Have you noticed the changes on the forum?

[tyflier]

I agree. Steph hasn't spoken in bad taste. If it's ok to discuss religion, politics, wars past and present, the right to bear arms, abortion, dating, pregnancy, in-law and marital problems and culling healthy hatchlings- it oughtn't be "against the law" to discuss who you are and how you got to be that way and your daily life in general as a homosexual woman. Steph (or anyone else) shouldn't have to cover up, not speak openly of, her sexual orientation. I don't believe she has ever said anything she couldn't say in front of my mother. You guys ought to be proud that she feels so comfortable here that she can show us wedding pics, anniversary pics, etc. Any "kid" reading over things like that is going to see that that segment of society is welcomed and accepted and treated with respect by us, the reptile-loving community that they look up to. How are we, as a society, ever to reach the point where sexual orientation or religious beliefs or race or whatever "ain't no thing" if we continually treat it as such a dividing line between "us" and "them?"

Nanci

I also have one other thing to add as regards the current state of this topic...

Heterosexual kids are not the only ones out there buying snakes and needing information. What better role model for personal strength and security could a struggling homosexual teenager ask for than a person such as desertanimal? And what better way to show that young kid that they are perfect just the way they are and appreciated for WHO they are than by doing just that through this forum?

Conversely, what better way to teach a young "confused" person that their feelings are wrong or dangerous than by asking them to never mention them, and to "stay in the closet"?:shrugs:

Unfortunately...the latter approach has been taken too many times throughout the ages. And I would really wonder how many innocent lives it has taken with it, because of someone else's misjudgement or wrong attitude about their feelings.

Acceptance can do wonderful things for a teenager that already has issues that EVERY teenager goes through. When you add the pressure and uncertainty that a homosexual teen must feel, I think that openly accepting them as members of our community, nay of ANY community, can only help them in feeling secure in themselves...and that is NEVER a bad thing...Forcing someone to hide who they really are is a bad thing, at least in this instance.

BTW...would you ask an hispanic or an African-American to not discuss their race because it is inherantly offensive? They have no more choice in who they are than does a homosexual...

 

[zwyatt]

Okay, I'm breaking my self-imposed silence in this thread, because this is obviously not the same thread that I started Well, sort of...


I think the recent comments in this thread may have been a bit misconstrued. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe the issue is that there doesn't need to be any talk explicitly pertaining to sexuality regardless of the orientation. I don't think Rich had sexual discussions (of any orientation) in mind when creating the forum probably because something like that NEVER even crossed his mind. This is a snake forum afterall, so who would even forsee a need to write a rule?

Stephanie, I don't think anyone has major issues with you or anyone else posting pics or expressing your opinions. I, for one, really enjoyed the pics you posted of your recent camping trip and never had any reservations about them being posted. Similarly, I don't think after you've contributed to a discussion everyone thinks to themselves "Okay, now we've heard from the gay community." It's not like that. To be honest, unless you actually say something that brings it to mind, I don't even think about it from day to day when I read your posts just the same way that I don't think about anyone else being straight when I read their posts. It's not about seeing a picture of two women (or two men either) or reading a reference to a "SO" that bothers folks. It's when the discussion turns into a dissection of sexuality that both sides (straight and gay) should be asked to cease. Just the same way that discussions of religion usually turn sour. One side or another is typically going to end up offended or uncomfortable just because the topic is being discussed regardless of which side is represented most passionately.

I don't believe this is or will be a homophobic forum. However, I don't believe that we need to include direct talk of any sexual orientation. It's one thing to post pictures, mention a SO, or make other subtle references to orientation, but it's another when it takes a more direct approach and that's when neither side straight or gay needs to be expressed on a snake forum, IMO.

 

[Nanci]

All I'm asking is that it isn't crammed down my throat.

Guess what- I don't really care to read about hunting or who shot the most ducks or killed the biggest deer or had the most mouse babies or whatever. You know what I do? Don't read that thread. Or stop as soon as I lose interest. There are plenty of people who are interested in those things- let them have their fun!

Nanci

 

[tyflier]

But nobody has ever asked anyone discussing hetero relationship issues to "take it to a PM", and THAT is where there is a problem. If George can post a topic stating that he has a new girlfriend, so can anyone else. And I really believe that is all that is being asked. There has been no explicit talk of ANY kind throughout this discussion. Why should it be relegated to the PM box?:shrugs: Doesn't everyone have the right to state "their side", or "their opinion"? Or does that only count when their opinion is that of the majority?

But, FWIW...

...Having said all this, is there anyone that would object to having this thread LOCKED so that we can all just move on and get back to snakes?...

I don't have a problem with that...in fact, I agree. But for the record, desertanimal and I DID take our personal conversation to private message, where it continued and, I think, helped us both to respect and appreciate each other just that much more...

 

[Fizzlefry22]

I just don't see a difference between me discussing my ex-wife, and desertanimal discussing her wife. I don't see a difference between CornyNoob talking about her boyfriend and Jaxom talking about his(not that he has...just an example). The words "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" and "sexuality" are not in and of themselves offensive. At least they *shouldn't* be, to anyone. It is only in the context of the speaker that people take offense to these words. If I can openly discuss my ex/SO/girlfriend, I see no reason why EVERYONE can't discuss these people in their life. That includes homosexuals, in my book. Desertanimal posting pictures of her hugging her wife should be no more offensive than Rich posting a picture of him hugging his. And if it IS deemed more offensive, than this site as WAY more problems than the use of implied profanity, and MUCH bigger fish to fry than a phrase like "I'd hit that".

If it is appropriate for jazzgeek or myself to openly state that we find a female forum member's picture attractive, it should be acceptable and appropriate for desertanimal to make the exact same statement. If it is not inherantly offensive for myself, or Dale, or Dean, or any other straight person to make a referance as such, than it should not be inherantly offensive for ANYONE to make such a statement.

I agree completely. I see no reason why this can't be done without having to attach labels to it. Then again, we are only human...isn't that the nature of the beast?

A little while back, there was a running joke between Jaxom and myself that if/when he aquired enough kingsnakes...we would get married. At the time, I had no idea that he was a gay man. I took the statements from him as a joke, and my statements towards him were intended as a joke. The fact that he as since openly admitted to being gay has not changed that discussion in my mind one iota...and it SHOULDN'T have. It was still a joke, it was still funny, and it was still "all in good fun".

I wasn't offended by it either...but I'm sure someone was. Society has developed such 'thin skin'.

To be quite honest...if the above situation happened again, I would not hesitate to participate in exactly the same manner that I did previously. But it seems that it would be moderated differently, just because of one individual's sexuality, and to me...that is simply unfair. It's worse than unfair, it is bigotry. It is exactly a "Back in the closet" scenario which is FAR more offensive, to me(and I am sure many others) than an open an honest discussion. That mentality that homosexuals somehow have less rights or less freedoms on THIS FORUM is FAR more vulgar than any conversation or turn of phrase I have seen on this site, past or present.

Again...I agree. I still don't think that we have the right to openly discuss anything we feel like on Rich's site.

Anyhow...my $.02 I love this forum and I love the members here. But unfortunately, if it IS deemed unacceptable for homosexuals to have discussions in exactly the same manner as heterosexuals, than I, too, will be packing my bags and playing in another field. If my friends are not welcome in someone's house, than I will not go there...

Knocking them out of the park today! Unless I've missed something this morning, I don't think that anyone has said that heteros have more rights than gays. As I recall, it was all of the 'hetero' banter in another post that got this thread started....:shrugs:

 

[Nanci]

I disagree. Locking the thread is like your parents saying "Go to your room!" It'll die a natural death like all the million-post threads eventually do after everyone feels they have had their say. Then it will just fade away. Hopefully before we all hate each other.

Nanci

 

[Roy Munson]

Any "kid" reading over things like that is going to see that that segment of society is welcomed and accepted and treated with respect by us, the reptile-loving community that they look up to. How are we, as a society, ever to reach the point where sexual orientation or religious beliefs or race or whatever "ain't no thing" if we continually treat it as such a dividing line between "us" and "them?"

I'm politically and philosophically liberal. That should tell you enough about my beliefs without me having to type out a sixteen-paragraph explanation. So I'll leave it at that. We shouldn't be so naive that we deceive ourselves into thinking that acceptance and respect of all views is the goal of our society, especially American society. We as a society will never reach that goal because we all don't want that goal acheived. It's sad, but true.

Some parents do not want their kids to accept and respect homosexuality, atheism, Catholicism, long-haired men, snake-keepers, tattoos, transvestites, CEOs, pot-smokers, booze-drinkers, Buddhists, contraception, round-earth believers, physicians, faith-healers, etc., etc.. :shrugs:

 

[zwyatt]

But nobody has ever asked anyone discussing hetero relationship issues to "take it to a PM", and THAT is where there is a problem. If George can post a topic stating that he has a new girlfriend, so can anyone else. And I really believe that is all that is being asked. There has been no explicit talk of ANY kind throughout this discussion. Why should it be relegated to the PM box?:shrugs: Doesn't everyone have the right to state "their side", or "their opinion"? Or does that only count when their opinion is that of the majority?

I think you are exactly right. What I was hoping to express with my above post is that it is perfectly okay for George to mention his new girlfriend and, at least for me, it's perfectly okay for Jane Doe to mention her new girlfriend. I don't think most people have any contentions with those sorts of harmless things. However, if George said "hey, guess what Susie Q and I did last night." I don't want or need to hear that anymore than if Jane Doe said "hey, guess what Susie Q and I did last night." The line is drawn equally for both orientations, IMO. Ultimately, I believe that is what most people on these forums believe and would consider fair to enforce. Regardless of how previous posts in this thread may have sounded, I think that is the underlying idea.

 

[Fizzlefry22]

Guess what- I don't really care to read about hunting or who shot the most ducks or killed the biggest deer or had the most mouse babies or whatever. You know what I do? Don't read that thread. Or stop as soon as I lose interest. There are plenty of people who are interested in those things- let them have their fun!

Nanci

Guess what- Me neither! Somehow, reading this post makes me feel that you've somehow labeled me as a 'redneck' ... but then, that's one of the problems with venues such as the internet. Whereas I know that no offense was intended (in all honesty none was taken), individual interpretation of anothers statements can make anyone offended by anything. :bang:

 

[tom e]

I think we've pretty well established that the thing to do if you don't like something is report it.

There's another thing to do after though, let's not be babies about the action or inaction that follows. Some of us may wish we were mods, but the majority chose the ones we did for a reason. We trusted in their discretion. I think that's been working pretty well.


Now excuse me while I :sidestep: right back out of this thread..

 

[texastailfeathers]

jazz can't make jokes about how much he likes female redheads

I know I should stay out of this, but when I see a rope laying around I get the irresistible urge to hang myself.

The saddest thing about Dale continuing to come up in this thread is the fact that he really didn't do anything offensive. The worst thing he did throughout this entire argument was not take it seriously. He never swore, he never spoke disrespectfully to a woman--especially not me--and he never did anything "against the rules". He smarted off to a mod and an uptight college kid and was treated harshly enough for it that he felt the need to leave for a while. And why? Because it offends a handful of people that he finds himself funny and doesn't relate everything to corn snakes? :shrugs:

Meanwhile, the thread continues, and I must say that I've found the posts since the "Dale and Jennifer Show" ended have been potentially (<---- not to me) far more offensive and definitely more controversial than us talking about whether Ariel or Strawberry Shortcake are more attractive to a 48-year-old man (Ariel won) or whether my hair is naturally red (which it is :angry01: ) or whether one or more of the mods occasionally takes the mod job a bit too seriously.

And as for never intending the General Chit-Chat forum to contain such topics as "Dude, where's your tat/piercing?" and "What do you look like?", then maybe someone should amend the forum description that says the Chit-Chat Forum is open to discussions on "any old chit at all". Because, after all, "chit" is a play on words that some may find offensive. Some might think "chit" sounds a lot like "s---", which happens to be a swear word. Others may take "chit" for its literal definition, which is an archaic term that means "a small child or girl" (if you've ever read a Regency or Victorian period romance novel, you'll recognize this word immediately). Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[Nanci]

Guess what- Me neither! Somehow, reading this post makes me feel that you've somehow labeled me as a 'redneck' ...

No, seriously, I was just listing some things I'm not that into. Not saying you are!

Nanci

 

[susang]

Ok, I don't know how to settle this issue, but I believe everyone should be able to talk about their life in the chit chat as long as it doesn't cross the line of sexual inuendo. I don't know what that line is but I believe there would have been a hand slapped(mine) if I said sad in the picture forum, sorry can't remember who posted it, I think it was Zach 'Sanebedlum" Wow looks like he has mre then one big gun (sorry I'm not dead yet). I wouldn't have said this on that thread and sorry to on this one, but I'm getting a little upset here. If homosexual talk has to go to the PM sad. I agree with Steph's choices, non of which are ideal. susang

 

[Fizzlefry22]

But nobody has ever asked anyone discussing hetero relationship issues to "take it to a PM", and THAT is where there is a problem. If George can post a topic stating that he has a new girlfriend, so can anyone else. And I really believe that is all that is being asked. There has been no explicit talk of ANY kind throughout this discussion. Why should it be relegated to the PM box?:shrugs: Doesn't everyone have the right to state "their side", or "their opinion"? Or does that only count when their opinion is that of the majority?

Correct me if I'm wrong (I often am ), but I don't recall anyone discussing their gay relationship issues being told to take it to PM. I do remember some being asked to take, what appeared to me, a gay/hetero rights discussion to PM. That is and most likely will always be a touchy discussion. :shrugs:

 

[desertanimal]

Having said all this, is there anyone that would object to having this thread LOCKED so that we can all just move on and get back to snakes?

I don't want the thread locked, personally. This thread started out as a discussion about what is and isn't appropriate for discussion in general chit-chat. Though the specific focal topic of discussion has shifted, it remains a discussion about what is and isn't appropriate for discussion in general chit-chat. Anyone can move on and get back to snakes. This particular turn in the conversation is pretty new, and not all members have had the chance to weigh in if they want. Why lock it? It's not being conducted in a disrespectful manner. It's not even inflammatory. It hasn't turned sour as far as I can see. It will fizzle out when it's natural life is over, or it will turn nasty. I suspect it will run its course if in a respectful way if let be. If it turns nasty, then it should be locked. But locking the thread so no one else can talk about it while it's running its course in a reasonable and respectful manner is the same as saying, "It's inappropriate to talk about this; take it to the PMs."

 

[Fizzlefry22]

No, seriously, I was just listing some things I'm not that into. Not saying you are!

Nanci

LOL! I know.. I was just making a point about personal interpretation. :laugh01:

 

[susang]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I often am ), but I don't recall anyone discussing their gay relationship issues being told to take it to PM. I do remember some being asked to take, what appeared to me, a gay/hetero rights discussion to PM. That is and most likely will always be a touchy discussion. :shrugs:

Try post 343 and 347.

 

[Silvergrin]

I don't particularly care to hear anyone rambling on about their sex lives, or sexual orientation for that matter, when I'm visiting this site. I respect individualism and person's choices in what he/she may do with their life. All I'm asking is that it isn't crammed down my throat. I get enough drama (isn't that what life has turned into nowadays?) when I walk out the front door each and every day. I come here to learn and share my experiences with cornsnakes. Isn't that what brought us all here?

Yes, and no... I think that kind of discussion would be inappropriate in the other sub-forums, because they are supposed to be about corns and only about corns.
The chit-chat forum is "off topic concerning corn snakes" so I don't think having sightly more personal discussions there is off-topic. Which is why I generally don't go there; I'm mostly interested in the snakes

Rich has been kind enough to allow a General Chit Chat sub-forum for us to have non-cornsnake related conversations. I'm glad that he did. I've enjoyed many posts that I've found there. There, anyone can share their triumphs, defeats or any other mundane occurences of life. I just feel that it can be done without having to equate it to a hetero/gay thing.

With the availability of PM's and Chat, I really don't understand why more members don't accept it as a viable means of communication. If you you'd like to share something with someone that might be offensive, taken out of context or become a volatile debate (sex, religion and politics come to mind): Utililize one of the other means of communication available here.

:-offtopic The new chat system is really nice, Rich! Thanks again!

Again, agree and disagree. There's always someone out there who *might* be offended by whatever you're talking about. Heck, tons of people are probably offended by the idea of people keeping snakes!!! So I don't think that's a great criteria for what to PM. But, it think there's a societal standard for what's funny and cute and maybe a little risque but not outrageously so, and what's just Too Much Information. TMI should go to PMs (or email!), but I don't see how it being homo instead of hetero would automatically move something into the TMI catagory.

Not that we're entitled to say whatever we want on rich's site, but I don't think rich has said much about whether this is inappropriate??!

 

[zwyatt]

I don't want the thread locked, personally. This thread started out as a discussion about what is and isn't appropriate for discussion in general chit-chat. Though the specific focal topic of discussion has shifted, it remains a discussion about what is and isn't appropriate for discussion in general chit-chat. Anyone can move on and get back to snakes. This particular turn in the conversation is pretty new, and not all members have had the chance to weigh in if they want. Why lock it? It's not being conducted in a disrespectful manner. It's not even inflammatory. It hasn't turned sour as far as I can see. It will fizzle out when it's natural life is over, or it will turn nasty. I suspect it will run its course if in a respectful way if let be. If it turns nasty, then it should be locked. But locking the thread so no one else can talk about it while it's running its course in a reasonable and respectful manner is the same as saying, "It's inappropriate to talk about this; take it to the PMs."

Fair enough. I didn't mean for any discussion to be cut short in the middle. I wasn't sure what your or other's thoughts were on locking sooner rather than later. I didn't see it as quite being inflammatory either, but it's not always easy to judge how other's see it.

 

[Roy Munson]

He smarted off to a mod and an uptight college kid and was treated harshly enough for it that he felt the need to leave for a while.

Am I the mod that he "smarted off" to? I didn't really perceive it that way. I never asked Dale to leave. But I see that you still can't make a post in this thread without taking a stab at Zach. Your "uptight college kid" comment could be interpreted as inflammatory and name-calling. I won't issue a formal warning, but I wish you'd cut it out. Doesn't matter much as far as this thread is concerned, because this thread is done. We've locked threads at the OP's request before, so there is precedent. We've also locked threads because we felt that they were "played-out". If Zach wants it re-opened, the mods will consider it.