but they are COMMIES, of course they are gay... In soviet russia, or should that be capitalist america..... damn, i must have a mind-slip, this is the second time i forgot what i was going to say... DAMN...
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
CHINESE TRADITION OF MALE LOVE
(Abstract, full length text to follow in the fullness of time.)
he Chinese tradition of male love, like the Greek, has its roots in prehistory. One of the Chinese terms for male love ?the pleasures of the bitten peach? dates back to the Zhou dynasty when around 500 BCE the Duke Ling of Wei was offered a peach which Mizi Xia, his favorite, had bitten and found good. There are many tales of the passion of male nobles for each other, which at the time was considered a time-honored tradition. We have no indication whether early Chinese male love was structured along age or gender lines.
The Han dynasty (260 BCE ? 220 CE) continued the tradition of open bi-sexuality, as witnessed by numerous emperors. The story of Emperor Ai and his favourite, Dong Xian, are the source of the other popular term for male love, ?Passions of the cut sleeve.? Dong Xian had fallen asleep across the Emperor?s sleeve. When the Emperor wanted to get up, he cut off the sleeve rather than wake his friend.
This pattern continued throughout the succeeding dynasties, with variations between times of greater tolerance and times of lesser. The relationships were often structured along age lines, though that does not seem to have been a requirement as it was with the Greek or the Japanese traditions.
In more recent times the historical and literary records are more complete, giving us a view of male love in other circles, such as among the scholars and among the common people. In the province of Fujian especially boy marriages were common. The older man would pay a bride price to the parents and take the boy to live with him for a number of years, until that one was old enough to marry.
The tradition of male love survived until the early years of this century, when it succumbed to the general Westernization of culture and morals. At this point male love is frowned upon both in Communist China as well as in Taiwan. It is considered a western import, and against traditional Chinese morals.
Some other history http://www.androphile.org/preview/Culture/here.
So, homosexuality is legitimate because it has a history. Is that your final answer? As you've previously pointed out, slavery has a history too. By correlation, does that mean that you are in favor of homosexuality and slavery? Does homosexuality between slaves get double brownie points with you?Originally posted by: Moonbeam
CHINESE TRADITION OF MALE LOVE
(Abstract, full length text to follow in the fullness of time.)
he Chinese tradition of male love, like the Greek, has its roots in prehistory. One of the Chinese terms for male love ?the pleasures of the bitten peach? dates back to the Zhou dynasty when around 500 BCE the Duke Ling of Wei was offered a peach which Mizi Xia, his favorite, had bitten and found good. There are many tales of the passion of male nobles for each other, which at the time was considered a time-honored tradition. We have no indication whether early Chinese male love was structured along age or gender lines.
The Han dynasty (260 BCE ? 220 CE) continued the tradition of open bi-sexuality, as witnessed by numerous emperors. The story of Emperor Ai and his favourite, Dong Xian, are the source of the other popular term for male love, ?Passions of the cut sleeve.? Dong Xian had fallen asleep across the Emperor?s sleeve. When the Emperor wanted to get up, he cut off the sleeve rather than wake his friend.
This pattern continued throughout the succeeding dynasties, with variations between times of greater tolerance and times of lesser. The relationships were often structured along age lines, though that does not seem to have been a requirement as it was with the Greek or the Japanese traditions.
In more recent times the historical and literary records are more complete, giving us a view of male love in other circles, such as among the scholars and among the common people. In the province of Fujian especially boy marriages were common. The older man would pay a bride price to the parents and take the boy to live with him for a number of years, until that one was old enough to marry.
The tradition of male love survived until the early years of this century, when it succumbed to the general Westernization of culture and morals. At this point male love is frowned upon both in Communist China as well as in Taiwan. It is considered a western import, and against traditional Chinese morals.
Some other history http://www.androphile.org/preview/Culture/here.
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
So, homosexuality is legitimate because it has a history. Is that your final answer? As you've previously pointed out, slavery has a history too. By correlation, does that mean that you are in favor of homosexuality and slavery? Does homosexuality between slaves get double brownie points with you?Originally posted by: Moonbeam
CHINESE TRADITION OF MALE LOVE
(Abstract, full length text to follow in the fullness of time.)
he Chinese tradition of male love, like the Greek, has its roots in prehistory. One of the Chinese terms for male love ?the pleasures of the bitten peach? dates back to the Zhou dynasty when around 500 BCE the Duke Ling of Wei was offered a peach which Mizi Xia, his favorite, had bitten and found good. There are many tales of the passion of male nobles for each other, which at the time was considered a time-honored tradition. We have no indication whether early Chinese male love was structured along age or gender lines.
The Han dynasty (260 BCE ? 220 CE) continued the tradition of open bi-sexuality, as witnessed by numerous emperors. The story of Emperor Ai and his favourite, Dong Xian, are the source of the other popular term for male love, ?Passions of the cut sleeve.? Dong Xian had fallen asleep across the Emperor?s sleeve. When the Emperor wanted to get up, he cut off the sleeve rather than wake his friend.
This pattern continued throughout the succeeding dynasties, with variations between times of greater tolerance and times of lesser. The relationships were often structured along age lines, though that does not seem to have been a requirement as it was with the Greek or the Japanese traditions.
In more recent times the historical and literary records are more complete, giving us a view of male love in other circles, such as among the scholars and among the common people. In the province of Fujian especially boy marriages were common. The older man would pay a bride price to the parents and take the boy to live with him for a number of years, until that one was old enough to marry.
The tradition of male love survived until the early years of this century, when it succumbed to the general Westernization of culture and morals. At this point male love is frowned upon both in Communist China as well as in Taiwan. It is considered a western import, and against traditional Chinese morals.
Some other history http://www.androphile.org/preview/Culture/here.
*Note: Please read "You" as anyone in the pro-comic position of this thread. I'm not speaking directly to one person's response:Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
even if you ignore history which shows that homosexuals have always been with us, how does that help you justify persecuting homosexuals.
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
*Note: Please read "You" as anyone in the pro-comic position of this thread. I'm not speaking directly to one person's response:Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
even if you ignore history which shows that homosexuals have always been with us, how does that help you justify persecuting homosexuals.
I didn't say that I persecute homosexuals. But I'm not going to carry their flag, either. It seems that the line has been drawn by 0roo0roo, Moonbeam, Flavio, et. al., that you are either in favor of homosexuality or an irrational bigot. Of any group, I would think that you would be more understanding that there is more to it than a simple right or wrong answer. Not supporting something and persecuting it are two very different things. Just because I don't think like you doesn't make me irrational. Does "Freedom of Choice" ring a bell here?
Now, back to the flag carrying part. You (or someone out there) chooses a lifestyle which is unnatural and unhealthy (reasoning that I've presented above). Whether you are in favor of it or not is none of my concern, and I'm in no position to dictate your lifestyle. Nor would I try to. But that does not mean that I have to be supportive of you, nor of a publisher that prints a explicit comic of your lifestyle. So, do I feel that we need an explicitly gay comic hero? No. Am I irrational because I think that way? Provide your reasoning, please.
In a strictly economic sense, yes. Supply and demand in a capitalist market. But the question isn't "Is there a demand". Obviously there is. But should that demand be answered? As we're bouncing back and forth through the threads, I ask again: Where do you draw the line?Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
*Note: Please read "You" as anyone in the pro-comic position of this thread. I'm not speaking directly to one person's response:Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
even if you ignore history which shows that homosexuals have always been with us, how does that help you justify persecuting homosexuals.
I didn't say that I persecute homosexuals. But I'm not going to carry their flag, either. It seems that the line has been drawn by 0roo0roo, Moonbeam, Flavio, et. al., that you are either in favor of homosexuality or an irrational bigot. Of any group, I would think that you would be more understanding that there is more to it than a simple right or wrong answer. Not supporting something and persecuting it are two very different things. Just because I don't think like you doesn't make me irrational. Does "Freedom of Choice" ring a bell here?
Now, back to the flag carrying part. You (or someone out there) chooses a lifestyle which is unnatural and unhealthy (reasoning that I've presented above). Whether you are in favor of it or not is none of my concern, and I'm in no position to dictate your lifestyle. Nor would I try to. But that does not mean that I have to be supportive of you, nor of a publisher that prints a explicit comic of your lifestyle. So, do I feel that we need an explicitly gay comic hero? No. Am I irrational because I think that way? Provide your reasoning, please.
Your reasoning that it is unnatural is idiotic... Is there homosexuality? yes, why should you care? no reason, other than that you want to be better than at least "them"...
And no, your reasoning is flawed because it ther is a market for it, then people want it, if you don't want to, you do not have to, that is why you don't have to buy tampons...
You buy what you want, nobody is saying, do we need an excplicit gay comic hero AND force everyone to buy the magazine?
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
In a strictly economic sense, yes. Supply and demand in a capitalist market. But the question isn't "Is there a demand". Obviously there is. But should that demand be answered? As we're bouncing back and forth through the threads, I ask again: Where do you draw the line?Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
*Note: Please read "You" as anyone in the pro-comic position of this thread. I'm not speaking directly to one person's response:Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
even if you ignore history which shows that homosexuals have always been with us, how does that help you justify persecuting homosexuals.
I didn't say that I persecute homosexuals. But I'm not going to carry their flag, either. It seems that the line has been drawn by 0roo0roo, Moonbeam, Flavio, et. al., that you are either in favor of homosexuality or an irrational bigot. Of any group, I would think that you would be more understanding that there is more to it than a simple right or wrong answer. Not supporting something and persecuting it are two very different things. Just because I don't think like you doesn't make me irrational. Does "Freedom of Choice" ring a bell here?
Now, back to the flag carrying part. You (or someone out there) chooses a lifestyle which is unnatural and unhealthy (reasoning that I've presented above). Whether you are in favor of it or not is none of my concern, and I'm in no position to dictate your lifestyle. Nor would I try to. But that does not mean that I have to be supportive of you, nor of a publisher that prints a explicit comic of your lifestyle. So, do I feel that we need an explicitly gay comic hero? No. Am I irrational because I think that way? Provide your reasoning, please.
Your reasoning that it is unnatural is idiotic... Is there homosexuality? yes, why should you care? no reason, other than that you want to be better than at least "them"...
And no, your reasoning is flawed because it ther is a market for it, then people want it, if you don't want to, you do not have to, that is why you don't have to buy tampons...
You buy what you want, nobody is saying, do we need an excplicit gay comic hero AND force everyone to buy the magazine?
From a strictly legal standpoint, homosexuality is still illegal in many states. Should there be a publication that promotes an illegal lifestyle? Obviously your moral standards are below mine. You're a liberal, free-thinker (applause). Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and do some political campaigning, instead of rambling here on the boards? It's easy to support the status quo, especially as laws are concerned. But if you don't agree with them, nothing you say here is going to change it one bit.
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
In a strictly economic sense, yes. Supply and demand in a capitalist market. But the question isn't "Is there a demand". Obviously there is. But should that demand be answered? As we're bouncing back and forth through the threads, I ask again: Where do you draw the line?Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
*Note: Please read "You" as anyone in the pro-comic position of this thread. I'm not speaking directly to one person's response:Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
even if you ignore history which shows that homosexuals have always been with us, how does that help you justify persecuting homosexuals.
I didn't say that I persecute homosexuals. But I'm not going to carry their flag, either. It seems that the line has been drawn by 0roo0roo, Moonbeam, Flavio, et. al., that you are either in favor of homosexuality or an irrational bigot. Of any group, I would think that you would be more understanding that there is more to it than a simple right or wrong answer. Not supporting something and persecuting it are two very different things. Just because I don't think like you doesn't make me irrational. Does "Freedom of Choice" ring a bell here?
Now, back to the flag carrying part. You (or someone out there) chooses a lifestyle which is unnatural and unhealthy (reasoning that I've presented above). Whether you are in favor of it or not is none of my concern, and I'm in no position to dictate your lifestyle. Nor would I try to. But that does not mean that I have to be supportive of you, nor of a publisher that prints a explicit comic of your lifestyle. So, do I feel that we need an explicitly gay comic hero? No. Am I irrational because I think that way? Provide your reasoning, please.
Your reasoning that it is unnatural is idiotic... Is there homosexuality? yes, why should you care? no reason, other than that you want to be better than at least "them"...
And no, your reasoning is flawed because it ther is a market for it, then people want it, if you don't want to, you do not have to, that is why you don't have to buy tampons...
You buy what you want, nobody is saying, do we need an excplicit gay comic hero AND force everyone to buy the magazine?
From a strictly legal standpoint, homosexuality is still illegal in many states. Should there be a publication that promotes an illegal lifestyle? Obviously your moral standards are below mine. You're a liberal, free-thinker (applause). Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and do some political campaigning, instead of rambling here on the boards? It's easy to support the status quo, especially as laws are concerned. But if you don't agree with them, nothing you say here is going to change it one bit.
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
I didn't say that I persecute homosexuals. But I'm not going to carry their flag, either. It seems that the line has been drawn by 0roo0roo, Moonbeam, Flavio, et. al., that you are either in favor of homosexuality or an irrational bigot. Of any group, I would think that you would be more understanding that there is more to it than a simple right or wrong answer. Not supporting something and persecuting it are two very different things. Just because I don't think like you doesn't make me irrational. Does "Freedom of Choice" ring a bell here?
Now, back to the flag carrying part. You (or someone out there) chooses a lifestyle which is unnatural and unhealthy (reasoning that I've presented above). Whether you are in favor of it or not is none of my concern, and I'm in no position to dictate your lifestyle. Nor would I try to. But that does not mean that I have to be supportive of you, nor of a publisher that prints a explicit comic of your lifestyle. So, do I feel that we need an explicitly gay comic hero? No. Am I irrational because I think that way? Provide your reasoning, please.
In a strictly economic sense, yes. Supply and demand in a capitalist market. But the question isn't "Is there a demand". Obviously there is. But should that demand be answered? As we're bouncing back and forth through the threads, I ask again: Where do you draw the line?
OK, if you draw the line using the law, there are quite a few states that outlaw homosexuality. How do you respond to that? Or do you just follow the law when it is convenient and ignore it when it doesn't suit you?Originally posted by: flavioDraw the line? They used to draw a line by making a list of banned books and burning them. Would you suggest we do that again. I think we draw a line where there is no demand and another right where the laws regarding publications indicates.
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
OK, if you draw the line using the law, there are quite a few states that outlaw homosexuality. How do you respond to that? Or do you just follow the law when it is convenient and ignore it when it doesn't suit you?Originally posted by: flavioDraw the line? They used to draw a line by making a list of banned books and burning them. Would you suggest we do that again. I think we draw a line where there is no demand and another right where the laws regarding publications indicates.
Unfortunately, yes. In the roaring Wild West there was a prevalence of gay comic heros wreaking havoc across the country. They had to be outlawed for the good of the cowboys.Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
OK, if you draw the line using the law, there are quite a few states that outlaw homosexuality. How do you respond to that? Or do you just follow the law when it is convenient and ignore it when it doesn't suit you?Originally posted by: flavioDraw the line? They used to draw a line by making a list of banned books and burning them. Would you suggest we do that again. I think we draw a line where there is no demand and another right where the laws regarding publications indicates.
These states have laws against gay characters in comic books?
Interestingly, there are more states whose sodomy laws apply to everyone than specifically to homosexuals....including your home state, Alabama. Been on the receiving end of any hummers lately, have we?Originally posted by: BooneRebel
OK, if you draw the line using the law, there are quite a few states that outlaw homosexuality. How do you respond to that? Or do you just follow the law when it is convenient and ignore it when it doesn't suit you?Originally posted by: flavioDraw the line? They used to draw a line by making a list of banned books and burning them. Would you suggest we do that again. I think we draw a line where there is no demand and another right where the laws regarding publications indicates.
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
Hummer?
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
Hummer?
My understanding of the definition as well. But I've never seen sodomy described as anything other than anal sex.Originally posted by: Fausto1
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
Hummer?
Fellatio. Blowjob. A form of Sodomy under these stupid-ass laws.
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
My understanding of the definition as well. But I've never seen sodomy described as anything other than anal sex.Originally posted by: Fausto1
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
Hummer?
Fellatio. Blowjob. A form of Sodomy under these stupid-ass laws.
Guess we need an Alabama Oral Sex Man comic as well, then...Originally posted by: Fausto1
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
My understanding of the definition as well. But I've never seen sodomy described as anything other than anal sex.Originally posted by: Fausto1
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
Hummer?
Fellatio. Blowjob. A form of Sodomy under these stupid-ass laws.
Nope, sorry. Alabama defines any form of "Deviative Sexual Intercourse" as Sodomy....including oral sex.
Full text of AL sodomy laws.
I'm sure that'd be a hot seller.Originally posted by: BooneRebel
Guess we need an Alabama Oral Sex Man comic as well, then...Originally posted by: Fausto1
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
My understanding of the definition as well. But I've never seen sodomy described as anything other than anal sex.Originally posted by: Fausto1
Originally posted by: BooneRebel
Hummer?
Fellatio. Blowjob. A form of Sodomy under these stupid-ass laws.
Nope, sorry. Alabama defines any form of "Deviative Sexual Intercourse" as Sodomy....including oral sex.
Full text of AL sodomy laws.