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.

 d-usa wrote:
Are you guys just as sick of hearing about any other aspect of their private lives?

YES!

I don't care about the lives or thoughts of pop stars. I want to hear you sing (or not) I don't care about what slackjawed hollywood stars think. I want to see you act (or not).
I don't care about sports stars. Most of them you wouldn't let into your house. Wasn't the entire front line of the Oakland Raiders only let out to play on weekend work release from their various cirminal sentences...

Do your job, and shut the feth up.
And stay off my lawn.

 Frazzled wrote:

If you are sick of hearing about it because you don't like that gay people aren't shamed into silence anymore, that's still intolerant.

Thats a feigned attack. There are many who are ok with it, but don't want the PDA drama from anyone.

How is a person saying "I'm gay" either PDA or drama?

 Polonius wrote:
You can, although part of my wonders why you are sick of hearing about it? It's a pretty tiny piece of information. IF you are truly a sort of pop culture vacuum, and dislike any news about the personal lives of others, then that's weird but consistent.

See, I think it's weird that you'd be interested in the personal lives of celebrities. I always thought that sort of thing was the wheelhouse of teenage girls. Who else cares? I'm barely interested in the personal lives of coworkers, much less people on the talkybox.

 Polonius wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

If you are sick of hearing about it because you don't like that gay people aren't shamed into silence anymore, that's still intolerant.

Thats a feigned attack. There are many who are ok with it, but don't want the PDA drama from anyone.

How is a person saying "I'm gay" either PDA or drama?

You sidestepped your point. You're attacking people who are not pbiased. just don't care.

But to answer your question, its the same group of people. There is a large portion of the populace don't aren't keen on seeing PDAs or of people airing their own laundry.
"I'm gay." Blah blah whatever. My first thought is not how epic this is, but what sponsorships or publicity is he trying to get?
In the words of the immortal bard: "Get a room."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
You can, although part of my wonders why you are sick of hearing about it? It's a pretty tiny piece of information. IF you are truly a sort of pop culture vacuum, and dislike any news about the personal lives of others, then that's weird but consistent.

See, I think it's weird that you'd be interested in the personal lives of celebrities. I always thought that sort of thing was the wheelhouse of teenage girls. Who else cares? I'm barely interested in the personal lives of coworkers, much less people on the talkybox.

Exactly. On the positive Genghis Connie is utterly uninterested in this nonsense. Now the last manga development, thats serious!

See, I don't think that he is trying to get any kind of endorsement or anything like that. Sure, there will probably be some benefit that will most likely only end up cancelling out the backlash he will receive when One Million Moms ends up boycotting whatever company has anything to do with whatever team he ends up with.

But he probably just wants an even playing field and wants to make sure that the next guy that wins some kind of award in the NFL can say "I want to thank my husband" in the same way that guys right now can say "I want to thank my wife" or to make sure that guys can show up to a charity thing with their partner no matter what their gender may be.

There is a ton of tiny everyday stuff that straight athletes take for granted that would negatively affect a gay athlete. Want to go out on a simple date? Now you have a lot of stuff to worry about if you are gay and not straight. Local gossip rag sees you out on a date? Not a problem for a straight athlete, just another notch on his belt. Gay athlete? If you are not out then you have to work overtime to keep your private life a secret. Because now the networks are trying to beat each other to the punch to report your gayness. Straight people will attack you for being gay, gay people will attack you for being ashamed of being gay. It's a loss-loss.

Making a public announcement of being gay is not about shoving it down your throat. It's about gaining and keeping control of an aspect in their life that they would have to work very hard to keep a secret.

I imagine that a lot of gay athletes are just as tired of people trying to find out who they are dating and fething as you are about them "shoving their gay down your throat".

 Frazzled wrote:


You sidestepped your point. You're attacking people who are not pbiased. just don't care.

Easy chief. I said "]If you are sick of hearing about it because you don't like that gay people aren't shamed into silence anymore, that's still intolerant" I"m attacking people that are are biased. If you feel like I'm attacking you, maybe it's because the first part applies. But if you really don't want to see gays shamed into silence, then why do you care if I find the act intolerant?

I know that every thinks that liberals are stupid, and maybe we are. But we're smart enough to know that often the people that protest the loudest about appearing intolerant are not simply the victims of poor perspective. They are actually intolerant. Part of that is common sense, part of that is looking at the history, and part of that is an understanding that tolerance for others is more involved then saying "I'm gonna stop beating you up."

I consider it a good thing that people can be open with their sexual orientation. So, having the first potentially open NFL player is news.

But to answer your question, its the same group of people. There is a large portion of the populace don't aren't keen on seeing PDAs or of people airing their own laundry.
"I'm gay." Blah blah whatever. My first thought is not how epic this is, but what sponsorships or publicity is he trying to get?
In the words of the immortal bard: "Get a room."

Again, get a room to do what? You keep acting like you're being forced to watch something horrific, when it was an interview in which a player said he was gay.

See, I think it's weird that you'd be interested in the personal lives of celebrities. I always thought that sort of thing was the wheelhouse of teenage girls. Who else cares? I'm barely interested in the personal lives of coworkers, much less people on the talkybox.

True, but do you pop into threads discussing all of those other celebrities announcing how sick you are of hearing about it?

Even if you are equally sick of them all, if its gay news that makes you actually protest, can you see how that looks intolerant?

 Polonius wrote:
True, but do you pop into threads discussing all of those other celebrities announcing how sick you are of hearing about it?

Even if you are equally sick of them all, if its gay news that makes you actually protest, can you see how that looks intolerant?

No. Most other "entertainment journalism" isn't hailed as politically or culturally important, and thus doesn't generate that intersection of Us Weekly and Politico interest. If you start trying to tell me that Justin Bieber's arrest record is culturally significant, I'm obliged to tell you that you're wrong and you shouldn't care about it, just as a decent neighbor. Same thing here.

 Seaward wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
True, but do you pop into threads discussing all of those other celebrities announcing how sick you are of hearing about it?

Even if you are equally sick of them all, if its gay news that makes you actually protest, can you see how that looks intolerant?

No. Most other "entertainment journalism" isn't hailed as politically or culturally important, and thus doesn't generate that intersection of Us Weekly and Politico interest. If you start trying to tell me that Justin Bieber's arrest record is culturally significant, I'm obliged to tell you that you're wrong and you shouldn't care about it, just as a decent neighbor. Same thing here.

So, you are offended that people are finding this culturally significant? That's the problem, not just that it's pop culture news?

I think you're either a man on island, or have some problem with gay acceptance. Because a gay man being accepted into NFL culture is culturally significant. It's not a huge deal, but I'm a pretty serious NFL fan and I find it interesting.

 Seaward wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
True, but do you pop into threads discussing all of those other celebrities announcing how sick you are of hearing about it?

Even if you are equally sick of them all, if its gay news that makes you actually protest, can you see how that looks intolerant?

No. Most other "entertainment journalism" isn't hailed as politically or culturally important, and thus doesn't generate that intersection of Us Weekly and Politico interest. If you start trying to tell me that Justin Bieber's arrest record is culturally significant, I'm obliged to tell you that you're wrong and you shouldn't care about it, just as a decent neighbor. Same thing here.

Agreed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If you feel like I'm attacking you, maybe it's because the first part applies. But if you really don't want to see gays shamed into silence, then why do you care if I find the act intolerant?

You've lost me on that. Er...what?

And no I don't only comment on gay persons coming out. Thats an assumption on your part.
I just don't think its a big deal any more. To flip your argument, it may some of us have moved on into the "and?" crowd. Its like someone coming out because they have brown hair. And?

 Polonius wrote:
So, you are offended that people are finding this culturally significant? That's the problem, not just that it's pop culture news?

Not offended, no. Merely annoyed. About as annoyed as I usually am when people discuss celebrity personal news as though it has some sort of significance. You asked why I commented on this celebrity personal news story and not others, though.

I think you're either a man on island, or have some problem with gay acceptance.

Thanks for the theories.

Because a gay man being accepted into NFL culture is culturally significant. It's not a huge deal, but I'm a pretty serious NFL fan and I find it interesting.

I'm not sure how it can be both culturally significant and not a huge deal, for one. For another, I disagree. I don't think the internal culture of the NFL has much bearing at all on anything other than the internal culture of the NFL, and I very heavily doubt one dude who hasn't even been drafted yet is the new Jackie Robinson.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I just don't think its a big deal any more. To flip your argument, it may some of us have moved on into the "and?" crowd. Its like someone coming out because they have brown hair. And?

I think you're hitting on something important here. The more people go, "And?" the less the issue can be used. I think some people are downright terrified of the slow onslaught of indifferent acceptance, because their relevance as social warriors starts to diminish when it just isn't a hot button issue anymore.

 Seaward wrote:

Because a gay man being accepted into NFL culture is culturally significant. It's not a huge deal, but I'm a pretty serious NFL fan and I find it interesting.

I'm not sure how it can be both culturally significant and not a huge deal, for one. For another, I disagree. I don't think the internal culture of the NFL has much bearing at all on anything other than the internal culture of the NFL, and I very heavily doubt one dude who hasn't even been drafted yet is the new Jackie Robinson.

Then the rest of the world needs to catch up already...

 whembly wrote:
This is my college team...

We've heard whispers of this two years ago.

Awesome player... he was statistically quiet for the last few games because he was double/tripled teamed.

He's going to be good in the NFL.

Ohhh MYYYY

 Polonius wrote:
The NFL is a huge part of our national culture. More people celebrate Super Bowl Sunday then celebrate St. Patrick's day. So what goes on in it, like or not, a factor in national conversations. More specifically, NFL culture filters down to college and prep football culture. Acceptance of a gay player at the NFL level is going to be a good role model for teams and players going forward at all levels.

I think there's room between "not worth discussing" and "the next Jackie Robinson." Plenty of culturally significant things aren't huge deals. Remember the half conversation we had about date rape when Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines" was huge? No? yeah, that was culturally significant, but not a huge deal.

I don't remember that, no, because, as may surprise you, I didn't give anyone moaning about that song a lot of credence as someone worth listening to.

I've played sports, and I have gay friends. I've seen how there was tension between "sports culture" and gay acceptance. To me, personally, it's significant.

I've played spots, and I can trump gay friends with gay family members, some of whom recently got married. I find it utterly insignificant. Do I win?

I view it a lot like the repeal of DADT. It's not the herald of some cultural shift. Nobody's opinion changed.

 Frazzled wrote:
Then the rest of the world needs to catch up already...

As an young urban professional in a neighborhood with both a hair salon for men and all male, all nude hot yoga, I say that a lot.

Look, I don't give a crap about this guys sexuality as a person. He's a player I'd never heard of, and unless he's drafted by the Browns or a division rival, I doubt I'll follow his career.

But the thing with with hype is that it's self fulfilling. When people make a big deal about something, you can't say it's not a big deal. People clearly care about this. My biggest hope is that he gets drafted normally, and there's never any further mention of his sexuality. That would be awesome.

I had a married friend recently come out publicly as bisexual. Even I kind of wondered why, as that's not something he's going to be pursuing. (or if he does, it would be quite private). He said he came out for two reasons: 1) he felt that he was living a lie publicly, and 2) he didn't want his son to ever hide who he was.

LGBT people have to come out. They don't all look a certain way, but for a lot of people, its hard to hide it. So they come out. Public figures tend to come out publicly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
The NFL is a huge part of our national culture. More people celebrate Super Bowl Sunday then celebrate St. Patrick's day. So what goes on in it, like or not, a factor in national conversations. More specifically, NFL culture filters down to college and prep football culture. Acceptance of a gay player at the NFL level is going to be a good role model for teams and players going forward at all levels.

I think there's room between "not worth discussing" and "the next Jackie Robinson." Plenty of culturally significant things aren't huge deals. Remember the half conversation we had about date rape when Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines" was huge? No? yeah, that was culturally significant, but not a huge deal.

I don't remember that, no, because, as may surprise you, I didn't give anyone moaning about that song a lot of credence as someone worth listening to.

Lol, yeah, I felt the same way. But I think it was significant because we found out exactly where even the left stopped caring about rape culture: when its in a really good song. I know I don't care what the song is about, its a good jam.

So it was a very minor deal. But I think its a data point in our complicated national conversation about sexual assault. A very minor one, but significance is not nonvenomous with "big deal."

I've played spots, and I can trump gay friends with gay family members, some of whom recently got married. I find it utterly insignificant. Do I win?

I don't know if you win, but I'm certainly confused by your complete lack of interest.

I view it a lot like the repeal of DADT. It's not the herald of some cultural shift. Nobody's opinion changed.

DADT was a legal shift, and as long as service members were being booted under it, it was a meaningful one.

But it was. Military culture had simply stopped caring about orientation. Long wars and constant deployments tend to make competence and reliability a lot more important than anything else. So, from one perspective, changing the law to match the reality didn't show a change in military culture.

But, it did show a change in mass culture, as even 20 years ago popular sentiment was very different.

Who's Robin Thicke?

 Polonius wrote:
Saying that a person can be gay, but only if they do it privately, is still discriminatory. Why shouldn't a gay person be able to openly life his life as he wants?

You can say its not a big deal for an NFL prospect to come out publicly, but it would be a big deal if he was outed by somebody else.

People keep saying it's not like being black, which is true, but lets not pretend our country is 100% okay with homosexuality.

People in this country will never be 100% ok with gay people. You can't make someone be ok with such a topic. You have to accept it yourself. Being gay is not the same as being black. I'll explain. Being homosexual is actually a biological mistake. It's not normal. It sounds bad but our bodies are designed to have a male of the species reproduce with a female of our species. If for some reason there is no inclination in ones bodily to want to reproduce with a member of the opposit sex, there is something wrong with you. Not necessarily bad, but the fact is that you're going against what Mother Nature intended.

That being said, some people will never accept that, it will be unnatural to them and disgust them. That's normal behavior.

It's normal to have people of different color and races and ethnicity. It's technically not normal to hate someone for the color of their skin. It's a learned behavior to hate. But what a lot of people feel when approached on the subject of homosexuality is disgust because it's unnatural to the way our bodies are supposed to work.

Would you not feel disgust when you meet a mother and her son who are lovers? Should I call you a bigot because you do not agree with their behavior?
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a woman who admits to sexual intercourse and oral compilation with a dog? Are you a bigot for not accepting that behavior? Both of which are unnatural to us as humans.

 Frazzled wrote:
Who's Robin Thicke?

an example that shows that culture is more segmented then it was in the days of your (and even my) youth.

 Polonius wrote:
Lol, yeah, I felt the same way. But I think it was significant because we found out exactly where even the left stopped caring about rape culture: when its in a really good song. I know I don't care what the song is about, its a good jam.

Well, it's good to see the left finally stop caring about one myth, I guess.

I don't know if you win, but I'm certainly confused by your complete lack of interest.

Why?

DADT was a legal shift, and as long as service members were being booted under it, it was a meaningful one.

I'm not sure I agree. An awful lot of those DADT discharges were easy outs.

But it was. Military culture had simply stopped caring about orientation. Long wars and constant deployments tend to make competence and reliability a lot more important than anything else. So, from one perspective, changing the law to match the reality didn't show a change in military culture.

I'd be careful there. It depends entirely on the community. "I'm a Tomcat guy, and you're a homo," was a semi-popular t-shirt slogan in ready rooms when the F-14's life cycle was spinning down in the mid-2000s. The guys behind that, and the "Hornet Eye For The Tomcat Guy" Fighter Fling stuff? I doubt their opinions have changed. Which is sort of my point.

Johnnytorrance wrote:


People in this country will never be 100% ok with gay people. You can't make someone be ok with such a topic. You have to accept it yourself. Being gay is not the same as being black. I'll explain. Being homosexual is actually a biological mistake. It's not normal. It sounds bad but our bodies are designed to have a male of the species reproduce with a female of our species. If for some reason there is no inclination in ones bodily to want to reproduce with a member of the opposit sex, there is something wrong with you. Not necessarily bad, but the fact is that you're going against what Mother Nature intended.

That being said, some people will never accept that, it will be unnatural to them and disgust them. That's normal behavior.

It's normal to have people of different color and races and ethnicity. It's technically not normal to hate someone for the color of their skin. It's a learned behavior to hate. But what a lot of people feel when approached on the subject of homosexuality is disgust because it's unnatural to the way our bodies are supposed to work.

I"m not sure how much that I agree with, especialy with all of the "unnatural" things we do with our bodies. Sitting all day is not at all what our bodies are meant for. I'm not sure how many people are disgusted by plastic surgery. Or Body Building.

Honestly, the idea of monogamy is not the intent of nature.

I think this has way more to do with culture then it does with things being "unnatural."

Would you not feel disgust when you meet a mother and her son who are lovers? Should I call you a bigot because you do not agree with their behavior?

Yeah, at first, because that's a cultural taboo that I've never encountered. Incest has problems that homosexuality doesn't, notably in the areas of inbreeding and consent. But if the relationship started when both were adults, and they weren't reproducing, I guess I'd say go for it.

Would you not feel disgust when you meet a woman who admits to sexual intercourse and oral compilation with a dog? Are you a bigot for not accepting that behavior? Both of which are unnatural to us as humans.

There are huge problems with consent when it comes to animals.

This is the classic slippery slope argument that is pretty hackneyed by now, of course.

How quickly we forgot that it is often by the deeds of great men that people are freed, how often it takes a man willing to stand up and push the point of equality for it to happen.

For Civil Rights people like Jesse Owens, Jackie Robinson, all set the standard that you didn't have to be a young white man to succeed in sports, that you can be born different to others and succeed.

So stop rolling around crying because the people who are mistreated simply because of the way they are born use there accomplishments and status to help advocate equality.

"It is the responsibility of the great man, of the rich, of the powerful, of the one who stands above and before others to advocate for those under and behind them'" -Lydon B Johnson.

"Justice delayed is justice denied, and Injustice anywere is injustice everywere" -Martin Luther King Jr.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I know people will come rushing out of the woodwork to shout about how "It's different! Black rights are different than gay rights!"

The discussion is not about gay right, black rights, asian rights. Its about HUMAN rights.

Everyone should be equal, regardless of age, sexuality, gender, race.

I find far to often the same people who cry "My rights end were your feelings begin!" are also very quick to shout "Your rights end were my HATREDS and BIGOTRY begins!"

So cut the crap of how you want the media and people to stop being so active about human rights. You all would be just as much up in arms if YOUR right to marry was denied, if YOUR right to adopt was denied, if YOUR right to fair treatment was denied. Why the feth do you think more Republicans are coming out in support of gays rights? Because people's sons and daughters are coming out now that it is accepted, people are realizing that Joe Bob and his "Best friends" who lived together for 30 years are gay.

The more people who come out, who take a stand against hatred and inequality the better, I bet quite a few of the people are this mans university dislike gay people and now that hes come out I bet quite a few are reviewing the way they look at gay people.

 Polonius wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:


People in this country will never be 100% ok with gay people. You can't make someone be ok with such a topic. You have to accept it yourself. Being gay is not the same as being black. I'll explain. Being homosexual is actually a biological mistake. It's not normal. It sounds bad but our bodies are designed to have a male of the species reproduce with a female of our species. If for some reason there is no inclination in ones bodily to want to reproduce with a member of the opposit sex, there is something wrong with you. Not necessarily bad, but the fact is that you're going against what Mother Nature intended.

That being said, some people will never accept that, it will be unnatural to them and disgust them. That's normal behavior.

It's normal to have people of different color and races and ethnicity. It's technically not normal to hate someone for the color of their skin. It's a learned behavior to hate. But what a lot of people feel when approached on the subject of homosexuality is disgust because it's unnatural to the way our bodies are supposed to work.

I"m not sure how much that I agree with, especialy with all of the "unnatural" things we do with our bodies. Sitting all day is not at all what our bodies are meant for. I'm not sure how many people are disgusted by plastic surgery. Or Body Building.

Honestly, the idea of monogamy is not the intent of nature.

I think this has way more to do with culture then it does with things being "unnatural."

Would you not feel disgust when you meet a mother and her son who are lovers? Should I call you a bigot because you do not agree with their behavior?

Yeah, at first, because that's a cultural taboo that I've never encountered. Incest has problems that homosexuality doesn't, notably in the areas of inbreeding and consent. But if the relationship started when both were adults, and they weren't reproducing, I guess I'd say go for it.

Would you not feel disgust when you meet a woman who admits to sexual intercourse and oral compilation with a dog? Are you a bigot for not accepting that behavior? Both of which are unnatural to us as humans.

There are huge problems with consent when it comes to animals.

This is the classic slippery slope argument that is pretty hackneyed by now, of course.

You're problem with beastiality is the issue of the animal being forced into something? But you're ok with telling everyone they need to accept homosexuality as normal. By the way, monogamy and reproducing are not the same thing. You're examples are weak. Can human beings sit? Yes they can, so sitting is normal. Do humans get stronger? Yes they do and it's normal. I wouldn't call someone a bigot if he disagrees with a nose piercing.
Which is where the argument lies. If I find homosexual relationships abhorrent, I'm being considered a bigot. You cannot argue the fact here. Homosexuality goes against nature. Two men cannot reproduce. Our bodies are designed to find others of the opposite sex attractive for the purpose of procreation. If I have a penis, and you have a vagina I'm going to like you. We don't think in that way anymore but there used to be a drive to reproduce, spread our seed and we accepted it. In some primitive cultures it's still there. Certain traits are more appealing and more desirable to reproduce with.

Deep down inside, we have a genetic code that tells us to reproduce. When the wiring is jacked up, and we want sexual gratification with a member of the opposite sex, it is inherently unnatural. You can't argue that man. You can try to dance around it but you're only going to make yourself sound stupid. Homosexuality is unnatural.

It's ok to be disgusted by it. A person is ok to feel disgust by that. Where there should be an issue is if you discriminate for it. Deny a job, etc.

You cannot make someone accept it. You can't.

And there goes the thread...

Well, I never thought I would see someone compare homosexuality to wearing a nose ring.

Quick question, if you ended up having a homosexual dog or cat as a pet, would you hate it because "its unnatural"?

 Alexzandvar wrote:
How quickly we forgot that it is often by the deeds of great men that people are freed, how often it takes a man willing to stand up and push the point of equality for it to happen.

For Civil Rights people like Jesse Owens, Jackie Robinson, all set the standard that you didn't have to be a young white man to succeed in sports, that you can be born different to others and succeed.

So stop rolling around crying because the people who are mistreated simply because of the way they are born use there accomplishments and status to help advocate equality.

"It is the responsibility of the great man, of the rich, of the powerful, of the one who stands above and before others to advocate for those under and behind them'" -Lydon B Johnson.

"Justice delayed is justice denied, and Injustice anywere is injustice everywere" -Martin Luther King Jr.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I know people will come rushing out of the woodwork to shout about how "It's different! Black rights are different than gay rights!"

The discussion is not about gay right, black rights, asian rights. Its about HUMAN rights.

Everyone should be equal, regardless of age, sexuality, gender, race.

I find far to often the same people who cry "My rights end were your feelings begin!" are also very quick to shout "Your rights end were my HATREDS and BIGOTRY begins!"

So cut the crap of how you want the media and people to stop being so active about human rights. You all would be just as much up in arms if YOUR right to marry was denied, if YOUR right to adopt was denied, if YOUR right to fair treatment was denied. Why the feth do you think more Republicans are coming out in support of gays rights? Because people's sons and daughters are coming out now that it is accepted, people are realizing that Joe Bob and his "Best friends" who lived together for 30 years are gay.

The more people who come out, who take a stand against hatred and inequality the better, I bet quite a few of the people are this mans university dislike gay people and now that hes come out I bet quite a few are reviewing the way they look at gay people.

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

Yes my disgust at the way people ignore the plight of gay rights advocates is just the same as a spoiled teenager pissed because her dad got her a ford instead of a BMW

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Yes my disgust at the way people ignore the plight of gay rights advocates is just the same as a spoiled teenager pissed because her dad got her a ford instead of a BMW

You sure sound like it.

Johnnytorrance wrote:


People in this country will never be 100% ok with gay people.
You can't make someone be ok with such a topic

Of course you can. People can change their opinions, willingly or involuntarily, through all manner of means.

. You have to accept it yourself. Being gay is not the same as being black. I'll explain. Being homosexual is actually a biological mistake.

No it isn't. A mistake infers there being a correct state to be. There isn't one.

There's a default state -- ie most people are heterosexually inclined -- but that's quite different from being the "correct" state.

It's not normal.

yes it is, happens in a vast array of species -- especially amongst Giraffes or somesuch IIRC.

I assume you mean that the modal sexual orientation is heterosexual possibly ?

It sounds bad but our bodies are designed to have a male of the species reproduce with a female of our species.

A lot of people don't think they're designed at all.

If for some reason there is no inclination in ones bodily to want to reproduce with a member of the opposit sex, there is something wrong with you. Not necessarily bad,

..see..? There's that choice of words again.

but the fact is that you're going against what Mother Nature intended.

..oh, you're being serious ?

That's not the way genetics/evolution works at all -- XX % of any species won't be blonde/tall/right handed or perhaps even have any interest in mating with members of the opposite sex.

That's the thing about nature, it's remarkably complex and pretty much tries to cover as many bases as possible " just in case" or through the sad mathematics of probability.

That being said, some people will never accept that, it will be unnatural to them and disgust them. That's normal behavior.

I agree that there's always likely to be some against gay rights.

Or inter racial marriage.

Or women voting.

Or vaccinations.


Thing is "normal behaviour" -- at least in our society -- is actually to have the intellect control and ( to an extent) repress or ignore "gut instinct" or our desires.

That's why for example you generally can't just kill someone who upsets you.

Or why people will risk their lives for people they don't know.

Or do any of the other myriad things we do daily to function in our society.

It's normal to have people of different color and races and ethnicity.

..hmm... I'd have to check the dates -- and frankly I can't be arsed -- but I think for the vast % of human beings existence we were much closer to being one homogenised/undivided mass of people rather than the array we have today.

It's technically not normal to hate someone for the color of their skin. It's a learned behavior to hate.

Largely agreed.

One would suggest there'll always be a slight "fear" of the different, but I think the expressions we are referring to here can be classified as learnt.

But what a lot of people feel when approached on the subject of homosexuality is disgust because it's unnatural to the way our bodies are supposed to work.

As attitudes have and are changing drastically almost a'fore our very eyes this would not appear to be the case.

And most people don't think it's unnatural either.

Would you not feel disgust when you meet a mother and her son who are lovers?

Without the labels how would one know ?

Should I call you a bigot because you do not agree with their behavior?
Would you not feel disgust when you meet a woman who admits to sexual intercourse and oral compilation with a dog? Are you a bigot for not accepting that behavior? Both of which are unnatural to us as humans.

I must confess to some confusion as to what "oral compilation with a dog" or whatever involves and as I'm at work I'm not even going to try and google that

One would suggest that whilst indeed most people would indeed be against such behaviour that there is a difference between species and the way we interact with them. And this isn't limited just to sexual matters

http://www.yourjewishnews.com/2014/02/n31373.html

A restaurant was shut down after health authorities discovered that it was selling human meat, police in Nigeria said.

Anambra Police said that a restaurant has been closed after the authorities found that it has been selling dishes made with human flesh.

Police recovered at least two fresh human heads when they arrested 11 people at the restaurant, including the owner, six women and four men. Police said that they have received a tip about the restaurant.

Bloodied heads wrapped in cellophane sheets were found during the raid.

Officials have also seized two AK-47 guns, other weapons, dozens of rounds of ammunition and several mobile phones.

Local residents said that they were not surprised by the news. “We always saw weird people coming and going,” locals said.

A pastor, who was surprised to learn that he had been served human flesh, complained to the police.

“I ate at the restaurant and the bill was very high. The workers told me that I ate human flesh. I was shocked,” the pastor said.

Police said that roasted human head was on the menu at the restaurant.

I think most people would view cannibalism as being "wrong", just as we would don't generally spay children when we first take them home with us, throw sticks for family members to fetch -- young children aside perhaps -- or think it hilarious if a grown adult purrs and keeps trying to climb onto your keyboard preventing you from typing.

Nor do we hold animals to the same legal standards either. These days anyway. I can't see even Texas electrocuting an elephant or somesuch regardless of what its done.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Alexzandvar wrote:
Yes my disgust at the way people ignore the plight of gay rights advocates is just the same as a spoiled teenager pissed because her dad got her a ford instead of a BMW

You sure sound like it.

Because a post that quote 2 people and has more words in it than a tweet is whining while your posts that amount to "I hate people get off my lawn" are so much more mature.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This is my college team...

We've heard whispers of this two years ago.

Awesome player... he was statistically quiet for the last few games because he was double/tripled teamed.

He's going to be good in the NFL.

Ohhh MYYYY

Walked into that one, huh...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Who's Robin Thicke?

Twerking Mily's counterpart.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
And there goes the thread...

Really...

WTF?