Heteronormalistic is bad?

SouthernN'Proud

SouthernN'Proud

Southern Discomfort
again from our friends at tonguetied.us...

At Harvard, The Fun Just Never Ends


A speaker at Harvard University is under fire for a speech that was overly “heteronormative” and made gay students feel uncomfortable by not sufficiently addressing their status, reports The Crimson.

Organizers of the Cultural Rhythms show are apologizing for the offense caused by a speech by Jada Pinkett Smith. In the speech, she was said to be giving the story of her life “and her perspective was a heterosexual perspective.

“She wasn’t trying to be offensive. But some felt she was taking a narrow view, and some people felt left out,” the apology reads.

Members of the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) said Pinkett Smith’s comments implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females.

“Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable,” said BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods.



**end**

1. OK, it's a story of HER life; why the hell would anyone in their right mind expect it to be from any other perspective than her OWN??!!!

2. You mean to tell me it took this hussy to make the gays feel uncomfortable??! Society doesn't do that for them already? They ain't picked up on all the clues we left layin' around? No one told 'em?
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Pinkett Smith’s comments implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females.
Click to expand...
You mean they're not? I always thought the one thing Bill Clinton taught us is that it's not sex if the cock's not in the pussy.
 
“heteronormative” - damn...another word to look up in the dictionary.

hmmm.

It's not in there??!? Well... where do they come up with these words anyway? That's just literaruflumoxing in a multiplexating manner, eh?
 
My english prof always told me "Write what you know." -that should work for speaches too, eh?

I guess not.
 
MrBishop said:
“heteronormative” - damn...another word to look up in the dictionary.

hmmm.

It's not in there??!? Well... where do they come up with these words anyway? That's just literaruflumoxing in a multiplexating manner, eh?
Click to expand...


Well, they're changing the definition for words like Marriage, spouse, etc, so why not just go ahead and make up a few new ones too. What defeats me is why they didn't just make up new words for marriage, spouse, etc, in the first place.
 
Professur said:
Well, they're changing the definition for words like Marriage, spouse, etc, so why not just go ahead and make up a few new ones too. What defeats me is why they didn't just make up new words for marriage, spouse, etc, in the first place.
Click to expand...
Would it really have made a difference? I don't think so. If a gay couple got 'United' and called themselves 'Partners in Life'. Would they all of a sudden be allowed to bless their union in a church? Get 'Partnered benefits' like tax deductions? Would they get any respect for their decision to get 'Partnered for life' ?

:shrug:
 
Respect? Not from me. From a church? All they have to do is start/find a religion that doesn't find homosexuality reprehensible. Damn few of those, aren't there.
 
Professur said:
Respect? Not from me. From a church? All they have to do is start/find a religion that doesn't find homosexuality reprehensible. Damn few of those, aren't there.
Click to expand...
Why not form you? If they're willing to swear to their friends, family and the world that they are going to be with each other 'for life', forsaking all others etc... what's not to respect?

Churches...more and more are willing to do it...we're damn close to Anglican churches being allowed to do it. :shrug: R.C.'s though..I think that it might be a while.
 
Why not from me? Because I think it's wrong. No matter how you look at homosexuality, it's never going to be anything but a dead end. That's a drain on society. Damnit, just read the article above. Straight people can't even give a speach without these bastards soving their agenda into it.
 
MrBishop said:
If they're willing to swear to their friends, family and the world that they are going to be with each other 'for life', forsaking all others etc... what's not to respect?
Click to expand...

Look, there are enough problems with heterosexuals unions. The term 'Til Death Do Us Part' has lost meaning. It used to mean Til Death Do Us Part, not it means We'll stick together until I find someone more suitable or younger or richer or anyone that just isn't you. Sorry to burst the bubble but homosexuals have a much higher degree of I'mtiredofyouitus than even "modern" heteros.
 
Professur said:
Why not from me? Because I think it's wrong. No matter how you look at homosexuality, it's never going to be anything but a dead end. That's a drain on society. Damnit, just read the article above. Straight people can't even give a speach without these bastards soving their agenda into it.
Click to expand...
There's always going to be detractors from any speach... even speeches promoting peace. That's fringe groups f'r ya.

There are a lot of 'drains on society'..including most cripled people, most psych patients, most unionized people, most people on UI, most people on welfare etc... homosexuals are mostly a DNA dead-end, but they work, pay taxes, buy property and products, spend cash on vacations etc... how are they more of a drain on society? Especially if they comit to a monogamous relationship...reducing the chances of STDs (incl. AIDS), and reducing the medical costs associated with the treatment of that disease.
 
Gonz said:
Look, there are enough problems with heterosexuals unions. The term 'Til Death Do Us Part' has lost meaning. It used to mean Til Death Do Us Part, not it means We'll stick together until I find someone more suitable or younger or richer or anyone that just isn't you. Sorry to burst the bubble but homosexuals have a much higher degree of I'mtiredofyouitus than even "modern" heteros.
Click to expand...
I don't know where that statistic is coming from... number of sex-partners?

The point is...they're willing to try monogamy.That alone is a step in the right direction. That they're willing to put it in writing and add all the legal traps associated with such a union is another step.

Doing it in front of God...*depending on how religious they are* is another step.

Each step ensures that they follow through. :shrug: No?
 
Gonz said:
Look, there are enough problems with heterosexuals unions. The term 'Til Death Do Us Part' has lost meaning. It used to mean Til Death Do Us Part, not it means We'll stick together until I find someone more suitable or younger or richer or anyone that just isn't you.
Click to expand...
BTW..I agree that the 'til death do us part' bit is in trouble. Would homosexual 'marriage' reduce or increase or not affect the rate of divorce in homosexual unions?
 
MrBishop said:
I don't know where that statistic is coming from... number of sex-partners?

The point is...they're willing to try monogamy.That alone is a step in the right direction. That they're willing to put it in writing and add all the legal traps associated with such a union is another step.

Doing it in front of God...*depending on how religious they are* is another step.

Each step ensures that they follow through. :shrug: No?
Click to expand...

It's number of "long term" relationships. I can't recall wher I saw it but it was something like, 4 times as many for homo relationships. Yes, there can be lifetime relationships...but hell, even Goldie & Kurt are working on that unheard of Hollyweird phenom.
 
MrBishop said:
BTW..I agree that the 'til death do us part' bit is in trouble. Would homosexual 'marriage' reduce or increase or not affect the rate of divorce in homosexual unions?
Click to expand...
Increase it, of course. There are none now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top