If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   The world's most famous heterosexual makes a plea for gay marriage   (nydailynews.com) divider line 118
    More: Hero, Hugh Hefner, Playboy, Playboy founder, sexual freedom, sexual revolution  
•       •       •

30844 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Aug 2012 at 10:22 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-24 02:30:41 PM

Albert911emt: If being gay were just a lifestyle choice, then no one would choose it. Why would anyone want to subject themselves to abuse and ridicule? Throughout history people have been imprisoned and executed for being gay....that's a lot to face just for a "choice". It makes more sense that it is genetic or otherwise some biologic imperitive. If being heterosexual is not a choice, then obviously being gay must also be not a choice. So the only other arguement against homosexuality is the religious angle. But that famous passage from the bible about Sodom doesn't say anything about gays.....I've read it, and I think it's talking about "sexual violence" against men and women.


Some people enjoy conflict, others just like sharing clothes.
 
2012-08-24 02:46:33 PM

steamingpile: Albert911emt: If being gay were just a lifestyle choice, then no one would choose it. Why would anyone want to subject themselves to abuse and ridicule? Throughout history people have been imprisoned and executed for being gay....that's a lot to face just for a "choice". It makes more sense that it is genetic or otherwise some biologic imperitive. If being heterosexual is not a choice, then obviously being gay must also be not a choice. So the only other arguement against homosexuality is the religious angle. But that famous passage from the bible about Sodom doesn't say anything about gays.....I've read it, and I think it's talking about "sexual violence" against men and women.

Some people enjoy conflict, others just like sharing clothes.


Some dudes like whisker rubs and taking it up the pooper.
 
2012-08-24 02:50:20 PM

Albert911emt: But that famous passage from the bible about Sodom doesn't say anything about gays.....I've read it, and I think it's talking about "sexual violence" against men and women.


Do you mean the NT one, whose timeline starts over a thousand years after Sodom's destruction, or the OT account? Because the way the OT account is viewed in the Jewish tradition, the sin of Sodom was in being inhospitable to guests (namely, Abe and the "messengers").

Besides which, the townspeople aren't clamoring for Abe, Lot and the menfolk to come out and "play", they want the women (specifically Lot's daughters). If anyone was gonna get "sodomized" in that story, it was going to be the women. (And violence against women - or men - is never pointed to as the reason for Sodom's judgement. Abe asks if there are any "righteous men", and it appears not even 10 existed in those huge cities.)
 
2012-08-24 04:17:46 PM

farkityfarker: the world's most famous heterosexual

So everyone in the world who is more famous than Hugh Hefner is gay or bi? Interesting.


Well, there's a usage where saying someone is "the most famous x" only commits the speaker to that person being the most famous among people known for that particular reason, x-ing. For example, there's a most famous basketball player, say, Kobe Bryant. But, Obama plays basketball and is more famous, and yet it's still true that Kobe Bryant is the most famous basketball player.

I guess what I'm saying is, Hugh Hefner is famous for heterosexing. He's a professional heterosexer.
 
2012-08-24 04:55:13 PM

steamingpile: Cythraul: steamingpile: BillCo: I've heard that being a heterosexual is genetic and not a life style choice.

Well you and the subby fail since Hef has admitted to gay sex before so at the least he's bi.

Seriously? I'm gonna need a citation of that little 'fact.'

Seriously? Its in his biography that he helped write so the citation is Hef.


I never would have thought a man who wants to be taken seriously as a playboy would admit to having a same-sex sexual experience.

I still don't believe you. You being a complete stranger from the internet. Guess I'm going to have to ask around / google.
 
2012-08-24 05:18:11 PM
Hef is an authority on marriage?
 
2012-08-24 05:38:23 PM
I don't know if "heterosexual" accurately describes Hugh Hefner's sexual orientation. I bet he's dabbled in other... unconventional proclivities.
 
2012-08-24 05:46:02 PM
Because if there is anyone that gay-marriage opponents will listen to, it's Hugh Hefner.
 
2012-08-24 07:16:05 PM

Arkanaut: Hef probably digs the lesbians.

/nttawwt


"probably"?
 
2012-08-24 07:28:08 PM
Arnold disapproves. God disapproves.......and so do I - so it ain't happenin'!
 
2012-08-24 07:35:30 PM
Can someone explain how this is an issue? Some gay guys want to get married? Who cares? Global warming, gross malfeasance in the financial "industry" and this is somehow important?

America, you used to be cool.
 
2012-08-24 07:49:24 PM

randomjsa: This isn't going to help.
No, it's not.
No. It. Is. Not. Going. To. Help.
You have to look at the overall picture here. Would somebody who is seen, fairly or unfairly, as having questionable moral values by a lot of people really help the cause? The answer is, no, probably not.


I understand your point at one level, but I think your analysis is a little superficial and your conclusion incorrect as a result.

Those who thump holy scriptures (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) in their moral objection to gaity in general or gay marriage in particular, no, are not going to be swayed away from that position by Heff. But they were also not going to be swayed without him. His support has no effect with them one way or the other.

Heff is seen as relatively "family friendly". He has made cameo appearances on family-friendly TV shows for decades without controversy. He doesn't have a big 'sleaze' factor like Larry Flint, Al Goldstein, or Joe Francis, has or that or Bob Guccione had. Fathers don't want to beat him up. His support for something is not likely to scare away people who would otherwise support something.

At the same time, he is still a legend to men. He built an empire being a connoisseur of women and fine things, and sharing that with the world. He was always hip, at the cutting edge of culture, style, technology, the civil rights movement, art, et cet. Despite having admitted to experimented a little, he is looked upon by guys as being all-man, a straight-arrow pu55y hound who make the ladies cream. The wild uncle whom guys wish they could be.

A lot of men oppose gay marriage not because they are religious fanatics, but because it's icky. Come on, two dudes? Ew. The media coverage about gay marriages may actually do more harm than good, as it shows guys holding hands and kissing their grooms, and fat, old, dykish broads kissing or going on about their love and equal rights. It's cringe inducing. Is some of that reaction caused by subconscious fears about one's own sexuality? Quite possibly. But here's Hef coming forward and saying to men, "Hey, it's cool. Why should you care if two dudes or two broads want to marry each other? It doesn't bother me. What business is it of ours to interfere? It isn't." He's making it OK for regular guys to also say, "Screw it. What difference does it make to me whom some other guy wants to marry? And most of those lesbos marrying each other were not anyone I wanted anyway."

His support is to regular men what Dick Cheney's support is to politicians. As the old Vulcan proverb states, "Only Nixon could go to China."
 
2012-08-24 08:12:17 PM

Cythraul: He just wants gay marriage passed so he can work on legal polygamy next so he can marry four or five blondes at once.


What would be wrong with that?

SnarfVader: Well, that settles that. I'm sure the fundies are finally going to listen to reason now that Hef has spoken.


Yeah - he's not really going to convince anyone.
 
2012-08-24 10:42:36 PM

HopScotchNSoda: A lot of men oppose gay marriage not because they are religious fanatics, but because it's icky. Come on, two dudes? Ew. The media coverage about gay marriages may actually do more harm than good, as it shows guys holding hands and kissing their grooms, and fat, old, dykish broads kissing or going on about their love and equal rights. It's cringe inducing. Is some of that reaction caused by subconscious fears about one's own sexuality? Quite possibly. But here's Hef coming forward and saying to men, "Hey, it's cool. Why should you care if two dudes or two broads want to marry each other? It doesn't bother me. What business is it of ours to interfere? It isn't." He's making it OK for regular guys to also say, "Screw it. What difference does it make to me whom some other guy wants to marry? And most of those lesbos marrying each other were not anyone I wanted anyway."


Gay "marriage" is not about marriage and everyone honest enough to look at the issue knows it. It's about silencing one side of the debate through government coercion and force. To force the population to accept a lifestyle as "normal" that a large portion of the population rejects. Even

Government never should have been in the business of marriage in the first place, that whole mess started with the French Revolution. The only reason I would support gay "marriage" is if I hated homosexuals, to to the self destructive nature of that lifestyle, which according to the statistics tends to be more destructive than alcoholisim. By doing so you are basically telling them to go kill themselves. No different than buying an alcoholic more booze.

Marriage is the institution for providing a healthy environment for the raising of CHILDREN. The left have simple redefined it as being nothing more than a contract between two adults. Much in the same way they call every rifle an "assault rifle". There is lots of evidence showing that children are best raised in a household with both the mother and the father.

Why do you think that marriages were arranged for so many years in many cultures? It had nothing to do about the husband and wife. It was the grandparents working to ensure a stable environment for their grandchildren. Even today the system of arranged marriage works relatively well where it is practiced. A former co-worker from Malaysia went through with his arranged marriage and it's a far more healthy relationship than many unarranged marriages I see personally. Both systems have their pros and cos.

Even in the West where husband and wive often chose each other, the tradition for centuries was for both spouses to get the approval of the to-be in-laws before the marriage would proceed. This was probably the best system overall as it allowed the freedom to choose ones spouse while also providing a check against relationships that would not last. Though it was plagued by the baggage of the class system present in some cultures.

Again, the topmost intent of marriage is to provide a healthy environment for children. Interfering and redefining such an important institution can and does have disastrous society-wide consequences, as one can see with what happened after no-fault divorce laws became commonplace in the US and when the government welfare state effectively replaced the father in black families.

If two homosexuals want to have a contract between themselves there is nothing wrong with that, as much as I don't like it. Trying to misclassify that in the same category as the institution whose purpose is to ensure the well being of the next generation is dishonest, plain and simple. They are relying on the ignorance of the population to not see the distinction. I used to be one of those ignorant people.

If they want to have that self-destructive relationship, fine, but classifying it as "marriage" and promoting it via government is something that should not be done any more than government promoting alcoholism. The arguments over healthcare benefits and inheritance fail as the latter is easily covered by wills and the former is caused by the tax code promoting health insurance to be purchased through employers. Doing another wrong to fix another wrong is not the way to go.

The second problem is that by affirming gay marriage one must also MUST necessarily, whether they are aware of it or not, deny moral objectivity and affirm moral relativity and all the ugly things that entails. Do you support NAMBLA and their efforts to "Supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression"? Every single argument in favor of gay" marriage" can also be, and is, used by NAMBLA. Any argument trying to separate the two fails. They will simply accuse you of having religious influences (even if the person is an atheist.), that you have no right to discriminate what two consenting people do together, that you're discriminating, etc. You can coherently oppose both or support both, but to support one and not the other is simply incoherent.

If people understood the implications of that nobody would support gay "marriage". I originally supported gay marriage, out of ignorance, but once I realized the moral relativity aspect (via my readings of Nietzsche, C.S. Lewis, Bert Russell, and other philosophers.) I had a serious problem. I spent a long time looking for a way around the problem, but unfortunately there is none. The objectivity of moral values is a self-evident truth, one cannot deny moral objectivity any more than they can deny the reality of the external world. If they do, they cannot live it. (Nietzsche and Dawkins are two examples.) There are other problems in addition to that of course.

By not affirming it, you can still permit the activity, homosexual activity, since it's between two consenting adults without denying the objectivity of moral values and without the ugly realities of moral relativism. (and NAMBLA) Just like how we permit alcoholism even though virtually everyone recognizes it as a self-destructive behavior. You'll find many former homosexuals, Stephen Bennett as one example, you will never find a former black person.

On the practical side, by permitting, but not promoting, it you also make it far easier for people who want to voluntarily change their ways to openly do so. One of the major problems with drug prohibition is that it makes it very difficult to break the cycle of addiction due to the illegality. These activities should be granted no special preference and promotion by government, but neither should they be prohibited.

To condone moral relativity is for society to put a shotgun in its mouth and pull the trigger. 

/copy/paste from my posts elsewhere
//good night
 
2012-08-24 11:19:39 PM

zarberg: HaywoodJablonski: If the Christian Right won't listen to Hugh Hefner, who will they listen to?

Well, Rush proclaimed himself as the leader of the Republican party the other day.

Not kidding, he said "if I had wanted Todd Akin out of the race, he'd be out of the race"


He is. it's about damn time he acknowledged that. The man wields a lot of power, and he needs to be pretty open about it, because that 'I'm just an entertainer!!11!!1' is a ridiculous shield.

/Also...am I the only one taking a second look at this guy? I mean, sure, I live in NV, and brothels do a hell of a lot of charity work and generally good stuff, but this is...well, the sort of moral argument that makes you stop and reconsider your stance on a person.
 
2012-08-25 12:15:30 AM
Crosshair:

Does it hurt to be that stupid?
 
2012-08-25 12:23:32 AM
Crosshair:

That reminded me a little of Timecube.
 
2012-08-25 03:18:09 PM
He's a bisexual.
 
Displayed 18 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report