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.

 Frazzled wrote:

Thug athletes six months out of their next arrest photos no matter. You wouldn't invite them to your barbeque unless it was a sting operation to serve outstanding warrants.

So, is Sam a thug because he's an athlete, or because he's black?

Johnnytorrance wrote:
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.

If your first consideration when looking at another person is whether or not you can reproduce, then you are strange.

So, is Sam a thug because he's an athlete, or because he's black?

Athlete of course. Please don't inject race into this discussion.
Is he even black?

 Frazzled wrote:

So, is Sam a thug because he's an athlete, or because he's black?

Athlete of course. Please don't inject race into this discussion.
Is he even black?

 Frazzled wrote:

Athlete of course. Please don't inject race into this discussion.

It was a Richard Sherman joke.

 Frazzled wrote:

Is he even black?

Yes, though your question nicely illustrates why you should not only stay out of this thread, but why you probably only involved yourself in it because you read the word "gay" and took offense.

 Frazzled wrote:

So, is Sam a thug because he's an athlete, or because he's black?

Athlete of course. Please don't inject race into this discussion.
Is he even black?

Doesn't make your statement any better, your are condemning a very very large group of people based on the actions of a minority.

Please think before painting groups of people with a wide brush. There's a reason MLK marched with Union workers, with gay people, with all those who were oppressed, was because he understood that the fight against inequality is not just about fighting for "Better rights for you" Its about fighting for equal rights for all

Johnnytorrance wrote:

 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.

Wait, homosexuality is unnatural.. then, please by all means tell me what it is, cause there's plenty of homosexual animals.

Also:
Nature.
The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Homosexuality isn't exclusively human nor was it created by humans. Pretty sure that means it's all right with nature.

Now to be a bigot myself, I find homophobes disgusting.

As Soladrin says, everything that occurs on Earth is the product of natural processes and therefore is a part of nature. Termites build (relatively) massive buildings, ants farm lesser creatures as livestock, and some penguins are gay. Everything humanity does, there is a precedent for, in the natural world.

 paulson games wrote:
Don't really give a crap what type of hole people like to put it in, that's their business but I've very tired that people feel the need to parade their choice as though it were a confrontational exchange. If you're gay great, why the need to shout it from every mountain top and public platform? You typically don't see straight people making a big deal about their sexual preferences, you don't tend to see a straight football player going oh yeah I just won the superbowl I'm going to nail so much **** don't hate me just because I love women.

Erm, probably because people usually don't, in fact, hate straight guys for loving women. On the other hand, there are still national-level media commentators and politicians in many developed nations who will openly declare gay people to be anything from "icky" to "sinful" to "abominations in the eyes of God"; gay people are still regularly discriminated against, particularly in places which don't include gay people in their anti-discrimination employment laws; gay people are still the targets of individual abuse, verbal and physical.

This "ugh come on, like, just get over it already, I never make a bid deal out of the fact that I'm straight, guh" stuff might sound good in your head, but only if you deliberately and totally ignore the reality that being gay, no matter how much gay people might want it to be the case, is still NOT just as "normal" and unremarkable as being straight is because society as a whole hasn't reached that point yet.

On a secondary note why do people even care what athletes say or do in their personal lives? They are people who throw a ball for a living why does that make them a role model? Hard work and dedication is admirable but you can find that in nearly every profession and walk of life, most of it being done all for a tiny fraction of what star athletes make. Maybe people should teach their kids to admire actual role models for a change, soldiers who live and die for their country, good cops that serve their communities, teachers, ministers and community leaders that actually contribute something to the future generation beyond a happy memory about how well some dude hiked or caught a ball in a game.

So you don't see how a young gay guy, really into athletics, really talented at their particular favourite sport might look at the professional level of that sport and be put off when they see a culture that has a huge problem with their sexuality? You don't get how the story of a talented athlete who publicly came out and found their teammates to be open minded and supportive and that their sexuality wasn't actually an impediment to their career might reassure aforementioned young gay guy?


EDIT:

And PG, in this very thread is the perfect example of why being gay is still "a big deal", this massive steaming pile of abject nonsense:

Johnnytorrance wrote:

 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.

I can't actually address this quote properly without being banned, but I hope that by telling you that, you will be able to intuit exactly what I think of you and your "opinion" on this.

I'd save your fingers Yodhirn, the fact people can't see the clear link to how this is important in the same way Jackie Robinson was important to the black civil rights movement is silly.

Its always important when someone who has pull makes a stand for equality of course, but when they can claim the prestige of a person who is a excellent college athlete it puts things in perspective for people.

Perspective is everything, things are not as black and white as some would believe.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Athlete of course. Please don't inject race into this discussion.

It was a Richard Sherman joke.

 Frazzled wrote:

Is he even black?

Yes, though your question nicely illustrates why you should not only stay out of this thread, but why you probably only involved yourself in it because you read the word "gay" and took offense.

I haven't taken offense at anything-thats you not me. I'm just annoyed. Coming out is an issue for the 90s. It ceased to be a biggie years ago.

Black white anything but green I wouldn't have noticed because thats not at issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alexzandvar wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

So, is Sam a thug because he's an athlete, or because he's black?

Athlete of course. Please don't inject race into this discussion.
Is he even black?

Doesn't make your statement any better, your are condemning a very very large group of people based on the actions of a minority.

If you don't want to get fleas don't lay down with cats. Looking at the roster of charges against professional athletes, its clearly that viewing anything about them as something to emulate - if it ever existed-is long past.

 Soladrin wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:

 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.

Wait, homosexuality is unnatural.. then, please by all means tell me what it is, cause there's plenty of homosexual animals.

Also:
Nature.
The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Homosexuality isn't exclusively human nor was it created by humans. Pretty sure that means it's all right with nature.

Now to be a bigot myself, I find homophobes disgusting.

I'm not a bigot, I don't discriminate or hold anyone higher than others. I don't judge. You're losing your own argument.

It's a simple question, and you cannot answer it without feeling stupid. Can two make have sex and create a baby?

You try to come off as if you're intelligent, as if you're so enlightened. Do dogs have homosexual encounters? Yes, but two male dogs cannot reproduce. The instinct to have sex is what drives them.

People are different than animals, you know this, we have intellect, we know what we are doing. But whether you like it or not. Homosexuality is not Natural. It's not the intended way for two creatures to procreate.

Regardless of your beliefs, or non beliefs. Some people think that we all have a reason, a purpose on this earth. But when you look back at all of history. Every creature on earth. The number one uniting common thing between all creatures is procreation.

Money and sex are usually the biggest issues we as humans have. In general. But up until a hundred years ago, many people simply came together in a union to start a family. Ask and 9 out of 10 people will still tell you it's a top 5 goal. Start or take care of their family.

Homosexuality is such a particular dilemma. You can't just force someone to accept it. Some people will naturally find it disgusting. Not just for religious reasons, but because it's unnatural to them. People have to accept it on their own.

Frazz that doesn't make any sense, surely if you're annoyed by something you are offended by it? If you were totally neutral to the situation (IE you genuinely did not care) then you wouldn't be annoyed, nor would you have posted in this thread.

Johnnytorrance wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:

 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.

Wait, homosexuality is unnatural.. then, please by all means tell me what it is, cause there's plenty of homosexual animals.

Also:
Nature.
The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Homosexuality isn't exclusively human nor was it created by humans. Pretty sure that means it's all right with nature.

Now to be a bigot myself, I find homophobes disgusting.

I'm not a bigot, I don't discriminate or hold anyone higher than others. I don't judge. You're losing your own argument.

It's a simple question, and you cannot answer it without feeling stupid. Can two make have sex and create a baby?

You try to come off as if you're intelligent, as if you're so enlightened. Do dogs have homosexual encounters? Yes, but two male dogs cannot reproduce. The instinct to have sex is what drives them.

People are different than animals, you know this, we have intellect, we know what we are doing. But whether you like it or not. Homosexuality is not Natural. It's not the intended way for two creatures to procreate.

Regardless of your beliefs, or non beliefs. Some people think that we all have a reason, a purpose on this earth. But when you look back at all of history. Every creature on earth. The number one uniting common thing between all creatures is procreation.

Money and sex are usually the biggest issues we as humans have. In general. But up until a hundred years ago, many people simply came together in a union to start a family. Ask and 9 out of 10 people will still tell you it's a top 5 goal. Start or take care of their family.

Homosexuality is such a particular dilemma. You can't just force someone to accept it. Some people will naturally find it disgusting. Not just for religious reasons, but because it's unnatural to them. People have to accept it on their own.

I'm sorry.. what? I've just given you factual proof that homosexuality is in fact natural.

Secondly, so... we should accept homophobes but not homosexuals?

Nice standards there.

And people aren't different from animals, we are animals, nothing will ever change that.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Frazz that doesn't make any sense, surely if you're annoyed by something you are offended by it? If you were totally neutral to the situation (IE you genuinely did not care) then you wouldn't be annoyed, nor would you have posted in this thread.

Now that doesn't make sense.
I'm annoyed when my coffee gets cold. I'm not offended by it.
I'm annoyed when TV talks about Miley Cyris or Justine Bieber ad nauseum. I'm offended by people by people who besmirch the Great State of Texas.
I'm annoyed if the scale tells me something I don't want to hear. I'm offended by the lack of proper barbeque in California.
I'm annoyed this sort of thing is still news. I'm offended when I get into an argument with some who starts quoting Old Testament to me.

Homosexuals will only have true equality when a gay person announces "I'm gay!" and society responds "So what? Why should we care?"

So, in the name of equality, I encourage everyone here to not give a feth either way about the sexuality of other people whom you're not personally romantically involved or interested in.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Homosexuals will only have true equality when a gay person announces "I'm gay!" and society responds "So what? Why should we care?"

So, in the name of equality, I encourage everyone here to not give a feth either way about the sexuality of other people whom you're not personally romantically involved or interested in.

Here here

Being able to pretend it doesn't matter is an ideological, and flawed, privilege of the majority, whether dealing with ethnic minorities or homosexuals.

I remember a Daily Show segment where they had a white panel and a black panel (about 7 each iirc) and the white panel said they thought people should stop talking about race whereas the black panel felt that race issues weren't discussed enough; there is a disconnect here, obliviously.

 Ahtman wrote:
I remember a Daily Show segment where they had a white panel and a black panel (about 7 each iirc) and the white panel said they thought people should stop talking about race whereas the black panel felt that race issues weren't discussed enough; there is a disconnect here, obliviously.

When you're the group that can only lose in a discussion, you tend to not want to have it.

 Polonius wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I remember a Daily Show segment where they had a white panel and a black panel (about 7 each iirc) and the white panel said they thought people should stop talking about race whereas the black panel felt that race issues weren't discussed enough; there is a disconnect here, obliviously.

When you're the group that can only lose in a discussion, you tend to not want to have it.

huh?

 Polonius wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I remember a Daily Show segment where they had a white panel and a black panel (about 7 each iirc) and the white panel said they thought people should stop talking about race whereas the black panel felt that race issues weren't discussed enough; there is a disconnect here, obliviously.

When you're the group that can only lose in a discussion, you tend to not want to have it.

How am I in a group that can only lose in this discussion? Whether or not someone is gay means literally nothing of an impact to me.
Maybe thats why I am annoyed. Your gay! OK. cool. Maybe if that impacted me negatively I'd care. But it don't so I won't.

I challenge someone to find something I can lose here.

Sadly people frequently do form opinions about other people based on their appearance, to include skin color. These opinions can be positive or negative. You can chalk it up to media hype or an unjust judicial system, but the simple fact is young black men, especially with tattoos, baggy clothes, and a "loud" personality are perceived by many people to be criminals. I really doubt anyone (aside from a deeply devoted racists) would meet a young black man who spoke well, had good manners, and wore something other than athletic apparel or jeans that sit below the buttocks and come to the conclusion that this young man was a criminal or "threatening" based on his appearance.

There is a strong disconnect on issues of race and it exists on both sides. Far too many (in this case too many being any number greater than zero) blacks attempt to use their skin color to justify or get away with reprehensible and inappropriate behavior. I don't care what skin color the individual may or may not be. If you are covered in crude tattoos, shout constantly, insult women, swear continuously, and just generally act like an illiterate, uncultured cretin I am going to dislike you. It has absolutely nothing to do with skin color. I have encountered whites, Hispanics, and blacks who all act in such a manner. Aside from impressionable youth, middle class Americans typically dislike the "gangster" culture.

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I remember a Daily Show segment where they had a white panel and a black panel (about 7 each iirc) and the white panel said they thought people should stop talking about race whereas the black panel felt that race issues weren't discussed enough; there is a disconnect here, obliviously.

When you're the group that can only lose in a discussion, you tend to not want to have it.

huh?

The point is that ignoring the issue does not help resolve it and that trying to sweep it under the rug makes you look like a fool. I know this will send you on a tirade about Bengazhi buuuuuuuuuut It seems to be until gay people have all the SAME rights as straight people do, such as free right to marry the issues DOES need to be pushed and there DOES need to be a discussion.

This is like when that supreme court judge announced that the fight against racism is over (it isn't) and that it was right to strike down parts of the voter protection act. Racism is still an issue, gay rights is still an issue, transgender rights is an issue. If you reallllllllly want all the discussing over it to end then go to the next gay rights rally in your town, donate to a gay rights advocacy charity, and I assure you when gay people finally all have the same rights as straight people there will be a lot less discussion and thus annoyance.

 Ahtman wrote:
Being able to pretend it doesn't matter is an ideological, and flawed, privilege of the majority, whether dealing with ethnic minorities or homosexuals.

Thats absolutely not what I said. You're missing the point.

I said Society should not care about people's sexuality. We should not care either way about the sexuality of people with whom we have no personal *romantic interest* or **involvement**. (see below for what I consider to be exceptions to this).

However, when people are given crap for their sexuality - discriminated against, bullied, ostracised, then yes we should be concerned - about them being discriminated against. If society is discriminating against and bullying a group of people for their sexuality, then it clearly does care about their sexuality - it disapproves.

What I'm saying is that Society should not care about sexuality.. That means no discrimination. And no celebration either. There should be complete indifference to people's sexual orientation - everyone should be treated equally.

Equality does not mean you're treated as being special just because your skin colour or sexual orientation is uncommon. It means when you announce "I'm gay!" or "I'm black!", people respond with a shrug of their shoulders and "So what?"

I do not care about another person's sexuality. I DO however care when people are discriminated against and treated unfairly because of their sexuality. I think whats happening in Russia with the lynching and demonisation of gay people and the moral panic over so called "gay propaganda" is abhorrent.


(*If you like a person, but they turn out to be sexually incompatible e.g. a lesbian woman, and you're a straight man, then the only justified response is disappointment.*
*However, if you marry a gay person without knowing, and they later reveal the truth causing you to seperate then you have every right to be angry because you have been lied to and betrayed. Especially when theres kids involved*).

Did someone just say Bengggggghhhhhhhhhaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzzziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!

Its the Godwin of the new Millennium!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Being able to pretend it doesn't matter is an ideological, and flawed, privilege of the majority, whether dealing with ethnic minorities or homosexuals.

Thats absolutely not what I said. You're missing the point.

I said Society should not care about people's sexuality. We should not care either way about the sexuality of people with whom we have no personal *romantic interest* or **involvement**. (see below for what I consider to be exceptions to this).

However, when people are given crap for their sexuality - discriminated against, bullied, ostracised, then yes we should be concerned - about them being discriminated against. If society is discriminating against and bullying a group of people for their sexuality, then it clearly does care about their sexuality - it disapproves.

What I'm saying is that Society should not care about sexuality.. That means no discrimination. And no celebration either. There should be complete indifference to people's sexual orientation - everyone should be treated equally.

Equality does not mean you're treated as being special just because your skin colour or sexual orientation is uncommon. It means when you announce "I'm gay!" or "I'm black!", people respond with a shrug of their shoulders and "So what?"

(*If you like a person, but they turn out to be sexually incompatible e.g. a lesbian woman, and you're a straight man, then the only justified response is disappointment.*
*However, if you marry a gay person without knowing, and they later reveal the truth causing you to seperate then you have every right to be angry because you have been lied to and betrayed. Especially when theres kids involved*).

Unfortunately the way things "should work" rarely has any connection to the real world. In the real world people are killed for their sexuality.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Being able to pretend it doesn't matter is an ideological, and flawed, privilege of the majority, whether dealing with ethnic minorities or homosexuals.

Thats absolutely not what I said.

If you can find the text where I said "Shadow Captain said" that would be lovely, outside that it seems I may have hit a nerve without aiming for one.

We should

What we should do and what we actually do are radically different, so conflating them doesn't really help anyone when it comes to working on social and cultural issues.

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I remember a Daily Show segment where they had a white panel and a black panel (about 7 each iirc) and the white panel said they thought people should stop talking about race whereas the black panel felt that race issues weren't discussed enough; there is a disconnect here, obliviously.

When you're the group that can only lose in a discussion, you tend to not want to have it.

huh?

Generalizing, any serious discussion about race relations in the US would probably result in some concessions by white people, be they political, economic, or moral.

It's like when the boss wants to put off meeting about a raise. Put off the conversation completely!

 Ahtman wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Being able to pretend it doesn't matter is an ideological, and flawed, privilege of the majority, whether dealing with ethnic minorities or homosexuals.

Thats absolutely not what I said.

If you can find the text where I said "Shadow Captain said" that would be lovely, outside that it seems I may have hit a nerve without aiming for one.

Well you did call my opinion an ideologically flawed privilege of the majority. I disagree. Am I not allowed to voice my disagreement? Are you insinuating that I'm somehow homophobic for not caring about a person's sexuality?

We should

What we should do and what we actually do are radically different, so conflating them doesn't really help anyone when it comes to working on social and cultural issues.

I'm not conflating them. I'm expressing my opinion about what I think would be the fairest approach and mindset with which to deal with homosexuality - a Libertarian approach. We should not care either way. We SHOULD care about discrimination.

At no point did I say this is how society behaves right now, I'm saying this is how Society should behave.

 Frazzled wrote:

I challenge someone to find something I can lose here.

Judging from the

I'm annoyed if the scale tells me something I don't want to hear.

line, I'm gonna go ahead and say anywhere between 10-20 Lbs

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I DO care when they are treated unfairly because of it.

Then why would you think I am referencing you? You keep coming back to "you called my" or "I didn't say" but I never mentioned your name, or any ones name for that matter. I made a comment against the thinking that pretending to ignore a problem makes it go away; as if pretending a house isn't on fire will put out the flames.