傻瓜。
Then that's settled. Nobody is gonna dispute that. But I feel for your mother - even if you are an idiot, she doesn't deserve to be dragged out here as a target. Why do you hate her so much to let her be humiliated like this?
You know, I think scientists should devote more time study DNA linkage between idiocy then homosexuality. People like you will not hate yourself for your homosexual fantasies. Does it keep you awake at night? I have one solution for you: go commit suicide. I am always for mercy killing. ;-)
哈哈一笑 wrote:
tar wrote:看看看看,狐狸这下子露出尾巴了。哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈。还亏你的妈妈养你时给了你一点语言DNA,还认得几个斗大的字。出一道题目考你:你的逻辑半脑里除了糨糊,还装有什么?唉,说来这也不能全怪你,天生的就不能改嘛。
You know, letting gay people wear pink star was the official policy of the 3rd Reich. Hitler would have been proud of you for your DNA test idea.
But let's not stop there, let's also start DNA testing for idiots like you. We all know you are a dumbass, and yet the word is not carved on your forehead. Scientists also know idiocy is herediary, perfect for your program. ;-)
言归正传。 除了GAY们自己,并没有别人说他们的DNA有别于常人呀? 要不是他们自己跳出来声嘶力竭地高喊他们的DNA有别于常人,谁知道还有这码子事?既然你们标榜自己DNA超常,那么干嘛不干脆来个痛快?现在说你是个GAY,并没有什么不光彩嘛。 你看看加州那八千上街游行的,有谁像你那样躲躲闪闪的?
我从来就不反对,也不怕DNA测验嘛。你说我的DNA是个傻瓜又如何?我本来就是傻瓜。 傻瓜不照样可以娶妻生子,快快活活过日子吗?你们这些聪明绝顶的天才们,唉,不说了,再说你要跳海了。
- Re: Arguments against the ban on gay marriageposted on 11/12/2008
我这么笨,都不会这样做的
Finally ladies and gentlemen, here's his confession. Anybody has any doubt that he hates himself for being a closet homosexual any more? ;-)
哈哈一笑 wrote:
忍不住还是要说两句笑话。 您的大作《Arguments against the ban on gay marriage》,开场白那一段,分明是“此地无银三百两”嘛。不打自招也不是这么个用法。本来您引以自豪的事,何必羞羞答答的。 我这么笨,都不会这样做的。 - posted on 11/12/2008
We have fundamentally different views regarding this issue. But if there are some other people interested in an open discussion, especially those who hold the same position as yours, I will explain why I felt your arguments were weak (at best), from my perspective.
tar wrote:
You are welcome to take a crack at it and tell us why it fell short.
moab wrote:
Your arguments fell short of the beautiful language. But at least this helps people in understanding your thinking. - posted on 11/12/2008
Suit yourself. You won't convince anybody by avoiding me though.
moab wrote:
We have fundamentally different views regarding this issue. But if there are some other people interested in an open discussion, especially those who hold the same position as yours, I will explain why I fell your arguments were weak (at best), from my perspective.
tar wrote:
You are welcome to take a crack at it and tell us why it fell short.
moab wrote:
Your arguments fell short of the beautiful language. But at least this helps people in understanding your thinking. - posted on 11/12/2008
I don't see the purpose of an argument to be to convince the opponent or the audience rather than to express an opinion.
tar wrote:
Suit yourself. You won't convince anybody by avoiding me though.
moab wrote:
We have fundamentally different views regarding this issue. But if there are some other people interested in an open discussion, especially those who hold the same position as yours, I will explain why I fell your arguments were weak (at best), from my perspective.
tar wrote:
You are welcome to take a crack at it and tell us why it fell short.
moab wrote:
Your arguments fell short of the beautiful language. But at least this helps people in understanding your thinking. - posted on 11/12/2008
据我所知,同性恋的原因还没有明确的结论。可能有生物和遗传的原因,也可能还有其他原因。但不论是什么原因,都不能作为被歧视的原因。这么简单的道理,有什么好辩论的吗?怎么兴奋的好像抓到了一把稻草?:-)
哈哈一笑 wrote:
gz wrote:同性恋可能出于后天的非生物原因? 很有创意的观点! 不妨说出来给大家听听,是什么“后天的非生物原因”导致同性恋的? 各大教会恶毒攻击同性恋时就是这么说的。他们说,同性恋出于后天的非生物原因,而后天的东西是可以改变的。所以可以强迫同性恋“患者”接受精神“治疗”。
同性恋可能出于先天的生物原因或后天的非生物原因,但都不该成为被歧视的理由。
我只是担心你这种伟大的创意会给风起云涌、波澜壮阔的gay marriage运动埋下了一个祸根。。。。。。 - posted on 11/12/2008
On the contrary, I think convincing the audience is the primary reason for arguing. However, convince the opponent is a bonus, does not usually happen.
moab wrote:
I don't see the purpose of an argument to be to convince the opponent or the audience rather than to express an opinion.
tar wrote:
Suit yourself. You won't convince anybody by avoiding me though.
moab wrote:
We have fundamentally different views regarding this issue. But if there are some other people interested in an open discussion, especially those who hold the same position as yours, I will explain why I fell your arguments were weak (at best), from my perspective.
tar wrote:
You are welcome to take a crack at it and tell us why it fell short.
moab wrote:
Your arguments fell short of the beautiful language. But at least this helps people in understanding your thinking. - posted on 11/12/2008
有你这么骂人的吗?哈哈一笑都说了,这年代标榜GAY没什么不光彩的,你却一个劲儿说某某是GAY,以为那是骂人的话。唉。
tar wrote:
Finally ladies and gentlemen, here's his confession. Anybody has any doubt that he hates himself for being a closet homosexual any more? ;-)
哈哈一笑 wrote:
忍不住还是要说两句笑话。 您的大作《Arguments against the ban on gay marriage》,开场白那一段,分明是“此地无银三百两”嘛。不打自招也不是这么个用法。本来您引以自豪的事,何必羞羞答答的。 我这么笨,都不会这样做的。
我是个 audience 啊。
- posted on 11/12/2008
Wiki has a good article outlining the current state of scientific research on homosexuality, including DNA, hormonal, and brain formation. Absent a definitive conclusion at this stage, nonetheless it is a better hypothesis than the alternatives which have even less scientific foundation.
gz wrote:
据我所知,同性恋的原因还没有明确的结论。可能有生物和遗传的原因,也可能还有其他原因。但不论是什么原因,都不能作为被歧视的原因。这么简单的道理,有什么好辩论的吗?怎么兴奋的好像抓到了一把稻草?:-)
哈哈一笑 wrote:
gz wrote:同性恋可能出于后天的非生物原因? 很有创意的观点! 不妨说出来给大家听听,是什么“后天的非生物原因”导致同性恋的? 各大教会恶毒攻击同性恋时就是这么说的。他们说,同性恋出于后天的非生物原因,而后天的东西是可以改变的。所以可以强迫同性恋“患者”接受精神“治疗”。
同性恋可能出于先天的生物原因或后天的非生物原因,但都不该成为被歧视的理由。
我只是担心你这种伟大的创意会给风起云涌、波澜壮阔的gay marriage运动埋下了一个祸根。。。。。。 - posted on 11/12/2008
Interesting. How does this (seeking the approval of the audience) relate to the psychoanalysis in the first paragraph?
tar wrote:
On the contrary, I think convincing the audience is the primary reason for arguing. However, convince the opponent is a bonus, does not usually happen.
moab wrote:
I don't see the purpose of an argument to be to convince the opponent or the audience rather than to express an opinion.
tar wrote:
Suit yourself. You won't convince anybody by avoiding me though.
moab wrote:
We have fundamentally different views regarding this issue. But if there are some other people interested in an open discussion, especially those who hold the same position as yours, I will explain why I fell your arguments were weak (at best), from my perspective.
tar wrote:
You are welcome to take a crack at it and tell us why it fell short.
moab wrote:
Your arguments fell short of the beautiful language. But at least this helps people in understanding your thinking. - posted on 11/12/2008
You never read my essay do you? I am the one who thinks there is nothing wrong being gay. And he is the homophobic bigot who hates himself for being gay. That's why I want him feel bad about himself.
Don't inject yourself into a middle of a fight before you find out what's going on. Next time I might not be so understanding.
阿姗 wrote:
有你这么骂人的吗?哈哈一笑都说了,这年代标榜GAY没什么不光彩的,你却一个劲儿说某某是GAY,以为那是骂人的话。唉。
tar wrote:我是个 audience 啊。
Finally ladies and gentlemen, here's his confession. Anybody has any doubt that he hates himself for being a closet homosexual any more? ;-)
哈哈一笑 wrote:
忍不住还是要说两句笑话。 您的大作《Arguments against the ban on gay marriage》,开场白那一段,分明是“此地无银三百两”嘛。不打自招也不是这么个用法。本来您引以自豪的事,何必羞羞答答的。 我这么笨,都不会这样做的。
- posted on 11/12/2008
I don't know what paragraph you are refering to, but in a public debate that's what you do - persuade everybody to agreeing with your point of view.
moab wrote:
Interesting. How does this (seeking the approval of the audience) relate to the psychoanalysis in the first paragraph?
tar wrote:
On the contrary, I think convincing the audience is the primary reason for arguing. However, convince the opponent is a bonus, does not usually happen.
moab wrote:
I don't see the purpose of an argument to be to convince the opponent or the audience rather than to express an opinion.
tar wrote:
Suit yourself. You won't convince anybody by avoiding me though.
moab wrote:
We have fundamentally different views regarding this issue. But if there are some other people interested in an open discussion, especially those who hold the same position as yours, I will explain why I fell your arguments were weak (at best), from my perspective.
tar wrote:
You are welcome to take a crack at it and tell us why it fell short.
moab wrote:
Your arguments fell short of the beautiful language. But at least this helps people in understanding your thinking. - Re: Arguments against the ban on gay marriageposted on 11/12/2008
del - posted on 11/13/2008
tar wrote:
del
唉,一个男人做事总是有点信心为好。写了又删,删了又写,翻来覆去的,像个男子汉大丈夫吗?我说你这篇宏文巨著的一开头就是“此地无银三百两”,并无攻击之意,只是好心劝你要理直气壮地做人,别整天婆婆妈妈的。你想想,就连我这么一个大傻瓜都看出破绽了,你还在哄谁啊。大家谁能比我更傻啊。 人家不说,给你留个面子,你以为别人就真傻吗?你不领情反而猪八戒倒打一耙,反说我是GAY了,我怕你说吗?你尽管说呀!你怕DNA检测,我可不怕。有个帖子说什么来着“是骡子是马拉出来溜溜”。 我现在就对你说:你的DNA是骡子,我是马!要不要溜溜?
上帝总是公平的。我傻马有傻福,快乐又自在。你聪明的骡子反被聪明误,整天骂骂咧咧的,脾气倔得出奇,就跟全世界所有人都欠了你五百吊钱似的。你否认你的性取向,并没有人会在乎的。但你起码也该知道,这里没有人会被你骗的。被欺骗的不过是你自己。活在自己编造的谎言之中,痛苦不痛苦?
好一个阴暗的煤焦油,
好一个惨淡的煤焦油,
混黑臭愁寂寞呦,
又难看来又忽悠。
我有心,
劝他好,
做一个
光明磊落大丈夫。
大丈夫,
大丈夫!
- posted on 11/13/2008
For 3 posts you came back to the first paragraph again and again calling out “此地无银三百两", really hit you hard isn't it?
Let me just making it easier for you dumbass by summarizing it in just one sentence: the louder a homophobic, the more homosexual desire in his conscious; and the more he protests, the more of “此地无银三百两". ;-)
At least you got this part right. Now go back to your rat hole and stew for a night, and come back again for another post complaining about your “此地无银三百两".
哈哈一笑 wrote:
tar wrote:唉,一个男人做事总是有点信心为好。写了又删,删了又写,翻来覆去的,像个男子汉大丈夫吗?我说你这篇宏文巨著的一开头就是“此地无银三百两”,并无攻击之意,只是好心劝你要理直气壮地做人,别整天婆婆妈妈的。你想想,就连我这么一个大傻瓜都看出破绽了,你还在哄谁啊。大家谁能比我更傻啊。 人家不说,给你留个面子,你以为别人就真傻吗?你不领情反而猪八戒倒打一耙,反说我是GAY了,我怕你说吗?你尽管说呀!你怕DNA检测,我可不怕。有个帖子说什么来着“是骡子是马拉出来溜溜”。 我现在就对你说:你的DNA是骡子,我是马!要不要溜溜?
del
上帝总是公平的。我傻马有傻福,快乐又自在。你聪明的骡子反被聪明误,整天骂骂咧咧的,脾气倔得出奇,就跟全世界所有人都欠了你五百吊钱似的。你否认你的性取向,并没有人会在乎的。但你起码也该知道,这里没有人会被你骗的。被欺骗的不过是你自己。活在自己编造的谎言之中,痛苦不痛苦?
好一个阴暗的煤焦油,
好一个惨淡的煤焦油,
混黑臭愁寂寞呦,
又难看来又忽悠。
我有心,
劝他好,
做一个
光明磊落大丈夫。
大丈夫,
大丈夫!
- posted on 11/13/2008
大丈夫,
大丈夫!
Sounds like a coward keep chanting to himself when walking in a dark scary night. You just can't convince yourself can you? ;-)
哈哈一笑 wrote:
tar wrote:唉,一个男人做事总是有点信心为好。写了又删,删了又写,翻来覆去的,像个男子汉大丈夫吗?我说你这篇宏文巨著的一开头就是“此地无银三百两”,并无攻击之意,只是好心劝你要理直气壮地做人,别整天婆婆妈妈的。你想想,就连我这么一个大傻瓜都看出破绽了,你还在哄谁啊。大家谁能比我更傻啊。 人家不说,给你留个面子,你以为别人就真傻吗?你不领情反而猪八戒倒打一耙,反说我是GAY了,我怕你说吗?你尽管说呀!你怕DNA检测,我可不怕。有个帖子说什么来着“是骡子是马拉出来溜溜”。 我现在就对你说:你的DNA是骡子,我是马!要不要溜溜?
del
上帝总是公平的。我傻马有傻福,快乐又自在。你聪明的骡子反被聪明误,整天骂骂咧咧的,脾气倔得出奇,就跟全世界所有人都欠了你五百吊钱似的。你否认你的性取向,并没有人会在乎的。但你起码也该知道,这里没有人会被你骗的。被欺骗的不过是你自己。活在自己编造的谎言之中,痛苦不痛苦?
好一个阴暗的煤焦油,
好一个惨淡的煤焦油,
混黑臭愁寂寞呦,
又难看来又忽悠。
我有心,
劝他好,
做一个
光明磊落大丈夫。
大丈夫,
大丈夫!
- posted on 11/13/2008
tar wrote:
You never read my essay do you? I am the one who thinks there is nothing wrong being gay.
Don't inject yourself into a middle of a fight before you find out what's going on. Next time I might not be so understanding.
就你这东拼西凑的烂贴子也能叫“essay”?我说你别吓唬人了好不好?那这里别人的贴子不都成了“Works”? 我随便瞎诌了一句“您的大作《Arguments against the ban on gay marriage》”,你还真把这几个字当回事了。我虽然很笨很笨,但还不至于笨到连个essay都没有瞧过。人家老王卖瓜,起码卖的也是个瓜。你这卖的连个葫芦都算不上,也来充数了。害臊不害臊?
我叫你自信,不是这么个自信法,而是要你首先面对和正视你的Identity,突破你自己的心理挑战,这样,你为GAY MARRIAGE据理力争才能底气足,信心强。阿诺州长今天不是在为贵方打气吗?你不能一有点挫折就暴跳如雷。看人家麦老爷,输得这么惨,昨晚还谈笑风生呢。那才是大将风度。
你还说:“Don't inject yourself into a middle of a fight ” 谁跟你fight了?逗你玩玩,你就这么沉不住气?这种不痛不痒也叫fight?我说你是在吓唬别人,还是在吓唬你自己?
我说你还是先好好歇歇吧。晚安! - posted on 11/13/2008
Let me ask you something, you'd rather admit that you are an idiot, in very much your own word, but getting violently upset when your secret homosexual desire is called out, how pathetic is that? I am not even using it as an epithet, but doing you a favor by making you face the fact. It's not shameful, just get a grip will you?
At least you are making progress by not insisting "此地无银三百两", that's commendable. Don't relapse ok? :-)
哈哈一笑 wrote:
tar wrote:就你这东拼西凑的烂贴子也能叫“essay”?我说你别吓唬人了好不好?那这里别人的贴子不都成了“Works”? 我随便瞎诌了一句“您的大作《Arguments against the ban on gay marriage》”,你还真把这几个字当回事了。我虽然很笨很笨,但还不至于笨到连个essay都没有瞧过。人家老王卖瓜,起码卖的也是个瓜。你这卖的连个葫芦都算不上,也来充数了。害臊不害臊?
You never read my essay do you? I am the one who thinks there is nothing wrong being gay.
Don't inject yourself into a middle of a fight before you find out what's going on. Next time I might not be so understanding.
我叫你自信,不是这么个自信法,而是要你首先面对和正视你的Identity,突破你自己的心理挑战,这样,你为GAY MARRIAGE据理力争才能底气足,信心强。阿诺州长今天不是在为贵方打气吗?你不能一有点挫折就暴跳如雷。看人家麦老爷,输得这么惨,昨晚还谈笑风生呢。那才是大将风度。
你还说:“Don't inject yourself into a middle of a fight ” 谁跟你fight了?逗你玩玩,你就这么沉不住气?这种不痛不痒也叫fight?我说你是在吓唬别人,还是在吓唬你自己?
我说你还是先好好歇歇吧。晚安! - posted on 11/13/2008
tar wrote:
大丈夫,Sounds like a coward keep chanting to himself when walking in a dark scary night. You just can't convince yourself can you? ;-)
大丈夫!
哎呀,糟糕!这还真是我的错。看来我真应该向你道歉才对。我本意是,作为一个男人,我看在你至少还是个男性的面子上,劝你做个昂首挺胸的男子汉大丈夫。可是我犯了一个想当然的错误 - 原来,在这个世界上,并非所有男性都愿意当“大丈夫”的,特别是贵方的情况特殊,思想超级解放 - 在贵community中,男性也照样可以当“小媳妇”。我的愚昧和陈腐就在此 - 丝毫不理解你们的解放运动。我那句话本来并无恶意,但由于你我之间的cultural difference,造成了这个误会,所以在此深表歉意。
我是如何发现我这个错误的呢?今天仔细读了这条线上另一位引述的那则新闻:原来昨天有个什么狗屁州的法官确实判决所有的GAY都可以领取结婚证了。GAY同志们兴高采烈地去领结婚证。可是在填写结婚证时却犯了难:原来美国的结婚证上必须写上“新郎”,“新娘”- 就和世界各国一样。 这对于我们这些正常人是没有问题的,本来嘛。 可对于GAY同志们却犯了难。因为那些GAY婚姻者谁做“新郎”或当“新娘”是个隐私,而且“新郎”或“新娘”的角色也有可能朝令夕改,没有个准数。 政府仅靠一纸证书就要把他们的角色永久固定下来,这对他们岂不是大大的不公?所以,那个州干脆使用了一个中性称谓:GAY同志两人都叫"新郎”或“新娘”,或干脆叫 “配偶”(Instead of putting one name under "bride" and the other under "groom," couples will see two boxes marked "bride/groom/spouse.")。 这个意思就是:想做“新郎”还是“新娘”,你们自己琢磨去吧,老子没有那份闲心管你那份闲事儿!
这一下又引来了一个新的法律问题:如果你们同性恋的结婚证不同于正常人的结婚证,那不是歧视又是什么?用你的话来说,这就是希特勒的“Labeling"。 可是不这样又怎么办?贵方有何锦囊妙计?
为了表示我的cultural sensitivity,我决定不再怂恿你做男子汉大丈夫,也绝不提你做“小媳妇”之事,以保护贵方的隐私和尊重你们的生活习俗。
再次为我对GAY婚姻者的鲁莽、无知、迂腐和insensitivity致歉!
Have a nice day! - posted on 11/13/2008
This bugger has gone over to the deep end. He now needs urgent psychiatric medical help. From repeated recitations of "我本来就是傻瓜" to the confession of “此地无银三百两" to profusely apologizing to the gay community in this out of character yet prescient description of himself: "再次为我对GAY婚姻者的鲁莽、无知、迂腐和insensitivity致歉". Now he just couldn't stop laughing for no particular reason in his "哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈". This is serious schizophrenic symptom folks! It's even worse than his old "又哭又笑" behavior. ;-)
哈哈一笑 wrote:
tar wrote:哎呀,糟糕!这还真是我的错。看来我真应该向你道歉才对。我本意是,作为一个男人,我看在你至少还是个男性的面子上,劝你做个昂首挺胸的男子汉大丈夫。可是我犯了一个想当然的错误 - 原来,在这个世界上,并非所有男性都愿意当“大丈夫”的,特别是贵方的情况特殊,思想超级解放 - 在贵community中,男性也照样可以当“小媳妇”。我的愚昧和陈腐就在此 - 丝毫不理解你们的解放运动。我那句话本来并无恶意,但由于你我之间的cultural difference,造成了这个误会,所以在此深表歉意。
大丈夫,Sounds like a coward keep chanting to himself when walking in a dark scary night. You just can't convince yourself can you? ;-)
大丈夫!
我是如何发现我这个错误的呢?今天仔细读了这条线上另一位引述的那则新闻:原来昨天有个什么狗屁州的法官确实判决所有的GAY都可以领取结婚证了。GAY同志们兴高采烈地去领结婚证。可是在填写结婚证时却犯了难:原来美国的结婚证上必须写上“新郎”,“新娘”- 就和世界各国一样。 这对于我们这些正常人是没有问题的,本来嘛。 可对于GAY同志们却犯了难。因为那些GAY婚姻者谁做“新郎”或当“新娘”是个隐私,而且“新郎”或“新娘”的角色也有可能朝令夕改,没有个准数。 政府仅靠一纸证书就要把他们的角色永久固定下来,这对他们岂不是大大的不公?所以,那个州干脆使用了一个中性称谓:GAY同志两人都叫"新郎”或“新娘”,或干脆叫 “配偶”(Instead of putting one name under "bride" and the other under "groom," couples will see two boxes marked "bride/groom/spouse.")。 这个意思就是:想做“新郎”还是“新娘”,你们自己琢磨去吧,老子没有那份闲心管你那份闲事儿!
这一下又引来了一个新的法律问题:如果你们同性恋的结婚证不同于正常人的结婚证,那不是歧视又是什么?用你的话来说,这就是希特勒的“Labeling"。 可是不这样又怎么办?贵方有何锦囊妙计?
为了表示我的cultural sensitivity,我决定不再怂恿你做男子汉大丈夫,也绝不提你做“小媳妇”之事,以保护贵方的隐私和尊重你们的生活习俗。
再次为我对GAY婚姻者的鲁莽、无知、迂腐和insensitivity致歉!
Have a nice day!
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation