It's All a Blur to Them (Dressing across genders)

[Heirloom]

the right to dress how I want is just as fixed as who I am.

I know I lack arguments atm, but I just don't see why we have to obide to social rules. and I definetly don't see why people feel the need to be so dismissive to people who don't fit in with categories.

[zamb]

thanks for you reply, really appreciated

ok, here we go.

Yes, it's just as discriminating. 1. Homosexuals have just had the benefit to hide their sexuality. A black man might find it difficult to hind his skin or curls. This is why blacks have had worse treatment in history than homosexuals. 2. If homosexuality had been as visible as black skin, they'd probably been alot worse treated as a group than what "they" have.

3. History aside, the act of dismiss someone because of the way they dress is as discriminating as someone being racist, simply because it's completely irrelevant, and hurts that persons true nature, something he or she can do nothing about.

1. this is a significant difference among many others, and this difference cannot make the things same, especially for the fact that a black man incapable of concealing his skin color could quite likely be gay (think little Richard) and how do you factor that into the equation?

2. this is a theoretical possibility, or you could say be treated the same as, as opposed to worse, but one cannot say that a thing is Fact, based upon assuming that if things were different it would yield a certain result.

3. while I agree with you that one cannot dismiss someone just because of the way they dress, you cannot put history aside
because a significant part of who we are and why our society is the way it is, the fact that clothing over time has developed meaning attached to them that would make people discriminate, can be attributed to history...................

1. About samesex marriage. I want marriage to be separate from religion and gender neutral.

2. If christianity doesn't want anything to do with same sex marriage, then I don't want anything to do with them.

3. I just want the same legal rights as anyone else. I've grown up singing in church choirs all my childhood and I have close friends who are deeply christian, and I see alot of beauty and use of religion in our life,but
4. religion has nothing to do with peoples civil rights or the state. It's a personal thing and should be kept on that level. Marriage is a personal thing and should be kept on that level, not made into a world wide debate.

I'm digressing, but I feel all these things are in the same spirit and needs to be in lin with eachother, so we don't experience brain off/ on syndrome.

One more thing. I don't need your support to practice homosexuality. I need you to not care. People care too much. I fuck who I like to, and you do the same.

5. I can't believe I really have to defend myself. Where are everyone? This place is stone age.

1. what we want and what is necessary for collective society is not always one and the same. the origin and idea behind marriage came about because of reasons and results specific to a union between the opposite sex............. and for me, no it is not a social construct, it is a God ordained decree, (but this is a whole other discussion)

2. all religions at some point become exclusive, whether we like it or not, the greatness of Christianity (at least before and after it was hijacked and damaged by Roman Catholicism is that the individual is free to choose and it is not forced upon you, and while there is the responsibility to evangelize, evangelism should force itself upon individuals who want no part of it, after all Christ came, lived and died to make mankind free,

3. I am going to be in trouble here, but I think gays have the same rights as everyone else, what is being lobbied for in same sex marriage is effectively a "special right". and their ought to e a difference, if it is the right to visit lovers in the hospital, etc the Civil unions give them those benefits, a key distinction between same sex and traditional arriages is the fact that same sex unions does not produce biologically natural offspring, and thus at its core is different.

4. while there are aspects of religion that is personal, at its core it cannot be, because it aims to speak to issues and conditions that are universal to mankind. there are functions and necessities in religion that require the coming together of the masses, and thus cannot be only personal, thier is a place for religion in Publuc life, a very important place too, its just that i dont believe that people should be forced to practice it................. after all, Christ did give us freedom (even though I recognize that Christianity isnt the only religion)

5. there is no need to defend yourself, you are who you are, and I think that while this is a Cyber forum, it is a place where we do treat each other as equals there is much love and respect for you here, even though there are things we disagree and will continue to disagree on, I would never rude to you or insult you, nor would rule out working or collaborating with you if i find that I need your services for a project I have..................... and i wont start calling you or anyone names...........................like threetruscan calling me a bigot

Gotta Run,
Blessings
ZB

[Fuuma]

the right to dress how I want is just as fixed as who I am.

I know I lack arguments atm, but I just don't see why we have to obide to social rules. and I definetly don't see why people feel the need to be so dismissive to people who don't fit in with categories.

Who you are isn't fixed until you stop breathing.

[theetruscan]

if my way of dressing reflects who I am then it's just as bad. And I assumed we all dress that way.

Ugh, no, think about this a bit more. Even just this sentence. your manner of dress "reflects" who you are. It isn't who you are.

Consider a few cases:

You, assuming you respect others, almost certainly wear suits or the cultural equivalent to a funeral. This doesn't change your identity, it just shows respect. Now, if you go to a funeral, you're still homosexual. If you're not admitted to a remembrance because you're wearing a dress and heels, that's entirely appropriate as you're not showing respect. However, if you're not admitted to a remembrance because you are homosexual, (black, female, whatsis,) that's entirely inappropriate as it says "someone of your kind isn't welcome here."

Let's say someone's personal identity is reflected by wearing stained tank tops and basketball shorts. Should that be a reason that this becomes appropriate business attire? Or that it should be permissible worn to a fancy restaurant? No, of course not. But that person should absolutely be welcome to participate in both business situations and eat at a fancy restaurant.

I think you're mixing up something that reflects who you are with the essence of who you are. I'm sorry to say this, but your conflation of these things seems egocentric and kind of childish. You're dismissing something inconvenient to you as equivalent to racism and then not justifying that massive leap.

[theetruscan]

1. what we want and what is necessary for collective society is not always one and the same. the origin and idea behind marriage came about because of reasons and results specific to a union between the opposite sex............. and for me, no it is not a social construct, it is a God ordained decree, (but this is a whole other discussion)

I think this is fine, as long as you don't expect any tax benefits, visitation rights in a hospital, custody of children, inheritance rights or anything else that is a legal, not religious, construct. As soon as you expect those rights to be available to you, but not others, you're hiding behind a religious justification to take legal rights from others.

If you truly believed what you say here, you would not have filed the legal paperwork for marriage, as the government can't decree God's will. Are you legally married?

[Heirloom]

i need to explain it further, you seem to have misunderstood me. hasty formulations made me say the wrong things.

[Fuuma]

i need to explain it further, you seem to have misunderstood me. hasty formulations made me say the wrong things.

Your written words are all we have to understand each others, I guess we'll meet someday but in the meantime take your time.

[Heirloom]

I think this is fine, as long as you don't expect any tax benefits, visitation rights in a hospital, custody of children, inheritance rights or anything else that is a legal, not religious, construct. As soon as you expect those rights to be available to you, but not others, you're hiding behind a religious justification to take legal rights from others.

If you truly believed what you say here, you would not have filed the legal paperwork for marriage, as the government can't decree God's will. Are you legally married?

lol 5 char.

[Heirloom]

I wish i could make a gown so beautiful George Bush would want to be buried in it, and muslims would cry over the sheer beauty of it.

[Mail-Moth]

the right to dress how I want is just as fixed as who I am.

I know I lack arguments atm, but I just don't see why we have to obide to social rules. and I definetly don't see why people feel the need to be so dismissive to people who don't fit in with categories.

There are no obligations to follow social rules - only obligations to clearly calculate the risks when you decide not to. People are free to choose to provoke/hurt the feelings of the community by the way they act or dress, wether it is their initial intention or not. But it is rather strange to pretend to be surprised or shocked by the reactions of those who blame it when it is so previsible. As it is strange to blame those signs of reprobation, since we all know that most of people are very slow to accept changes in their representations of man, woman, sexuality and the rest.

Of course you may chose to be part of those changes, but behaving as it has already happened and accusing the average dude to be narrow-minded, intolerant and blind when he points his finger at you sounds a bit naïve, IMO.

[Heirloom]

I am naive. But i'm not schocked of people behaving badly or unconventional dressing causing stir-ups. I'm through with it.

[Mail-Moth]

Maybe someone could get us rid of that obvious fake ?

[zamb]

while I am not afraid of these discussions, I am aware of them often being loaded and stones being ready to be thrown in all kinds of directions,
i have alot of work to do today and off to a late start, so time will not allow me to post as much as i would like,

Fuuma,
I enjoy your breadth of knowledge, while I (think?) that I am older than you, I hope to one day be able to deal with the breadth and scope of subject matters in the way you articulate and present. that being said,
you are accusing me of discrimination, you may be correct in that, but not the kind you are accusing me of. I have no problem stating my positions exactly the way my command of language (or lack thereof) allows me to do, so there is no dressing up of my arguments here.........................
Threetruscan,
everyone knows already what I believe, so there is no point of accusing me of being disingenuous. I said exactly what I meant and wanted to say, so there is no need to read something into my arguments that isn't there. I think of greater importance is to understand my position, as opposed to reading your own perspective into it.

let me make it more basic for you, I am a Christian (not in the traditional sense of the word............More Judaism based than western Christianity, and no, I am not a Conservative, neither in the Political nor the religious sense.

I believe that God created man (yea stupid by the standards of modern day empiricists and science , but that's what I believe and know of a certainty to be true)
I believe that he created us all for a purpose, as a result HE made parameters for us to live in (almost the same way cars etc have manuals, although this is a very weak comparison). I believe that there are many things that fall outside of the scope human purpose not just homosexuality, this is just the one subject we are discussing at the moment, things like lying, stealing, maliciousness, murder, hatred greed etc. even Gluttony, as Fuuma said,
I don't believe that we can have a free for all society, but the problem with that is: by what standards to we regulate............ or as you put it discriminate?

For me, treating people with respect is at the very core of what I stand for, or else I might as well forget my spiritual perspective, but it doesn't mean agreeing with everything they do, or that because I disagree I love then any less.
one CAN disagree with a persons lifestyle and still love and respect the individual........................that's my position

[theetruscan]

Threetruscan,
everyone knows already what I believe, so there is no point of accusing me of being disingenuous. I said exactly what I meant and wanted to say, so there is no need to read something into my arguments that isnt there. I think of greater importance is to understand my position, as opposed to reading your own perspective into it.

The argument you used was one that has been widely repeated by well-known religious figures. It is a fundamentally disingenuous argument, whether you yourself were being disingenuous. The argument attempts to draw an equivalence between homosexuality, which you disagree with for religious reasons but is victimless outside of a religious context, with crimes against others which necessarily have victims in the social and legal context (and obviously in the religious context as well). I know you spoke plainly, and meant what you said, but the argument you used was not one you originated, and it is (a fortiori) a disingenuous one. It attempts to make people afraid of homosexuality by associating it with things people fear may happen to them. I know that's not what you meant by it, but it's how that argument works. I'm sorry if I stated that you were being intentionally disingenuous, I meant only that you were using an argument that is necessarily so.

I believe that there are many things that fall outside of the scope human purpose not just homosexuality, this is just the one subject we are discussing at the moment, things like lying, stealing, maliciousness, murder, hatred greed etc. even Guttony, as Fuuma said,
I dont believe that we can have a free for all society, but the problem with that is: by what standards to we regulate............ or as you put it discriminate?

Here you directly associate homosexuality with murder. I can't respect that.

For me, treating people with respect is at the very core of what I stand for, or else I might as well forget my spiritual perspective, but it doesnt mean agreeing with everything they do, or that because I diagree I love then any less.
one CAN disagree with a persons lifestyle and still love and respect the individual........................thats my position

One can absolutely disagree with a person's lifestyle and still love and respect that individual. This comes up when we find our friends in bad relationships, when we find our friends addicted to drugs, when we find our friends working on wall street, in all kinds of contexts. But, here you are declaring homosexuality a "lifestyle choice," removing the elements of neurology, desire, and so on and so forth from it. I'm glad you can love and respect people you whose decisions you find bad, but reducing sexual orientation to a choice is quite the strawman.

W.r.t. gay marriage, I await a response to my question.

Finally

I believe that God created man (yea stupid by the standards of modern day empiricists and science , but thats what I believe and know of a certainty to be true)

There's nothing stupid about this. Biblical literalism fails completely and is fairly stupid in my opinion, but that's not what you're saying. There's no necessary contradiction in my mind between science and religion. If God is all-powerful, then he can have designed a rich world in which humanity evolves and understanding progresses. In that context, it's entirely reasonable to believe that the bible is a, err, "snapshot" of human understanding of the divine. I tend to think that the idea of an all-powerful God means anything discovered by science can be a part of his creation, and that religion exists completely outside the framework for rational argument as a result of this. But, I'm an atheist, so what do I know.

EDIT:

And, Heirloom:

I wish i could make a gown so beautiful George Bush would want to be buried in it, and muslims would cry over the sheer beauty of it.

Might need to be two gowns. Pretty sure anything with cowboys and spaceships on it would do it for dubya.

[casem]

You don't like Foucault do you?

I am afraid he will blow up SZ servers. But then it'd be a suicide attack, so maybe worth it?

I don't think sexuality is a social construct at all - I think it's deeply instinctual. Maybe laika, as a professional, can shed some light on this matter.

And I have to say, I agree with theetruscan, but we've discussed this before already. The way you disregard the instinctual, the natural and try to pull the social construct model over it seems disingenuous. How does that make any you different from the bigots that you've been fighting against all your life?