A Rant.

[NotPublished]

Kiss them on the cheek then say your straight.

My guess is - Its an assumption. People love to assume that all gays just hit on any guys around... Fucking hell. My friend was explaining to me that Men have natural instincts to hunt out for other guys. Then why the fuck aren't I doing that shit - haha, thinking about it annoys me... I got annoyed, and she knew it.

[Dot Ardella]

from me, also. Pussyfooting around gay rights is so.... ugh. I don't even know.

I am personally sick of hearing about "gay rights"...it is a non issue, just like saying "heterosexual rights."

As a gay person, I would like to think it just comes under the category of "human rights"...why is it such a fucking big deal who I fuck?

[Cainad (dec.)]

from me, also. Pussyfooting around gay rights is so.... ugh. I don't even know.

I am personally sick of hearing about "gay rights"...it is a non issue, just like saying "heterosexual rights."

As a gay person, I would like to think it just comes under the category of "human rights"...why is it such a fucking big deal who I fuck?

This is a good point, actually.

[NotPublished]

I agree with that

[BabylonHoruv]

from me, also. Pussyfooting around gay rights is so.... ugh. I don't even know.

I am personally sick of hearing about "gay rights"...it is a non issue, just like saying "heterosexual rights."

As a gay person, I would like to think it just comes under the category of "human rights"...why is it such a fucking big deal who I fuck?

Because who you fuck isn't the debate, it's who you marry.

The only place I am ambivalent about granting gay's equal rights is on military service.  Proclaiming homosexuality was a good way to stay out of the draft and although I'm a bit old to get drafted a lot of my friends aren't.  I suppose it's a matter of priorities, the right to choose not to serve by pretending to be gay or the right to serve if you choose, irregardless of sexual orientation.  I just tend to error on the side of not having to serve, even if that means some unfairness for gays who want to serve.

[Dot Ardella]

from me, also. Pussyfooting around gay rights is so.... ugh. I don't even know.

I am personally sick of hearing about "gay rights"...it is a non issue, just like saying "heterosexual rights."

As a gay person, I would like to think it just comes under the category of "human rights"...why is it such a fucking big deal who I fuck?

Because who you fuck isn't the debate, it's who you marry.

The only place I am ambivalent about granting gay's equal rights is on military service.  Proclaiming homosexuality was a good way to stay out of the draft and although I'm a bit old to get drafted a lot of my friends aren't.  I suppose it's a matter of priorities, the right to choose not to serve by pretending to be gay or the right to serve if you choose, irregardless of sexual orientation.  I just tend to error on the side of not having to serve, even if that means some unfairness for gays who want to serve.

The only aspect that differentiates it from a heterosexual marriage is gender.
We say it is not about sexuality. But I highly doubt it.
Sexuality is the only issue that differentiates a "straight" person, from a "gay" one. So I assert my argument still stands concerning human rights, and being able to marry whom you choose. Regardless of gender.

[BabylonHoruv]

from me, also. Pussyfooting around gay rights is so.... ugh. I don't even know.

I am personally sick of hearing about "gay rights"...it is a non issue, just like saying "heterosexual rights."

As a gay person, I would like to think it just comes under the category of "human rights"...why is it such a fucking big deal who I fuck?

Because who you fuck isn't the debate, it's who you marry.

The only place I am ambivalent about granting gay's equal rights is on military service.  Proclaiming homosexuality was a good way to stay out of the draft and although I'm a bit old to get drafted a lot of my friends aren't.  I suppose it's a matter of priorities, the right to choose not to serve by pretending to be gay or the right to serve if you choose, irregardless of sexual orientation.  I just tend to error on the side of not having to serve, even if that means some unfairness for gays who want to serve.

The only aspect that differentiates it from a heterosexual marriage is gender.
We say it is not about sexuality. But I highly doubt it.
Sexuality is the only issue that differentiates a "straight" person, from a "gay" one. So I assert my argument still stands concerning human rights, and being able to marry whom you choose. Regardless of gender.

True.  Marriage doesn't have to be about sexual attraction after all.

[The Johnny]

from me, also. Pussyfooting around gay rights is so.... ugh. I don't even know.

I am personally sick of hearing about "gay rights"...it is a non issue, just like saying "heterosexual rights."

As a gay person, I would like to think it just comes under the category of "human rights"...why is it such a fucking big deal who I fuck?

Because who you fuck isn't the debate, it's who you marry.

The only place I am ambivalent about granting gay's equal rights is on military service.  Proclaiming homosexuality was a good way to stay out of the draft and although I'm a bit old to get drafted a lot of my friends aren't.  I suppose it's a matter of priorities, the right to choose not to serve by pretending to be gay or the right to serve if you choose, irregardless of sexual orientation.  I just tend to error on the side of not having to serve, even if that means some unfairness for gays who want to serve.

The only aspect that differentiates it from a heterosexual marriage is gender.
We say it is not about sexuality. But I highly doubt it.
Sexuality is the only issue that differentiates a "straight" person, from a "gay" one. So I assert my argument still stands concerning human rights, and being able to marry whom you choose. Regardless of gender.

In a couple of weeks i have due an essay about homosexual couples adopting children, from a psychological perspective.

Im worried how im going to approach it, because according to psycho-analytic theory, the healthy childs development depends on a good triangulation between mother and father, as oedipus complex goes... but for now, im sticking with the idea that merely each parent can play the psychic function role regardless of their sex...

[NotPublished]

Johny - just a question

Using a scenario of a gay couple,  it would be good to have one who plays the role of the Mum and one who plays the role of the dad - other wise, if you have 2 who play the role of the dad; would the child inherittly follow the same archetype or would they be more feminine to balance it out?

Sorry for the sucky wording

[The Johnny]

Johny - just a question

Using a scenario of a gay couple,  it would be good to have one who plays the role of the Mum and one who plays the role of the dad - other wise, if you have 2 who play the role of the dad; would the child inherittly follow the same archetype or would they be more feminine to balance it out?

Sorry for the sucky wording

This is a huge mess of a thing, so lets see, Im gonna transcribe you what the three stages of the Oedipus Complex according to Lacan...

1st stage: The triangle is formed by the child, the mother and the "phallus"; the phallus is something the mother desires and that the child attempts to become; the mother's desire is the law.

2nd stage: The father intervenes, by setting up the castration, by denying the child the mother; the father vs. the child, competing for the mother's affection.

3rd stage: The father shows he owns the phallus, castrating the child; the child realizes he cannot be the phallus and is relieved of that angst of trying to become it. This is at the same time the prohibition of incest, but also the promise, thru identification with the father, to someday get a woman of his own.

[The Johnny]

In other words, the main caretaker forms initially a symbiotic relationship with the child, and there needs to be a third force that separates them; if that separation does not take place, the child does not form a will of his own, and just lives to satisfy the needs of the caretaker (he become the caretakers "phallus").

I think the parents sex doesnt matter, but MAYBE their genders do matter.

I.E. Having two persons with male genitalia (male sex) but with a female personality (female gender).

[NotPublished]

Damn. I was about to ask  "What about the case with a single parent? If a parent was to act as both mum and dad."
So in that case, the child would become dependant on the parent and do what it takes to keep them happy?

But going back to your post - using that mind-set, that would mean Gay people make gay babies? (Or rather a higher chance - because the son will fight the dad/daughter fight the mum)

So - As long as personality of the parents is Dualistic (Feminine/Masculine) then the child will form the seperation?

eta : Didn't see your edit. Haha

[BabylonHoruv]

Damn. I was about to ask  "What about the case with a single parent? If a parent was to act as both mum and dad."
So in that case, the child would become dependant on the parent and do what it takes to keep them happy?

But going back to your post - using that mind-set, that would mean Gay people make gay babies? (Or rather a higher chance - because the son will fight the dad/daughter fight the mum)

So - As long as personality of the parents is Dualistic (Feminine/Masculine) then the child will form the seperation?

eta : Didn't see your edit. Haha

Statistically gay parents don't make gay babies at any higher rate that straights.  At least according to all the studies I have seen.

[Nast]

Johny - just a question

Using a scenario of a gay couple,  it would be good to have one who plays the role of the Mum and one who plays the role of the dad - other wise, if you have 2 who play the role of the dad; would the child inherittly follow the same archetype or would they be more feminine to balance it out?

Sorry for the sucky wording

This is a huge mess of a thing, so lets see, Im gonna transcribe you what the three stages of the Oedipus Complex according to Lacan...

1st stage: The triangle is formed by the child, the mother and the "phallus"; the phallus is something the mother desires and that the child attempts to become; the mother's desire is the law.

2nd stage: The father intervenes, by setting up the castration, by denying the child the mother; the father vs. the child, competing for the mother's affection.

3rd stage: The father shows he owns the phallus, castrating the child; the child realizes he cannot be the phallus and is relieved of that angst of trying to become it. This is at the same time the prohibition of incest, but also the promise, thru identification with the father, to someday get a woman of his own.

Is it wrong that I can't take any of the Oedipus Complex seriously?

[Salty]

I dunno man. The most positive male influence I had was a lesbian.

Gender is lot more fluid and permeable in it's expression than sex. A lot of the roles amd characteristics we place on one gender over another are based on assumptions and social constructs. Some of that is good, some bad. It's hard to draw a clear line.