Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Viktor von Domm wrote:

@my child hood view of Sulu is forever changed

would you mind telling us why that is the case?
i frankly don´t understand that, cuase the acting is still done by him, the words spoken by him weren´t changed and so on so why isn´t it the same anymore?

sorry had to ask.

vik

Thought I made it clear..but I'll try again. I had a childhood "image" of George Takei as sulu. Now, due to my view of homsexuality as being a sin against God and thus a character flaw.. now that is what I will think of, when I watch classic trek.

Let me give an analogy. Lindsy Lohan was this "idealic" cute little child actor. Now she is turned into a drug abuser. I can't watch Herbie reloaded or the parent trap remake without saying to myself, "such a shame". You could also place Mel Gibson in that position. I had a huge admiration for the man Mel Gibson(Road Warrior,Brave heart..etc) until the alcoholism/Jew Hate started coming out. I pity him now, more than Admire him.

Also take note that I believe saying things that homosexuals should catch AIDS and die is VERY wrong, and is in my opinion quite a sick thing to say.

GG

I am saddened that you think that way about homosexuality, and consider those who are homosexual (a trait that they have no control over) sinners.

Unfortunately, holding irrational, unjustifiable positions is part of the human condition.

It's amazing how intolerant and small-minded the words of champions of tolerance and open-mindedness can be.

(Passive aggressive much? )

Manchu wrote:It's amazing how intolerant and small-minded the words of champions of tolerance and open-mindedness can be.

(Passive aggressive much? )

Actually, in a world where we have combed the depths of minds and ideas for fiction and such, I am sure this has come up before.

Manchu wrote:It's amazing how intolerant and small-minded the words of champions of tolerance and open-mindedness can be.

(Passive aggressive much? )

QFT

Also, just saw George Takei's "Sharp Electronics Quattron quad pixel technology" commercial, quite funny.

The tame one



And the "other" one




Can you spot the difference?

Manchu wrote:It's amazing how intolerant and small-minded the words of champions of tolerance and open-mindedness can be.

So in your mind these are basically the same thing:

Person A: Blacks are lazy and they need us to control them It is our duty as Christians to civilize them.

Person B: I think Person A is a loon, and what he says is a bunch of hate filled nonsense. We should reject his way of thinking.

Then you come in with:

Manchu: See, they are both intolerant! This must mean that neither argument is valid.

I guess the words context and nuance are not something you are familiar with, or that you are choosing to ignore at the moment.

Ahtman wrote:

Manchu wrote:It's amazing how intolerant and small-minded the words of champions of tolerance and open-mindedness can be.

So in your mind these are basically the same thing:

Person A: Blacks are lazy and they need us to control them It is our duty as Christians to civilize them.

Person B: I think Person A is a loon, and what he says is a bunch of hate filled nonsense. We should reject his way of thinking.

Then you come in with:

Manchu: See, they are both intolerant! This must mean that neither argument is valid.

I guess the words context and nuance are not something you are familiar with, or that you are choosing to ignore at the moment.

Quite. I don't think anyone has anything to apologise for when being intolerant of bigotry. And racism and homophobia are bigotry.


Skimming over this thread, an argument that really does not hold water is the "it's only homosexuals who have sex that are the sinners so by only targeting those actively having sex I am not in fact homophobic".

This is homophobic and bigoted, without even knowing a person you damn them as a sinner simply for behaving in the manner most natural to them. Homosexuality is expressed across the animal kingdom, it's a very real, naturally occuring thing. You can't be turned gay, and you don't choose to be gay. According to the people who claim the argument I put above, a straight person can marry and have sex with a person of the sex they desire and there is no problem. But a gay person is told that to not be called a sinner, they must either live a life of total celibacy or have sexual relationships with a women, a gender they have no attraction towards. They are basically told to have no sex life or love with the gender they are attracted towards because to do otherwise is a 'sin'. This is such an easy thing for certain people to demand from their ivory towers while they are free to have heterosexual relations. But imagine being told that you could not have a sexual relationship with a woman for your entire life, and told that if you do, then you are a sinner and wrongdoer. Would you then accept that the person telling you that was not in fact prejudiced against you? It's a nonsense, unlike choosing to kick football or something mundane sexuality is something integral to our being and to take that away is to deny them experiencing a fundamental part of their life.

I also think it's sad that someone could have their view of Star Trek coloured by the fact that one of the cast is gay. Why be so preoccupied by this? What a sad horrible shame.

Ahtman wrote:I guess the words context and nuance are not something you are familiar with, or that you are choosing to ignore at the moment.

It is amazing how well this applies to your own post. "Blacks are lazy . . ." Really?

This picture is a little closer to reality . . .

Person A: It is my religious belief that homosexual behavior is immoral. I don't hate people who are homosexual, but I definitely see it as a flaw and a sin.

Person B: Not accepting other people's beliefs is irrational and unjustifiable. I do not accept Person A's beliefs. (Except written in a passive aggressive manner in order to avoid the personal attack.)

HowardTreesong wrote:without even knowing a person you damn them as a sinner simply for behaving in the manner most natural to them.

Wait a moment. The statement is "someone who commits a sinful act is a sinner." Knowledge of the particular person is unnecessary. As for this "manner most natural to them" business, that is really just an opinion.

Ahtman wrote:

Manchu wrote:It's amazing how intolerant and small-minded the words of champions of tolerance and open-mindedness can be.

So in your mind these are basically the same thing:

Person A: Blacks are lazy and they need us to control them It is our duty as Christians to civilize them.

Person B: I think Person A is a loon, and what he says is a bunch of hate filled nonsense. We should reject his way of thinking.

Then you come in with:

Manchu: See, they are both intolerant! This must mean that neither argument is valid.

I guess the words context and nuance are not something you are familiar with, or that you are choosing to ignore at the moment.

Maybe he's trying to be ironic.

In essence, no one who claims to believe in "tolerance" actually does. What they believe in is tolerance for the things they deem worthy of tolerating, and intolerance for the things they do not; exactly the same as people who don't claim to believe in "tolerance". It's just a piece of rhetoric, much too vague to be seriously believed in.

Orkeosaurus wrote:In essence, no one who claims to believe in "tolerance" actually does. What they believe in is tolerance for the things they deem worthy of tolerating, and intolerance for the things they do not; exactly the same as people who don't claim to believe in "tolerance". It's just a piece of rhetoric, much too vague to be seriously believed in.

I will not tolerate this attitude.

Cheesecat: Nope.

Orkeosaurus: Yep.

In all fairness, my criticism of Bookwrack's post is more about his smug passive aggressive line-toeing when it comes to Rule Number One.

Bookwrack did not actually claim to be open-minded or tolerant. He could be an outspoken bigot (regarding viewpioints he judges irrational and unjustifiable) for all I know. (there you go Cheescat, )

I don't care if I'm seen to be "tolerant," or not. I believe what I believe, and will happily fight for those beliefs. Hence why I see condemnation of homosexuality as both immoral and outdated.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I don't care if I'm seen to be "tolerant," or not. I believe what I believe, and will happily fight for those beliefs. Hence why I see condemnation of homosexuality as both immoral and outdated.

Hear, hear!

I would say on my own part that I am quite intolerent of opinions that conflict with my own.

Orkeosaurus wrote:In essence, no one who claims to believe in "tolerance" actually does.

Hmm... for the sake of this argument would you consider "tolerance" something of a scale?

Absolute tolerance is something that I have rarely heard suggested as a personal philosophy. It wasn't, as Manchu has also clarified, suggested in this thread.

What they believe in is tolerance for the things they deem worthy of tolerating, and intolerance for the things they do not; exactly the same as people who don't claim to believe in "tolerance". It's just a piece of rhetoric, much too vague to be seriously believed in.

Those that claim "tolerance" are "intolerant" of "intolerance".

When it comes to actually discussing specific issues on can easily have "tolerant" views in one respect and "intolerant" views in another, but none of that changes the fact that we are working with something along the lines of a scale. On a scale 1-10 how intolerant should anyone be of any given set of actions and or perspectives? What crime deserves what punishment? What ideology deserves more rebuke than others?

If all someone says is tolerance, tolerance, tolerance, they are probably not saying much of anything. But if someone says that they are more tolerant on a given issue than someone else, they can do so without being literally intolerant. The important bit is the amount of specificity involved.

Tolerating everything would not make for a particularly successful society, but we need not think ourselves "intolerant" when faced with "intolerance".

Ahtman wrote:

Manchu wrote:It's amazing how intolerant and small-minded the words of champions of tolerance and open-mindedness can be.

So in your mind these are basically the same thing:

Person A: Blacks are lazy and they need us to control them It is our duty as Christians to civilize them.

Person B: I think Person A is a loon, and what he says is a bunch of hate filled nonsense. We should reject his way of thinking.

Then you come in with:

Manchu: See, they are both intolerant! This must mean that neither argument is valid.

I guess the words context and nuance are not something you are familiar with, or that you are choosing to ignore at the moment.

Nah, I think it's more like:

Person A(who is Islamojudaichrististotrian): I think people who are smarmy on the internet are douchebags.

Person B: I think that since one Islamojudaichrististostrian thinks a certain way, I'm going to talk a bunch of ignorant gak about all of them because it's easier to generalize.

That's where the being a bigoted hypocrite comes into play.

I think it's a valid question to ask.."Why do people dislike Homosexual sin more than Heterosexual sin". I have often asked my self the same question and have had to correct myself upon inner reflection on the issue. The bottom line is that sin is sin and the God I worship doesn't make a distinction.

This is my opinion, and that is, that a lot of people view homosexuality as more than just a sin.(And I'm not saying that view is right or wrong). They view it as unnatural and view the act as disgusting. Also there is a view that can be taken that if they view the act of homosexuality as being disgusting, they don't want it rubbed in their faces. They are so disgusted by the behavior that they forget their manners and lash out at the homosexual. I see the same kind of disgust by women that find out their best friend has been cheated on by their best friends husband, calling the man who cheated a "dog" or "scum" or "pig". They are disgusted by "THE ACT" of infidelity. Also many people are disgusted by people that do not hide their unfaithfulness, labeling them a "scoundrel" "whoremonger" or whatever other label you may want to hang.

So what am I getting at? Does this mean people "hate" homosexuals because they dislike "THE ACT"? Are they just not able to overcome their own natural disgust for"THE ACT". Can you genuinely love someone despite hating what they do? I think the answer is yes.

For me personally I am uncomfortable around gay people. Why is this? Because of the way they flaunt it and rub it in my nose. In the same way that I am uncomfortable around someone who flaunts their drug use and that wants to smoke pot around me. Or someone that I am with, that is married and flaunts their infidelity, is out looking to cheat on their spouse, or someone that cusses like a sailor around children. Do I hate these people that flaunt their flaws? No... but I sure don't like being around them that much.

And one last note...It has never been proven that homosexuals are born that way. There are many homosexuals that have changed. (Now for the "not a true scotsman arguments)

GG

generalgrog wrote:And one last note...It has never been proven that homosexuals are born that way. There are many homosexuals that have changed. (Now for the "not a true scotsman arguments)GG

Any time two people of similar background or heritage disagree on something it's a No True Scotsman fallacy, according to wherever some people get their talking points.

See, we're both Christians and we slightly disagree on something; yet I manage not to hate you or tell you you aren't a Christian. Maybe I'm not the real Scotsman then.

Very good comparison about infidelity, GG, especially about whether you'd want to hang around with someone who flaunts their infidelity. If someone has made an act that you find to be immoral the very center of their identity, it will be very difficult to be around them.

Obviously, not all gay people are wrapped up in "the movement" and, at least from anecdotal evidence passed along by friends, I've found that the attempts to mobilize vulnerable "newly out" people into "the movement" can be just as harmful as helpful.

Ok, this is still going Off Topic fast. Listen up guys, the current argument is derived from two or three lines of mutual misunderstanding by one or two posters with different world views on relgion, who have since ironed out those specific differences. Trolls are now stasrting to gather, lets head back on topic before we get the vomit.




Some point for Wrexasaur

Wrexasaur wrote:
Dangerous is a strong term, but I generally get what you're saying.

Yes it is a bit strong, but I am concerned with two problems, firstly may this set a precedent for this type of celeb character assassination video to become more widely used in future.

You are thinking past the point of this PSA in my opinion. Not that some of your argument isn't applicable, but it really comes down to a PSA hitting very hard.

This is true, however while it might look like George Takei is having an add on joke to some, its direct information to others. It was worded as if it was a fact. A nice prefix showing the comment is humourious would have helped, if indeed this was the case.

Takei basically socked him in the nose. Right in the nose. Dangerous in the sense that Takei could have permanently broken McCance's metaphorical nose. I'm not entirely sure I care all that much what happens to McCance, and that is not to suggest that I want to see him literally harmed. Blocking him from holding any form of public office is kind of expected on Takei's part, as a spokesperson for the LGBT community.

This is the second reason I find it dangerous. You dont like McCance and so he 'has it coming'. That only sounds fair, it would be like saying, this guy is a burglaring scumbag so lets get him on a rape charge. Get the people on the charge they are guilty for, not whatever you can pin on them just because you dont like them.
The same should apply for high profile commentaries like tihs one.

I won't remember McCance's name two weeks from now. He will disappear from the mainstream public's view very quickly.

You might not, I might not, but those living near him will. Infamy lasts longer than 15 minutes. All the accusations Takei made on that video may stick for life, those that are true and those that may well not be.

IMO, Takei represents positive representation for the LGBT community. McCance attacked many people with his words, but Takei simply attacked McCance specifically through his statements.

Again I have to disagree with this. I dont think the ends do not justify the means. Especially when you see the volume of damage done. McCance trolled on the internetz, there is a good chance he doesnt really mean what he says, though his words are taken very literally now. The responce is full frontal and IMHO disproportional. Demands of public apology are ok, calls of outrage ok, unsubstantiated secondary accusations, not ok.
I see worse comments below YouTube videos daily, let alone on Facebook.

Monster Rain wrote:See, we're both Christians and we slightly disagree on something; yet I manage not to hate you or tell you you aren't a Christian. Maybe I'm not the real Scotsman then.

This is one of the most intelligent things I've ever read on this site, certainly the most intelligent in OT.

Manchu wrote:Very good comparison about infidelity, GG, especially about whether you'd want to hang around with someone who flaunts their infidelity. If someone has made an act that you find to be immoral the very center of their identity, it will be very difficult to be around them.

Obviously, not all gay people are wrapped up in "the movement" and, at least from anecdotal evidence passed along by friends, I've found that the attempts to mobilize vulnerable "newly out" people into "the movement" can be just as harmful as helpful.

I'm friends with gay people. I also don't find this incompatible with Christianity, and they don't seem to mind it either.

Slightly ninja'd by an appreciated post.

Monster Rain wrote:

Manchu wrote:Very good comparison about infidelity, GG, especially about whether you'd want to hang around with someone who flaunts their infidelity. If someone has made an act that you find to be immoral the very center of their identity, it will be very difficult to be around them.

Obviously, not all gay people are wrapped up in "the movement" and, at least from anecdotal evidence passed along by friends, I've found that the attempts to mobilize vulnerable "newly out" people into "the movement" can be just as harmful as helpful.

I'm friends with gay people. I also don't find this incompatible with Christianity, and they don't seem to mind it either.

Slightly ninja'd by an appreciated post.

Your right. Just because someone would rather be with someone of their own sex rather then someone of the opposite sex dosen't mean we should hate them.

generalgrog wrote:So what am I getting at? Does this mean people "hate" homosexuals because they dislike "THE ACT"? Are they just not able to overcome their own natural disgust for"THE ACT". Can you genuinely love someone despite hating what they do? I think the answer is yes.

Many people dislike the the act of concluding that actually being gay is immoral. This does not suggest that most of those folks hate Christians either.

For me personally I am uncomfortable around gay people. Why is this? Because of the way they flaunt it and rub it in my nose. In the same way that I am uncomfortable around someone who flaunts their drug use and that wants to smoke pot around me. Or someone that I am with, that is married and flaunts their infidelity, is out looking to cheat on their spouse, or someone that cusses like a sailor around children. Do I hate these people that flaunt their flaws? No... but I sure don't like being around them that much.

Surely you can see that someone could be offended by your statements concerning "flaws".

Beyond that, I'm not entirely sure why you think that homosexuals are naturally more expressive of their sexuality than heterosexuals. I assume that a gay couple kissing would be a sin, but would them holding hands or hugging be a sin? I'm not trying to poke holes in your argument here, but I am trying to find out what flamboyance you're referring to.

In my experience most gay folks are really quite reserved in expressing their sexuality, for fear that they will make others around them uncomfortable. I do not necessarily think that most gay people that do think that they are surrounded by homophobes, and it can be argued that they are simply trying to be polite. When a couple can't kiss or hold hands for fear that they will be demeaned for doing so, then there is a problem IMO.

When a heterosexual couple is being overtly sexual, I would think that about as many people that are uncomfortable around that are the same in respect to homosexuals.

There is a whole lot more to it than that, of course, but my main point is that the majority of gay people that I know are not particularly obvious. I mean, I've asked a chick out on a date not knowing that they were gay. Maybe I was being thick, but it really wasn't obvious to me at all.

And one last note...It has never been proven that homosexuals are born that way.

It has never been proven that they weren't?

There are many homosexuals that have changed.

There are many, many more that haven't.

Happygrunt wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Manchu wrote:Very good comparison about infidelity, GG, especially about whether you'd want to hang around with someone who flaunts their infidelity. If someone has made an act that you find to be immoral the very center of their identity, it will be very difficult to be around them.

Obviously, not all gay people are wrapped up in "the movement" and, at least from anecdotal evidence passed along by friends, I've found that the attempts to mobilize vulnerable "newly out" people into "the movement" can be just as harmful as helpful.

I'm friends with gay people. I also don't find this incompatible with Christianity, and they don't seem to mind it either.

Slightly ninja'd by an appreciated post.

Your right. Just because someone would rather be with someone of their own sex rather then someone of the opposite sex dosen't mean we should hate them.

The thing is, I don't think that most people do hate them.

It's become a truism concocted by people who try to rationalize their bigotry. I don't want to preach a sermon or anything, but Jesus didn't hang out with people that were already righteous. He actively sought out people who were outcasts from society, which is unfortunately the way that gays are treated these days.

"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you." he said. How could people forget something so simple and beautiful as that? I don't care what kind of meta-argument you throw out there, if you're a Christian and if this isn't near the top of your main principles of theology I'm afraid you need to read some more scripture.

Wrexasaur wrote:Surely you can see that someone could be offended by your statements concerning "flaws".

Well, so what? Beliefs and opinions and interests are divergent between individuals and groups. Free expression, given human nature, entails offense and hurt feelings. GG is not advocating that homosexuals be persecuted in any way (that I am aware of), merely that he finds homosexual acts and exaggerated gay sexuality to be morally and personally offensive. As a Christian, I'm sure that he finds liars to be morally and personally offensive as well but I don't see him calling for a law to ban all lying.

Beyond that, I'm not entirely sure why you think that homosexuals are naturally more expressive of their sexuality than heterosexuals.

For all the reasons you already know, heterosexuality is much easier to incorporate into someone's identity both privately and publicly than homosexuality. Homosexuals are often forced to make choices between expressing their sexuality and maintaining relationships with their friends and family members. Many gay people have dealt with these tensions by acting flamboyantly--i.e., refusing to be stifled by being overwhelming. For a lot of complicated reasons that I don't entirely understand, this reaction has been coopted into homosexual political contexts and has become a self-reinforcing stereotype. Surely this isn't new information?

In my experience most gay folks are really quite reserved in expressing their sexuality, for fear that they will make others around them uncomfortable.

I agree with one caveat: AS SECURE ADULTS, most gay people are reserved about their sexuality. Perhaps unfortunately, many heterosexual people only encounter openly gay people while they are still developing a sense of what being gay means in terms of their identity and place in their families and groups of friends (much less career). It's just important to keep in mind that most adult heterosexual men don't behave like fratboys, either.

Orlanth wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:
Dangerous is a strong term, but I generally get what you're saying.

Yes it is a bit strong, but I am concerned with two problems, firstly may this set a precedent for this type of celeb character assassination video to become more widely used in future.

Perhaps it will, but I am not convinced that any harm was actually done. Maybe McCance will try to sue for libel or some such randomness, but I very much doubt that.

You are thinking past the point of this PSA in my opinion. Not that some of your argument isn't applicable, but it really comes down to a PSA hitting very hard.

This is true, however while it might look like George Takei is having an add on joke to some, its direct information to others. It was worded as if it was a fact. A nice prefix showing the comment is humourious would have helped, if indeed this was the case.

How would that be accomplished? Further, how would that help given that the tone of the PSA was humorous, and serious at the same time.

Takei basically socked him in the nose. Right in the nose. Dangerous in the sense that Takei could have permanently broken McCance's metaphorical nose. I'm not entirely sure I care all that much what happens to McCance, and that is not to suggest that I want to see him literally harmed. Blocking him from holding any form of public office is kind of expected on Takei's part, as a spokesperson for the LGBT community.

This is the second reason I find it dangerous. You dont like McCance and so he 'has it coming'. That only sounds fair, it would be like saying, this guy is a burglaring scumbag so lets get him on a rape charge. Get the people on the charge they are guilty for, not whatever you can pin on them just because you dont like them.
The same should apply for high profile commentaries like tihs one.

I simply don't agree. He took a well known meme and brought it into the humorous tone of the PSA. Takei and the PSA team did a pretty good job of doing exactly what you're asking of them, besides the point where they are limited by what you consider immoral and wrong. McCance wasn't charged with anything of substance, and this issue has nothing to do with rape, metaphorical or otherwise.

Are you suggesting that PSA's should be regulated intensely? What would that actually look like? It seems that you have set contextual guidelines that are specifically targeting this one instance. How would that damage the potential for a message to be clearly sent in the future?

It seems that Takei was reinforcing his opinion of McCance on McCances own terms. Why should Takei be held responsible for his suggestions if McCance is not held responsible for his statements? And as a public official no less.

I won't remember McCance's name two weeks from now. He will disappear from the mainstream public's view very quickly.

You might not, I might not, but those living near him will. Infamy lasts longer than 15 minutes. All the accusations Takei made on that video may stick for life, those that are true and those that may well not be.

So McCance can try to sue for libel. Go for it McCance! I support you in your endeavor.

IMO, Takei represents positive representation for the LGBT community. McCance attacked many people with his words, but Takei simply attacked McCance specifically through his statements.

Again I have to disagree with this. I dont think the ends do not justify the means. Especially when you see the volume of damage done. McCance trolled on the internetz, there is a good chance he doesnt really mean what he says, though his words are taken very literally now. The responce is full frontal and IMHO disproportional. Demands of public apology are ok, calls of outrage ok, unsubstantiated secondary accusations, not ok.
I see worse comments below YouTube videos daily, let alone on Facebook.

What volume of damage? How is that you are identifying such damage before anyone else has seen any occur?

Maybe McCance didn't mean exactly what he said, and on those terms Takei shouldn't be held responsible either.

Also, I do not hold public officials to the same standards as Youtube flamers. Seriously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Surely you can see that someone could be offended by your statements concerning "flaws".

Well, so what? Beliefs and opinions and interests are divergent between individuals and groups. Free expression, given human nature, entails offense and hurt feelings. GG is not advocating that homosexuals be persecuted in any way (that I am aware of), merely that he finds homosexual acts and exaggerated gay sexuality to be morally and personally offensive. As a Christian, I'm sure that he finds liars to be morally and personally offensive as well but I don't see him calling for a law to ban all lying.

And I can respect that as it appears to be the case, but as GG is offended and uncomfortable around homosexuality (as stated by him), I can only say that it isn't irrational to expect something along those lines in return.

If GG wants to call homosexuals immoral, I can't stop him, but I can strongly disagree with the premise.

Beyond that, I'm not entirely sure why you think that homosexuals are naturally more expressive of their sexuality than heterosexuals.

For all the reasons you already know, heterosexuality is much easier to incorporate into someone's identity both privately and publicly than homosexuality. Homosexuals are often forced to make choices between expressing their sexuality and maintaining relationships with their friends and family members. Many gay people have dealt with these tensions by acting flamboyantly--i.e., refusing to be stifled by being overwhelming. For a lot of complicated reasons that I don't entirely understand, this reaction has been coopted into homosexual political contexts and has become a self-reinforcing stereotype. Surely this isn't new information?

How many have done so? Again, most gay people that I know are anything but flamboyant.

Also, can you show me exactly what you are talking about concerning the last bit? Does Barney Frank run around screaming about being gay now? Did I misinterpret the part where he wasn't doing so? Beyond the abstract, I'd actually like to be informed as to what you're discussing here. Barney Frank was just a random example, to be entirely clear.

Maybe I get what you're saying, but I'm really not sure.

In my experience most gay folks are really quite reserved in expressing their sexuality, for fear that they will make others around them uncomfortable.

I agree with one caveat: AS SECURE ADULTS, most gay people are reserved about their sexuality. Perhaps unfortunately, many heterosexual people only encounter openly gay people while they are still developing a sense of what being gay means in terms of their identity and place in their families and groups of friends (much less career). It's just important to keep in mind that most adult heterosexual men don't behave like fratboys, either.

Young homosexual people are inherently more flamboyant than young heterosexual people?

Anyway, I am quite sure that most secure adults are reserved about their sexuality for nothing more than the culture we live in. And for that exact reason youth is generally less reserved about their sexuality. I have not witnessed anything to suggest that heterosexual teenagers are quieter with their sexuality, and overall I would say that the opposite is usually true.

Something about mini-skirts versus jeans.

What I'm saying is that heterosexual people very rarely have to choose between their family and friends on one hand and openly expressing their sexuality on the other hand. When you do have to make that choice, when you are forced to give up all of the social connections that have informed your identity up to that point, one response is to be totally flamboyant and to make that aspect of your life central. (It's logical in a way, since the sexuality is the thing that displaced other sources of identity.) This is the archetypal story that has been held up as iconic by the gay community as a sort of model. With growing acceptance of homosexuality, it has probably lost some of its relevance--similarly to how the rebelliousness of the 1960s is pretty well meaningless today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some of these videos are really touching:

Manchu wrote:What I'm saying is that heterosexual people very rarely have to choose between their family and friends on one hand and openly expressing their sexuality on the other hand. When you do have to make that choice, when you are forced to give up all of the social connections that have informed your identity up to that point, one response is to be totally flamboyant and to make that aspect of your life central. (It's logical in a way, since the sexuality is the thing that displaced other sources of identity.) This is the archetypal story that has been held up as iconic by the gay community as a sort of model.

Maybe this is true? As far as I understand it the gay community hasn't really had many strong voices until quite recently. There have been several for quite a long time, I'm sure, but in terms of the gay community as a whole? I'm really not convinced about that. Much of the gay community, and in my opinion the largest part of the gay community, is not and weren't living such lifestyles and/or professing such concepts.

Most gay spokespeople, and by that I mean leaders of sorts, are very formal nowadays. Off the top of my head: Rachel Maddow, Barney Frank, Ellen Degeneres, and so on.

With growing acceptance of homosexuality, it has probably lost some of its relevance--similarly to how the rebelliousness of the 1960s is pretty well meaningless today.

You probably have a point here, but I am not sure how representative that rebelliousness ever was. In the case of the hippie movement, we are talking about something that really did sweep the country, but mainly presented itself on the coasts. In the case of the LGBT community throughout the 70's and 80's the movement appears to be much more concentrated, and that is probably a result of how small the actual demographic is. Maybe that suggests no more than the LGBT community being a clear minority as compared to youth in the 60's overall (and one can make arguments that they weren't really representative either), but there are different forces at work here, and the contexts can be considered very distinct.

That was a great clip, as well.

Iconic and relevant aren't the same things as representative. People who care much more than me can obviously do a better job explaining these things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_icon

Back to the context of this conversation.

GG wrote:For me personally I am uncomfortable around gay people. Why is this? Because of the way they flaunt it and rub it in my nose.

For me personally I am not uncomfortable around gay people. Why is this? Because I do not consider those that try to make me uncomfortable (people from all walks of life do that) to be representative of the community as a whole.