Category: LGBT Discussion
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html
I'm just chiming in here as the daughter of two lesbians. Way to go and hugs to all! This is how it should have been from the beginning!
Agreed! Love wins. And I've been all smiles about it since yesterday. that is all. :)
Yes, and the hatred can just go away. The majority of people whining about it are the same people wondering why their churches are in decline.
Good point about churches in decline. Question is the churches that are so against gays now have the problem of either accepting them and doing weddings for them, or having a law suit I would think. Just my opinion.
Yeah, but if you know you're not accepted at a church, then why go there? I know I wouldn't.
this is truly a sad time in the world. as I've said on other topics, what happened to the
days when people kept their homosexuality behind closed doors? why have people allowed
times to change to where it has now become everyone's business who one chooses to
sleep with?
oh and just because a lot of people share the view of homosexuality being "right" and
"normal" doesn't mean it is either.
Ok I responded to something about this on Facebook. Churches are *not* going
to get any lawsuits regarding gay marriages. Churches are not going to lose
their tax-exempt status over this.
Look at it this way: There are still churches today who will not perform
interracial marriages. These churches exist, even though racism of this nature is
repugnant to a huge number of Christians. But nobody can take their tax
exempt status away from them. Churches are not even required to meet any of
the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Many churches do comply,
but that is an ethical decision on their part.
Most evangelical churches right now would not marry me and my Wife, if we
were unmarried, because She is Christian and I am atheist. They have that
right. Nobody is going to take their tax-exempt status away from them over
this. That's entirely their prerogative. This movement of Black Robe Regiment
pastors under Glen Beck is a farce. Nobody's going to jail, nobody's going to
prison, nobody's getting in trouble.
Are you a pastor? Don't worry about it, nobody is going to make you marry
atheists or gays or anyone else. Chelsea has the right to say as she wishes,
nobody's going to stop that legally.
If social conservatives want people like me to take them seriously, they need to
be honest. They're being dishonest with you people, and it's not fair to
Christians at all. They're scaring you with false flags, claiming that your
churches are going to be closed. They're telling you you could go to jail over
this.
That's got nothing to do with gay or not gay. It has to do with being dishonest
and mistreating vulnerable believer types. Yes, I said it, vulnerable. Those of us
rationalists have no excuse, but believers have a justifiable excuse. And some of
us are willing to call bullshit on the people raising the false flags just to
manipulate you guys.
I, for one, am just glad it's now over. My gay friends can get married, but now
also the fight's gone, and we're not going to hear from either side constantly.
Those hyped up with some apocalyptic fantasies are going to be very
disappointed. I doubt the pastoral couples who said they'd get divorced over
this are actually going to get divorced now. Nor do I know what they think
they're going to solve by doing so.
The LGBT activists are nothing in comparison to Malcolm X / the Black Panthers
of the 60s and 70s. Nothing at all. Sure, some of the hipster kids around gay
pride can get a bit annoying. I chased a pair off the fire station lot when I was
working a field exercise that day, not for being gays or androgonous or
whatever, but for fooling around in the fire station between the trucks where
they had no business being. But it was more like kicking kittens then dealing
with real troublemakers. I doubt that pair of skinned rabbits would do anything
with an explosive device besides accidentally blowing themselves up with it and
crying. I went to high school with real trouble: skinheads. Aggressive, real
fearsome types. Not these limp little things that some of you are all so afraid of.
If I didn't have a badge on, and wasn't on duty, I'd have left that silly praline
because they're more likely to harm themselves than anyone else. And it was no
effort at all to make them scuttle off and find somewhere else to carry on. And
*THAT* is what some of you Christian people are afraid of? I'm sorry, I know
what real dangerous things look like. Those pair of plucked chickens were
nothing, and the only reason I did run them off that lot was to comply with
instructions, not out of any actual concern those would do anyone any actual
harm.
Some of these Right Wingers just have a lot of false flag situations going on
here. Don't like the gays? Ignore them, they're only 3% of your population
anyhow. And as I said, on that lot, I doubt that pair of pheasants would know
how to even enact anything dangerous to you. A pair of scutterbugs, that was
all.
I'm not saying all or most gays are like that, but I'm using a bit of argument
absurdum because it's the truth. Some would see "ooh a pair of gays!" and
think "There goes society!" I saw a pair of what might well have been gays,
loafing around where usually people make trouble or violate security, and to be
honest I'm just thinking, "Run these two off, but not much to it." And for the
delicate, I didn't change 'em off for being gay, it was the secure location they
weren't supposed to be in, but nothing at all like managing a pair of thugs. They
went on and had a good time somewhere else, I imagine, but inadvertently or
otherwise, proved the futility and absurdity of the false flag arguments created
by the Conservatives.
Sorry these LGBT activists are nothing. No thing. In comparison to Nazi activists
I've seen, or Black Panthers, or Mexican gangs up here or anything else. Just a
bunch of people protesting maybe getting a little rowdy in the park on Pride
day, but they're not a threat. Jesus, man, I practically felt like I'd chased a pair
of fucking kittens! If you think they're a threat, you've yet to see a real threat.
Sorry.
And please, if you're gay, I apologize I'm not saying everyone is like that pair I
ran into in the lot. But I used those as a way to prove my point.
No churches are going to get their tax exempt status taken away, and now that
the gays have the right to marry, they'll probably do what lots of people do: ride
off into the sunset and a generation or two later forget that they once never had
that right. Sad but true, about the forgetting I mean, but humans have a
historical memory of a chicken, and an attention span of a goldfish most times.
In theory. But I can see some hateful person trying to destroy that for the churches.
It's not the churches that scare me. It's the people angry at churches, that could force them. And not necessarily gays or lesbians, either. Straight people can have bees in their bonnets, too.
Chelsea and sarah, you both disgust me. Neither one of you deserve the right
to speak on this or any other board. Personally, were this my website, I would
kick you off. You're not welcome here. In fact, I would feel more comfortable if
both of you, and anyone who agrees with your twisted, backward, bigoted brand
of thinking were forcibly deported to the dirtiest, poorest backwater of eastern
Africa. But, I'll be nice, I'll at least let you take your bibles with you.
Here's the thing:
How would someone go about suing a church? If you're a Christian who doesn't believe in interraciall marriage, and yes I met a few of those in Florida, you are currently free to not marry an interracial couple. You won't lose your status as a tax exempt recipient of the welfare state.
Now as a business, if you refuse to bake a cake because you believe that interracial marriage is, as the Scriptures clearly state, an abomination unto the Lord, you will be in trouble because you are acting in a business capacity. That's a different function in society.
These people I met in Florida didn't even agree with racial separatism. They didn't think black people should be excluded from restaurants or hotels or any other public venues. Hell, one of them was an older black woman! They just, according to their faith, don't believe that "the races" should marry. Don't ask me how they called Latinos a race ... don't ask, I don't have any idea ... but that's how they roll.
Now if you're a Christian like my Wife is, you find the idea very repugnant, maybe say they're misinterpreting Scripture, or what have you. But you or I or anyone else can't take away their tax-exempt status as a church for thinking that, or for refusing to marry mixed couples.
The majority of Christians can believe these people are wrong, they can tell these people they're wrong, but they can't take away their tax exempt status or sue them for refusing to marry mixed race people.
In the same way, gay people can't take away your right to not marry gay couple.
What does this got to do with showing anything? Did anybody tell you to hide your love for anyone Chelsea? Like somebody pointed out before, this is a civil rights issue, and they deserve their rights to do whatever the hell they want. Nobody stopped you from posting on this board sharing your twisted views. One more point and I'm done, why will anybody want to come to your church and ask your pastor to marry them with your oh so loving God? They're running away from you freaks if anything else.
One more thing then I'm done for real. The bible says that we shouldn't do a ton of other things like...eat pork, shellfish, and it even said that slavery was okay. You all forgot about that or choose to ignore it. I am so tired of fundamental Christians pointing out parts in the bible that fits them when it's convenient.
Yes, I agree Leo. I think that forcing businesses and church to marry you or bake you a cake is a bit much. There are several other businesses and people who will gladly take up the tasks making the money that the ignorant people turned down.
I have one last thing I'm saying. Not just for me. But, for those that don't agree with the majority, it seems to be all right to throw cruelty out here. I didn't say anything but ask about the results and what would happen to pastors and churches.
I've tried to have respect for not just one side but all sides. The ruling went the way it did. I don't intend to argue it, but to ask questions. So I'm being told by Lakeria and Cody to basically go to hell in a second-hand handbasket?
No thanks. If this is how I'm going to be treated, I have no more to say. Not that I don't want to talk about this like adults, but some people want to make this all about hate. That's not what my reasoning is for coming out here.
I can see why Chelsea gets the response she gets, though I just caution people to not feed the troll. I've done it. It doesn't go well. Just because I see it doesn't mean I wholly condone it.
Sarah, though? Not quite so much. I obviously can't speak for Cody, Sarah, but I can speak for the average nonbeliever, I imagine, when I say that asking questions and worrying, because something big has just changed, isn't a horrible thing. If you come to anything with a truly open mind, then you've taken the first proper step. I personally don't bear you any grudge or ill will, and if you do believe that what happened regarding a gay's right to marry is wrong, I will politely dismiss that opinion as backward (to myself if nothing else) and will endeavor not to insult you over it. We will view some things differently but no, it doesn't mean we have to fight.
I worry about almost all parties involved. No, churches aren't going to lose tax-exempt status, though why they have it is an entirely different kettle of fish and I wonder if they really ought to. But I do worry that people will try and fight harder. I do worry that people on the quote-unquote winning side will rub it in other people's faces (not the majority, by any stretch, but the vocal minority). You're quite right when you say that straight people, nonreligious people, can get bees in their bonnets about stuff. Of course they can. They're human, and prone to all the foibles and failings of humankind.
If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, then fine. I think it's a little sad, but it's their right and I won't howl at them over it.
If a business wants to exclude homosexuals? Different story, and I'm all in favour of the business getting its ass kicked for its stupidity.
This isn't really an issue anymore. I am pleased at the decision handed down by the Supreme Court because it was long, long overdue. When I say it's not really an issue anymore, what I mean is that it shouldn't even have been a 5 to 4 vote. Some people simply refuse to see sense, in my way of seeing things. I'm entitled to that opinion, just as those who oppose the new ruling are entitled to disagree with me. And that's where I'll leave it.
I tend to take a "not in my backyard" view of the situation. People can do as they please as long as it doesn't cause an issue in the long run. Okay, that's my take. Simple, to the point, no bashing.
Sarah, I have put forth several posts addressing questions. It is good to ask questions, but part of asking questions is evaluating the answers. Check out what I've said, see if any churches who oppose interracial marriage have lost their status.
I've merely attempted to answer questions on here. If what you really want is to ask, then pay attention more to the posts that at least try and answer your questions. Doesn't make my answers right, but I at least try to make them reasonalb eand logical. If as flawed and human as anyone else's.
I have a handful of friends and relatives who identify as gay. I don't hate them by any stretch. But no one is thinking about the confusion that this change may cause for children. It is deemed hate speech in 2015 to suggest that a boy raised by two women may wish he had a Daddy. It is deemed hate speech in 2015 to suggest that a girl raised by two men may one day wish she had a Mom or seek out the woman who is indeed her mother. There lies the real issue at the heart of this discussion. Sexual confusion wrought upon children before they are even born.
Sexual confusion wrought upon children before they are even born? Want to go back and actually take that phrase apart?
Before a child is born, it has no awareness of the outside world, and thus essentially no awareness of gender. It simply does not have the brain function, in the same way that even a newborn does not have the brain function to use its long-term memory well until a few months of age. A child can't be confused before it's born because it has no context.
Now, I suppose you might want to argue that they may become gender confused after a couple of years of age without a typical mom-and-dad setup.
I'm here to tell you that's crap, too.
Oh, I suppose anything is possible, but the decision in question here, the ruling rendered, is not going to make this worse. You aren't going to get ninety million gay couples suddenly flooding the world with children all of a sudden. The few scenarios where gender confusion and identity are an actual thing will continue to be dwarfed by the statistical reality that the vast majority of children raised by two parents of the same sex is just fine.
We have this really old, outdated idea of gender roles. We're trying to abolish it because it's often toxic and almost always limiting.
In almost any pairing of two people, be they man and woman, two men or two women, or even two transgender people, you end up with people taking roles for themselves. One might be particularly strong, or talkative, or outgoing, or helpful, or supportive, or big on tough love. You end up with one person who fills the role of "mom", in the stereotypical way moms usually go, and the other one is "dad". Dad doesn't have to be male, and I've known some heterosexual relationships where, aside from the physical bits while young, the female is in a more "dad"-like role, or where the male is in a more "mom"-like role. This is becoming even more true because of the fact that more women than ever are going to work, and the idea of a stay-at-home dad is more and more a thing these days.
In other words: as long as the child is getting their physical needs met, their emotional needs will very likely be dealt with quite neatly as the two people in their parental unit, between them, divvy up the details and find a balance that works for the family. So what if they're in a minority? So what if not having a female mom, or a male dad, is a little awkward? People better get used to it.
As long as the parenting functions get performed I imagine it will come out right. I know the Wife and I are opposite from what people expect in various ways. And that's more common than many on either side want to account for, one based on rigid roles to revert to, and the other based on the same rigid roles to talk about and eschew.
Ah well, I happily eschew all ideology these days, in favor of humans.
so hold on a moment, straight people are perfectly allowed to make a big deal over their weddings, spend loads of money, make a spectacle of the whole affair but same sex couples aren't, because they have to keep it behind closed doors because they might offend religious people?
Chelsae, your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
I think anyone who actively passes judgement on homosexual couples should really have the experience of knowing what it's like to be one. I'm not one, but I can't imagine it's a feeling one can just "turn off". That said, society seems more and more to be looking down on and devaluing marriage and the family unit. So, anything that makes it okay for more people who love each other get married is just fine by me. Honestly I can't believe it took this long. Of course that won't stop the hatred and misunderstanding, of both homosexuals and those who don't agree with the practice, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
Oh, and about the offending of religious people. I'm a religious person. And on behalf of nobody who gives a damn I want to say that nobody should be offended by homosexuality. WHether you beleive it to be an abomination, perflectly normal or somewhere in the middle doesn't matter. Why? Because those two men or two women aren't bothering you or your relationship with God. You might not like it, but considering the amount of actual debochery out there that does create real problems, are two people who really love each other getting married really that much of a problem? I mean come on now. Worry about your own life - even your own sins. Don't go throwing stones when your hands are dirty. And if your God has a problem with homosexuals, he doesn't really need you to pleed his case.
Yeah I personally don't buy that sexual confusion nonsense. I write it off as the garbage of todays thenthative society.
BG, you're just trying to placate us atheists on here, and it's not gonna work. Not for me anyway. You know and I know that your god has big big problems with gay people, so stop pussyfooting around.
His god has problems with it but he doesn't. That may not sit well with the church elders.
I've removed a number of people from my Facebook for displaying such narrow-mindedness that I didn't knoe existed with them purely because sexual orientation is hardly something I discuss with my acquaintences. It's got me extremely down today so I'm glad I don't take Chelsea's and other comments too seriously now.
Sexual confusion? Really? People actually come up with such ridiculousness? lol
I have this fantastically creepy image of a bunch of pouty-faced Christian haters sitting somewhere in a church in silence, pondering what to come up with next to discredit that which they have a problem with but cannot justify.
"so, brothers and sisters in Christ! Homosexuality is a disgusting sin! Let's become a vehicle of God. Let's brainstorm things that make people believe being gay is gross and grievous."
"I know, pastor jo! Sexual confusion! What about all the poor little children that the gays want to adopt! Those poor, ungodly kids with two mommmies or two daddies; how unnatural!! They must all suffer and be miserable because God intended a man to make a family with a woman.!
"wow! Brilliant Marry! The lord is working through you today. god bless!!"
"Yess pastor joe, I feel the spirit inside me right now."
And all I feel inside me is a tummy ache from all the laughter I've experienced while writing this.
Because honestly, let's be logical here. How many straight parents, so-called normal couples, end up having gay kids? How many kids experience gender confusion even if they've lived the traditional textbook childhood?
It's ridiculous to think that just because you don't have two opposite sex role models in the home that you won't be able to identify with one of them. It's ridiculous because gender identification comes from within; it's not influenced by your nurturing. Furthermore, when two parents, as has been said before, fulfill all of the roles a child needs them to fulfill, teaching them things, cooking, cleaning, doing homework, bathing, cuddling, shopping with them, telling stories, and on and on and on, what is a child missing?
It's not like you fulfill specific gender roles in the modern home anyway, whether straight or gay. at least not in my home. Guess what? I work more than my partner does right now, so he's a stay at home dad to our three year old boy. He does lunch and dinner, he does the groceries and writes the shopping lists, i do the dishes and laundry, but he cleans the bathrooms and vaccumes, I do bedtime and story time most nights, but he gets our son up in the morning and gets him dressed and ready for the day.
My son has a toy kitchen on which he cooks pretend food sometimes... does that mean he's a girl or a gay boy in the making? not necessarily. No. He wants to cook like his daddy, who, by the way, is not gay or even bisexual, just someone who is amazing at cooking. So is Chef emeral. lol.
My son is also obsessed with garbage trucks and firemen. does that automatically mean he'll be straight and macho? Not necessarily either. And I don't care to predict what he'll be. He is the product of straight parents, but if he brings a boyfriend home someday, I'll be overjoyed for him. I'll be just as happy if the significant other is a girl. Point is, there's no clear gender roles anymore, and that bit about being sexually confused even before your born is a bit of brainwashed gobbleDeegook . If you had an open mind, you might be able to actually use it to realize how utterly stupid that sounds. lol.
And chelsea, your post was very interesting, considering you put your sexuality out here for everyone to see, whether we wanted to or not, and it's everyone's business in cyberspace. It's all written out here on the zone for the public to see. Your foray into bisexuality is here in plain sight as well, so you're one silly hipocrit to say something like that. If I weren't a busy person and a more vengeful one, I'd combine all your past posts on here in one big, fat, comedic post for all to see and be entertained by. Including yourself, my dear. lol.
Just hush, you poor, sorry, confused little excuse for a born-again conservative. haha
BlindGuardian, thank you for this. You're one of the good ones, so to speak. Even though I'm an atheist I can respect the hell out of people like you, who uphold stances like you. You embody the idea that even disagreement doesn't have to matter. If you happen to believe that God might judge these homosexuals harshly, you don't inflict that belief on others. and if, as I suspect, you figure it's more than we can frankly know, then good on you for using a little doubt in your understanding of faith. I hope that doesn't sound condescending.
I wouldn't even try to put together the Chelsea Hypocrisy Collage, because I doubt anyone but Chelsea herself would have the time or patience to sift through the 35000+ posts of tripe that she's foisted upon this site over the last ten long years. Chelsea, normally, I would not be taking time out of my life to respond to your meaningless drivel. I don't make a habit of feeding trolls. But having once considered you one of my best friends, close enough that I was prepared to live with you (an idea which disgusts me now), I thought I should say a few things. First of all, as others have said, you are a filthy hypocrite. You change your sexual orientation as often as the rest of us change our underwear. That alone kills your credibility, but let's continue, shall we? Second of all, feeling the need to conceal one's sexual orientation and/or gender identity from the rest of the world is a terrible burden to bear, and some of us are not content to do so. We're not cowards like you. And finally, you're good at proofreading for typos, but not so much for bullshit. If you'd compared your comments to the purpose of the original topic, you'd realize that we are discussing the right to marry who we want, not the right to sleep with who we want. Marriage is a deeper and much more complicated subject than sex. But then, perhaps that's beyond the capability of your tiny little mind to comprehend. I've seen some of your other posts, and I was fully aware that you'd turned into a vicious bitch since the last time I talked to you, but this one really takes the cake. Congratulations. You've officially been demoted from a human being to the lower life form of troll, a pathetic waste of cyberspace that, unfortunately, will continue to plague the Internet as long as there are people who are gullible and sensitive enough to let you get under their skin. But know this, troll: your food supply on this site is running low. People are weary of seeing the garbage that you post. I, for one, am completely done with you. So why don't you do us all a favor and shut up? No one takes you seriously anymore, and no one cares what you have to say. Furthermore, those of us who actually have lives would like to discuss this important issue without interruption.
Becky
Nobody got my point, and I didn't expect that they would. It is a taboo question to ask these days, about whether or not there will be impacts for the children involved. The fact that one can't so much as ask the question these days without being deemed a bigot is perhaps the saddest aspect of the whole thing. But I think one day society will be asking itself about the children and whether some of them would have done better if adults hadn't chosen ahead of time for them that they would not have the right to a Mom and a Dad like most of their friends and peers.
What about the babies born and then abandoned in dumpsters and garbage cans? I haven't heard anyone speaking up for their rights, and a gay cuppling didn't create those babies. Those babies will likely bounce around from foster home to foster home, knowing parent after parent for a little while... but that can't be nearly as bad as not having a female mommy and male daddy, huh?
Chelsea. How can you live with yourself now, after being so fake and sounding so sincere in your advice. Look at this and see how you've turned in to everything you hated. I pitty you, and that's sincere. I thought about cleaning up the formatting of this post, but I don't want to change a single thing about the original text, even if the zone itself is what fucked it up. You're going to take this as an attack and say I'm being mean. actually, I'm not. What I'm attempting to do is show you how you've turned in to all the things that you claimed to despise back then. Yes, this is from quite a while back, about 6 years, and people do change. but you've said that all of this bi sexuality stuff was only pretend. How do you feel now when you look back at all the people you pretended to understand and befriend? BTW, have you let your mom know that you now realize the error of your ways and that you know now that she was right all along? I imagine it was quite a hard load for you to swallow, wasn't it?
https://www.zonebbs.com/boards.php?t=18755
Post 8 of 16
chelslicious
At the age of 16 (I�m 21 now), I started to realize I was attracted to girls. I know that probably seems kinda late, but I believe I was a late bloomer cause of my upbringing. I was raised Christian, and told that two people of the same sex who were together �wasn�t normal�. I remember one day in particular when my mom
and I were at McCallum high school (she used to be the nurse there) and she saw two girls holding hands and exclaimed, �Nasty�! I pretended to agree, but inside I wished I could go up to those girls and say hi.
One day I was hanging out with a teacher�s assistant I trusted, and I came out to her right then and there. I told her I had nowhere to turn, and that I�d like her help if she could point me in some sorta direction. So, she pointed me to a social worker named Roy who she told me had a gay daughter, and I started seeing
him for what he called �Coming of age issues�. After some time passed, he informed me that since I was a minor he�d have to tell my mom I had been seeing him. However, he left it up to me to actually come out to her, and I did. My mom didn�t take it well at all, and she told me I just didn�t know what the fuck I wanted
out of life. So, there I was again with conflicting thoughts about whether or not I should be attracted to my same gender, and it was one of the worst feelings in the world.
It wasn�t till I went to the Louisiana Center for the Blind and was away from the family that I realized my sexuality was something I couldn�t change. I realized that dating guys to try and �turn� straight wasn�t the answer...the answer was to accept and embrace being gay within myself and not care about what others thought.
I was content for the longest time in saying and trying to convince myself I was bisexual, but there�s no point in that when I know and feel what�s truly in my heart every day.
It�s hard enough being blind, but it�s even harder being blind and gay. However, it�s just a part of my life that I have to deal with as positively as possible. My only worry is that I�ll never find the girl of my dreams cause I don�t �look� gay, but I wanna believe everyone when they say I will. I�m not stressing over
it, it�s just something I wonder about from time to time. If I could give advice to people struggling with figuring out their sexuality, I�d say if you know the truth in your heart, don�t worry about what others think, cause your happiness is all that matters.
Greg and BG I'm with you guys.
and I know the feelings among Christians range from total acceptance to feeling like gay people have issues and need to be supported, to the stereotype we see promulgated through RightWingWatch and similar groups.
Becky I'm sorry for your situation. Clearly it seems Chelsea is quite confused, I have no way of knowing what or how is the trouble there.
Imprecator you would do well to read a couple of authors: Dale McGowan and Greg Epstein, both of whom talk about the bridges built between believers and nonbelievers. We're all human at the end of the day. You're kind of acting like a fundamentalist.
Chelsae is confused. However I really don't want to flame people on this board. That said, thank you Anthony for pointing out the hipocracy. Now, back to the show!
coming from a different country with different views on gender roles,
I want to say this.
here in Sweden we have had gay marriage for years and years, and society still continues as normal.
it's also not uncommon for boys and girls to be encouraged both in school and daycare to play with toys considered for the opposite gender. frequently you will see boys playing with kitchen stuff and girls playing with cars. it's not uncommon for a girl or a boy to dress up as a character of the opposite gender, and everyone is totally fine with that.
wherever we can, we try to lessen the impact of gender stereotyping. It's common to see fathers pushing a pram or carrying a small child in a carrier on a trip to the park while their wife or partner is out working. part of the parental leave must be given to the father in any case, but it's not uncommon for parents to split it equally, you get a bonus if you do this.
moral of the story, gender roles are basically bullshit if you want them to be, which they really should be.
they also don't effect sexuality.
I do think gender roles are important. Are they everything? Of course not! But it's important to know who's the pin and who's the cushion, if you get my meaning. Otherwise, the world will be driven into chaos.
Okay I'm putting this in here re: gender roles.
I was born in 1970. now growing up where I grew up, girls played in the dirt and played sports as well as did other things some of you would call girl things, and the same was true for boys.
I'm far from an outlier as a man who does a lot of domestic stuff around the house, etc. This notion that most men are backwards or that everyone is occupied by these roles is patently ridiculous. And I'm talking to leftists here, even though they're . hard to distinguish from fundamentalist religious zealots these days.
I think the extreme left and the extreme right deserve each other, frankly. I wish both would just cut it out. The Right's just crazy, and the Left is too silly and ignorant to meaningfully tell the difference between someone stuck in 1955 and some other guy here and now doing what is just normal for us these days, and has been normal for over 40 years. Both these groups are the ones who constantly prattle on about this stuff, and while it's true the Right is reactionary perhaps, I'd say the Left is just a caricature of the fortune tellers in Dante's Inferno, whose heads were twisted so all they could see was backwards. I'm personally fed up with the backhanded compliments: "Oh that's nice you do that because all men never do ..." How many black men would tolerate "Oh that's nice you have a job, since all black men sell drugs on the corner?" I thought not. Nor should they.
So roles-ish people on either extreme, who definitely deserve each other, cut it out! Or at least keep that to your universities and churches, or perhaps the occasional arena where you are pitted against each other instead of taking working people as collateral.
I'm not saying this to anyone here in particular I['m just voicing my frustration with both groups, who, in my opinion should be all dropped off together on a desert island so the rest of us can keep on living. And yes, people doing whatever it is they happen to do best, like Bernadetta and her partner, without this constant barrage.
If I was such an anomaly or outlier, then where did all these other dads and other men either my age or up, who were exactly as I am? Personally I think there's been some myth-making going on by both extremes. We all know the Right's done it regarding the 50s. But I think the Left's clearly pumped out their share of mythology too. Only I hate that they've got the word science in it, even if it's called the soft (headed) sciences.
If both ends (loose ends at that) want to tell stowies, that's what the humanities is for.
Sorry to sidetrack this, but both extremes have no idea just how like each other they are.
Oh I get ya. Look, I'm a man, yet I vacuum and do some other domestic stuff. I do however think that certain things are built in to our brains that tell us "I'm a man and your a woman." It doesn't mean you have to be a jerk about it, but there it is.
While I do not necessarily agree with the homosexual way of life - it's not a lifestyle
choice that I would choose and yes, I know that it's not a choice per se - I also do not
disagree with it either.
I can say this without malice because although I identify as heterosexual, there are
sections of the heterosexual community with whom I don't agree with - I'm thinking
players, swingers, people who have multiple spouses etc
It would be hypocritical of me to be offended by the homosexual community whilst
remaining silent or appearing to be approving via my silence in regards to the segment of
the heterosexual community that I don't agree with.
If you ask me, both "factions" are guilty of being out there and over the top as far as
public displays of affection are concerned. Heterosexual couples can be just as tacky as
camp homosexual couples and homosexual couples can be just as discreet as a
conservative heterosexual couple.
I have always believed that I do not want to know nor is it any business of mine what two
people do in the privacy of their bedroom. I figure that as long as they're not hurting
themselves or each other, then who cares if it's two men or two women who love each
other... there is way too much hate in the world.
I think gender roles are mostly crap. I do think that familiar roles are very important, however, and that was my point.
That was the basis for my attack re: your post, Leaffan. I'm not necessarily calling you a bigot, I'm simply picking apart what you said. Not only did you fail to concede that a lot of kids from straight couples have issues, but you don't seem able to address the "gender confusion" angle you brought up, and the point I mentioned about how before a certain age, true gender means essentially nothing, as newborns lack context.
I just want to point this out. It is impossible to disagree without malice.
Disapproval is a weak form of malice. Disapproval also infers that you have a
right to an opinion on someone else's life where it doesn't effect you. Who
someone else loves does not effect you unless you are that person.
So, please stop doing this, "I don't agree with homosexuality, but I'm better
than bigots like chelsea" routine. You're not better than Chelsea, you're quieter
than chelsea. People cannot be equal until they are accepted, and they cannot
be accepted until you view them as no different from yourself.
You are no different than a homosexual. You have people you love and/or find
attractive, they have people they love and/or find attractive. Until you can see
them as no different from you, they can never be equal to you. So stop saying
you disagree with their life.
It's okay to disagree with a lifestyle. We all reserve the right to feel how we do. As long as you aren't performing acts of violence over it.
disagreeing with regards to yourself is one thing. noone is forcing you to have sex with someone of the same gender, and in fact, no homosexuals I know actually want to convert straight people into gay ones.
I don't agree with homosexuality with regards to myself either. I am not attracted to women in any way.
However does that mean I should actively try to fight people who are attracted to other women from having the same rights as I do? no.
so by all means, don't be gay, if you are straight. just don't actively try to suppress people's sexuality in favour of your own.
Fare enough. At the end of the day, you are what you are. I doubt anybody is going to change just because a group of people thinks they should.
if you think a group of people should change their ways to suit you, you need to have a long hard look at yourself.
because you are the one with the problem, not them.
While I'm not sure I buy the bit about malice, I agree with the rest of Cody's last message.
If homosexuality doesn't agree with you personally, in much the same way that shrimp or the colour yellow don't agree with you, then that's fine. I hate to trivialize it thus, but some people just can't handle certain things for themselves. But you'd never catch them saying "I disagree with shrimp" or "I disagree with yellow". In fact, I used the example of food deliberately because I've heard many people say that such-and-such food disagrees with them.
So okay, it's been established that some people are just...not going to be homosexual. And that's a hundred percent okay. If they think of a member of the same sex in a more-than-friendship way and immediately turn away and think "Nope, uh-uh, not for me, thanks", that's personal preference.
But you don't then go and say "I don't agree with homosexuality". You have essentially no right to disagree with an opposing lifestyle unless that lifestyle is embodied by a behavior which directly hurts you...at which point your beef is with the specific behavior. If you knew a gay couple who were particularly bad for public displays of affection, and it annoyed you, then your issue is with said public displays of affection, not with the fact that the couple is homosexual. If that couple was heterosexual instead, and for some reason you didn't mind their public display of affection, then it would suggest, to me at least, that you're taking issue with something you have no right to be upset about. Maybe you can't help how you feel but you can sure as hell govern what you say; and saying "I don't agree with" gives you a moral ascendency you neither possess nor merit.
Indeed, I just hate how people strut around thinking that people don't have the right to like or dislike whoever they want.
people absolutely have the right to dislike whoever they want, but they do not, or at least should not, have the right to interfeer with another person's lifestyle if it isn't hurting them or other people directly.
You have the right to interfeer to stop child abusers because they are harming others, that is obvious, but what happens between 2 consenting adults is none of your business.
Holy shit, Greg and I agree on something. Maybe the world really is coming to
an end.
On a serious note though, no, you do not have the right to dislike
homosexuality. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are the exact same thing.
They are both loving the person to whom you are attracted. So, you can either
hate the idea of love, or you can like everyone who loves. You cannot,
simultaneously, like heterosexuals and dislike homosexuals. Doing so, by the
vary nature of how disapproval works, makes them, in your eyes, a lesser
person.
I'll give you an example. Bill likes chocolate chip cookies. William likes peanut
butter cookies. They don't like the same cookie, but their tastes are generally
the same. They both like cookies, and they don't have to share a package when
they eat them.
Now, Bill likes chocolate chip cookies. William likes cocaine. Bill thinks that
Williams choice of liking cocaine is a bad one. He doesn't like that William likes
cocaine. He wants William to like chocolate chip cookies. He thinks it would be
better for everyone involved if William would just stop snorting cocaine, and
start eating chocolate chip cookies.
See the difference there? Bill thinks William liking peanut butter cookies is
fine, because he doesn't disagree with the idea of liking a cookie. its no different
from his liking of chocolate chip ones. But he does disagree with Williams like of
cocaine. He thinks William should be more like him, and like cookies. Well, by
wishing William would be more like himself, bill is saying that being himself is
better than being William.
So, by disagreeing with homosexuality, you are saying that it would be better
if homosexuals liked the same people you do. You wish that the gay guy down
the street would want to boink your girlfriend, instead of wanting to boink you.
You think that it would be better if the guy wanted to boink your girlfriend, ergo,
wanting to boink the same people as you is better. This is bad.
Did you follow me on that one?
So we don't have the right to disagree with anything and we should all share the same views on everything? What kind of a world is that? I still say that we have every right to disagree with a lifestyle just as we have a right to disagree with you. Or do you think we should all agree with you?
Ok, let me rephrase, you have the right to disagree with it, but doing so
makes you the same as Chelsea. Now, you may not think that you're the same
as Chelsea, but you're equally as bigoted. Thinking anyone is worse than you for
who they love is bigotry, plain and simple. Now, you can say, "I disagree with
them, but I don't want to stand in their way." That just makes you a cowardly
bigot, not less of a bigot.
If, for whatever reason, you feel homosexuality is different from your
sexuality, you are bigoted against homosexuals, and you are wrong. You have
the right to be wrong all you want, but having the right to be wrong, doesn't
make being wrong the right thing to do. So people who are right, in this case
me, should correct you. An intelligent person, when corrected from a wrong way
to a right way, would go, "Ok, I guess I was wrong. Happens to the best of us."
But that's not what people seem to be doing. People apparently just want the
right to be wrong, and to not be ridiculed about it.
Here's how progress works. Society is constantly coming up against obstacles.
At one point it was slavery, and there were pro slavery and anti-slavery people.
The pro-slavery people were stamped out by the anti-slavery people. Right now,
you're on the pro-slavery side of this particular argument. You might not be
deeply on that side, but you are still on that side. Eventually, and I'm thinking
its going to be pretty soon, people like you will be stomped out of society. That
is to say, your ideals will be. You either stop disagreeing with homosexuality, or
you end up like the KKK or the Westboro baptists.
So, you have the right to be wrong, you don't have the right to be wrong and
not have people laugh at you.
This is certainly not the first time I have seen arrogance and condisention come from you. I understand you will never change so I am not going to bash you or rant about it. That would be like telling the ocean to stop making waves. I will say, however, that I think we should just agree to disagree. That is what makes this country great. We can both say what we need to say, shrug our shoulders, and pass quietly like two ships in the night.
No we can't. Not permanently. This argument will come to a head, it already has
in the supreme court, and it eventually will in other ways. Eventually, one of us
will be accepted, and one of us will be treated in the same way history treats
George wallace or Nathan Bedford Forrest. You have to pick which side you want
to be on, because one side will eventually be done away with by civilized
society.
This is similar to the flat-earth argument when you boil it down. Eventually it's going to be irrefutable, moreso than it already is I mean, and everyone who still continues to believe that being homosexual is wrong, or that homosexuals shouldn't marry, is simply going to be thought of as backward.
So yes. Can you technically think that if you wish? Yes you can. There's no law governing what you think. But if you act on it in any fashion, you may break the law, and you are certain to upset people with your backward thinking.
When people like Cody and I are saying that you don't have a right to disagree with a lifestyle, it's tricky to explain what is meant. If you were a vegetarian, you may or may not be offended by other people eating meat, but unless you were really and truly going to mount the ramparts, you wouldn't tell people to their faces. You'd leave them alone, because it's their right to eat meat even if you do not. It's similar when we're talking about homosexuals being married. It would be fine for you to say you have no interest in being gay, and no problem if you're saying that only a straight relationship's going to work for you. That's all well and good. But you don't have to "agree with" or "disagree with" someone else's choice.
Now, the meat-eating thing is kind of a hot one, right? Because the meat industry is pretty god-damned awful, and I don't like to think about what's happened to meat before it hits my stomach. So there are actually cogent reasons to not eat meat, and cogent reasons why others shouldn't necessarily push the industry further by continuing to eat meat. I may not follow them, but I'll listen if you speak on that score.
Being gay though? Or marrying if you're gay? Totally different. The only grounds for objection are religious, and they are unverifiable by nature. The meat-eater arguments are demonstrable; the religious ones are not.
So take this much away, I hope:
If you're really going to dig in and protest something, at least have a valid platform to stand on, because you're going to look awfully silly when social progress grinds your ideology to dust.
margorp, you are right in thinking there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with
homosexuality (or anything else for that matter). the problem is that most people who
post to these boards can't stand it when people have opposing viewpoints and not only do
they not want to hear them but they consider the people who hold them to be "scum."
think about that margorp because there is no room for growth and broadening of one's
perspective if people don't want to hear anything other than what they believe to be true.
For myself, I don't disagree. I just say it's not for me, and leave it at that.
Okay, TL/DR time.:)
The example between peanut butter cookies and cocaine ... stretching the point just a little bit I think. That's like comparing homosexuality - something that really doesn't hurt anyone and pedophilia, something that absolutely does. Note for those whom it might not be obvious to, I'm not putting the two on the same level, because they really, really aren't.
As for disagreeing with something, there's a difference between disagreeing and actively opposing or ridiculing. For the record I do disagree with homosexuality for religious, personal and eternal reasons. But I also disagree with smoking, drinking, and hard drugs. I disagree with excess swearing and the way the English language is going. Heck, I even disagree with video games that aren't driven by a strong narrative.:) Some of those things, smoking, drinking, drugging, and to an extent, excess swearing are in fact harmful. Homosexuality though, while it may have eternal implications in my own personal point of view, isn't harming anyone. Two people love one another? Leave them alone and let them get married, raise some kids in a stable, loving household even. Why not? Regardless of one's religious point of view, they should be afforded the same rights as a heterosexual. Their rites to live how they wish should likewise be defended. It is not my place to oppose that lifestyle just because I don't agree with it. As I've said before, I'll be just as happy being friends with a homosexual or heterosexual couple. People are people. People I am friends with know I am LDS, and it's pretty easy, especially with the Supreme Court decision now to learn about what our church's stance is. But I would hope my conduct towards anyone gay would be such that they would be comfortable in my presence even knowing how I feel. And if they are uncomfortable with my conduct, that's something that needs to be mended. Of course, if any couple abuses one another or their children, that's when it becomes harmful whether you're gay or straight.
Cody, I address this last primarily to you. Sorry for the off-topic tangent everyone. I feel like so much you bring to these discussions is just arguing and debating for the sheer sake of it. You and I have been on opposite ends of things for years now and honestly I'm still trying to figure out why this keeps happening. I'd really love to one day be able to understand why you've got - what appears to be - such a supreme hatred for anything religion. I say hatred based on my experiences with you. You don't seem like you disagree, or even actively oppose. It seems deeper than that; more personal and profound, and in many ways a bit dangerous. I understand, based on previous posts that someone or some many have severely wronged you in the past. I don't know what, but I'd love to know one day. For what vague glimmer of worth it might be to you, on behalf of all Christians I want to say a sincere "sorry" for that. However you were treated it certainly isn't in harmony with what I understand to be true Christian behavior. Previous experience has prepared me to expect ridicule and contempt from you, if you deign to respond to me at all, but I hope one day you will be able to focus more on common ground in people than showing them such disdain. Because while those types of Christians you so obviously despise certainly do exist, they hardly make up the majority, and they certainly aren't the be all and end all of this many-facetted religion. Heck, even the term "Christian" can't fully encompass any more about us than our belief in Jesus Christ. Cody, be an atheist; be proud of your convictions. In some ways I envy your sense of certainty. Because right now, while I can whole-heartedly say I sincerely believe my church to be true, I can't with sincerity say "I know". And there is a vast chasm between believing something, and knowing it. So good on you for being so certain. But if you feel you must judge, please do so on an individual basis. And if you must ridicule the scriptures and God, please , please do so with a mind unclouded by hatred born of the past misdeeds of others. Because not every Christian, or even every Christian religion is the one that wronged you. And please be cautious about studying scriptures using sources already steeped in anti-Christian agendas. You said in an earlier post that you're listening to a podcast which is reading over the Book of Mormon. I'd love to know what podcast it is, and from which perspective that discussion comes from. While you might not be able to be objective going over it or any scripture with one whose beliefs prevent them from seeing and trying to understand the many issues in the scriptures which you yourself have good reason to question, you absolutely won't be able to be objective going over them with those determined to find fault. I'll end simply by saying two things. The scriptures cannot be understood by studying alone; it also takes time, sincere pondering, an understanding of their context, a drive to uncover their mysteries, and a spiritual insight born of even a desire to believe. That last may seem ridiculous to you as a man of intellect and evidence, and I get that. I'm not that much different. Despite my faith, I am in many ways quite a skeptic. Which leads me to my final words: one who searches to find evidence of shadow in the brightest light will always be able to do so. In other words, if you spend enough time and energy searching for evidence that supports your belief, or lack thereof, you will most certainly find it. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the whole truth. And yes, I concede that the opposite is also true. After all, people will believe anything, either because they want something to be true badly enough, or because they're afraid it is.
BG, we've been over this before. If you're still wondering why I hate religion,
you haven't been paying attention, and I doubt you're going to start now. I
realize it astounds you that people can look at your religion and not see the
beautiful unicorns farting rainbows that you see, but I assure you it is rather
easy if you're not blinded by your beliefs.
And please, spare me this false sanctimonious rebuttal you all seem to have
of, "I'm so sorry that christians hurt you in the past, but I'm not like them."
You're exactly like them. You just manage to couch your distaste in an upraised
nose and a holier-than-thou attitude.
You want me to judge you individually, start being individuals. Get your own
labels, your own books and your own god. AS long as you take any of someone
else's, you get to be judged under the same umbrella as them. Not to mention
the fact that the mere possibility that you could be different from all the other
millions of christians, and yet still believe in the same god is so stupid it baffles
me that I have to point it out to people.
Show me something different BG, and I'll start treating you different. Right
now, you're nothing more than chelsea with better typing skills and the ability to
hide your hatred behind a false kindliness that I don't buy for a minute. I've met
lots of mormons, and every single one of them is like you, until the person
they're judging is out of earshot. I'm thinking its a behavior taught from the
book of mormon, but I haven't found it yet. Must be in the Pearl of Great Price
or something.
I will answer this though, the podcast is called "my book of mormon". Look it
up, you can read along, maybe you'll learn something.
BG, He doesn't hate you, he hates your religion. But all that is off topic. Yes, I disagree but I do not "hate" gay people. Why would I? People are people and what they do really doesn't affect me. I just happen to personally not like it. Oh well, the gay community will move on I'm sure. Anyhow, I don't wish to argue in circles...just stating my views.
Oh yes, I know he doesn't hate me specifically, margorp. I'm just an anonymous Christian; a contradictory mass of text on a screen. Cody, thank you for your response. It did actually clear a few things up. It's interesting you say we're all the same and seem to suggest I create my own religion to separate myself from the herd. Somehow if I did that I don't see it going well in any way shape or form. Anyway, you're wrong about me hiding my hatred under pleasantness. I'm generally pretty open with how I feel about things, though I genuinely try to be a kind person. if genuine attempts at being kind are nothing more than me turning up my nose with a holier than thou aditude though, then it's no wonder you consider me no different than any other Christian. It might surprise you to know the holier than thou aditude drives me up the wall though. It's on a similar level to arrogance. I can tell you being nice to one's face and speaking ill of them once they've left isn't a "Mormon" concept though. It's apurely human one and is actually quite frowned upon in my church - and in society, though that doesn't keep people from doing it. I'm sure we're all guilty of it from time to time. I'm sad to say I probably have too, though these days I really try not to. Since I tend to rub people the wrong way at times I have had it done to me sometimes also. Anyway, I may indeed take a look at that podcast. I'm sure I will find it revealing.
Here's what I think we need to define:
What does it actually mean to disagree with or disapprove of something? I'm
not a Christian, I'm an atheist. I don't "disagree" with the idea of the Christian
god, I merely don't find it plausible that the Christian god exists. I certainly
abhor some of its attributes as displayed in both the Old Testament, Revelation,
and where the Jesus character talks about putting him before family, or hating
father and mother and spouse etc., something like Osamu Bin Laden would say.
Those are character flaws. But I don't even know what it would mean to claim,
"I disapprove of Christianity," or "I disapprove of Christians." That sounds to me
like gibberish and doesn't make any sense.
The same is true here for homosexuals. What does it even mean to disapprove
of it? If your religion calls it a sin, and you agree with that religion's teachings,
okay, I can understand that. But people who say they disagree with a
characteristic? You disagree with arguments, and you disapprove of your child's
behavior when they are a school-skipping' fool or something. But for anyone of
the age of majority, how would I go about disapproving? I don't have any
guardianship responsibility over them.
Even I, the atheist, have sent some things from the Psalms that Christians send
me for the Wife, on to Her, with no filter. I know that book's pretty catatonic, I
tried to read through it several times. I really tried. But I found it pretty
catatonic. Now in an argument, I would disagree with things written in it,
perhaps, or find other things not to be very likely to exist, but that's because
you disagree with ideas, not characteristics or things you can't argue about.
So there ya go, an atheist can send passages from Christians on Facebook to his
Christian wife who is dealing with cancer, because you've got two human beings
in the same situation. And I bet there are Christians who find their texts
credible re: homosexuality, but still comfort a gay friend in need, or help a gay
person out that they know. In fact, I know there are. I know several like that.
So my question is, how does one meaningfully "disapprove" or "disagree" with a
characteristic? How does that work? Sure, people disagree about rights, or what
texxts say or don't say, or what's the best moral response in a given situation.
I ask this because some here say they disapprove, then others come along and
say it's a terrible thing that they're disapproving. I'm not sure they're actually
doing anything substantive good or bad by disapproving of or disagreeing with
characteristics.
I think to disagree is just to shrug one's sholders and wash their hands of a certain situation. This doesn't mean you condemn in any way.
That doesn't make any sense though. To wash one's hands means apathy, to
disagree with something means you have an opinion on it. You can't both wash
your hands of something and disagree with it. They're not the same thing.
I think we may have narrowed down one of the problems here. Good job Leo.
I should have thought of this earlier.
Now, disagreeing requires some caring. Like, I disagree with things because I
see them, I think they're wrong, and I want them to go away. I disagree with
the confederate flag being flown. I disagree with people saying literally all the
time when they mean figuratively. I disagree with the phrase "Couldn't care
less." Its self-defeating and means literally the exact opposite of what you're
trying to say. I still care about these issues, at least slightly, and I have come
down on the side of them needing to go away.
Now, I washed my hands of the wimbleton tennis tournament. I don't care
about it. I skip over coverage of it in the news. I couldn't even tell you who is
playing or what the prize is. I literally do not care. I neither agree nor disagree
with it. I simply don't care.
So, do you not care about homosexuality, in that you never ask about it,
never think about it, it doesn't really effect your life in any way you can
remember at all even for you to disagree with it, or do you disagree with it in
that you dislike it? You can't have both.
And, to dig a little deeper into the issue, if you wash your hands of the
subject, does it not bother you that there are people in America not afforded the
same rights as you for a reason which you deem so meaningless that you don't
even have the energy to disagree with it? There are people losing their jobs,
losing their homes, going homeless, being kicked out of their families, even
killing themselves over this issue. How can you not care about it?
I care about things that affect me directly. It only bothers me when the "gay issues" are thrust in my face and the faces of people around the world. That is when I will get an opinion. That is when I will become utterly disgusted. It is not gay people that disgusts me, it is the whole gay pride marching in the streets thing. You ever hear of a straight pride parade? Of course not;that's not a thing. Listen, if you're gay your gay just leave me the hell alone. Is it so wrong to feel that way? Is it so wrong to not want to wrap my arms around a gay person and tell them everything is all good? Of course it's wrong according to many. People label me a homophobe for not chanting the phrase, "gay is the way." Enough is enough
Do you know why there's no straight parade? Because straight is statistically normal. There's no sighted-people conventions, but do you speak out about stuff like the NFB convention?
That's honestly a pretty silly standpoint. We're dealing with a rather brutally oppressed minority, who has the temerity to try and rally its members to be brave and do what they feel is right. So do I think they sometimes carry on a little loudly? Yes, yes I do. Blind people do it too. But that doesn't mean it's disgusting or horrible or in any way deplorable that it happens; at the absolute worst, it might, key word might, be a bit excessive.
I wouldn't call you a homophobe, but I would call you narrow-minded on the subject.
And yes, Leo. Thanks a ton for sorta isolating this. I tried, but didn't do so well.
For myself, I can say that I neither disagree with nor wash my hands of gay rights. I don't get myself really involved or anything, and people might ask me why I don't do anything if I do care. They might even say that because I do nothing, I'm not putting my money where my mouth is, so to speak. Well, let them. I speak up where I can, and I stamp out ignorance where I personally see it.
Far as I'm concerned, disagreeing with homosexuality is like disagreeing with colour blindness or a general predisposition in Italy toward dishes which contain a lot of garlic. It's silly, it's groundless, it's short-sighted, and quote-unquote disagreeing with homosexuality has one thing that those other semi-comparable issues don't: it hurts people. Consider that when you presume to elevate yourself above others, and presume to disagree.
To answer the question of, is it wrong, the answer is yes. You are purposefully
avoiding people for their lifestyle, for loving a person you feel they shouldn't
love. And your defense basically boils down to, "Well its icky, so I don't like it."
You're damn right that's wrong. You're really whining about them having pride
parades? How about you try getting beaten by the police and dragged behind
trucks and see if you want to remain nice and quiet about it.
We return to what I said earlier, and I think you've demonstrated it for all to
see now. Disagreeing with something is thinking it would be better if it went
away. What we've seen here is someone who doesn't have the courage to say
that they wish homosexuality would go away, so they just say they wish they
didn't have to see it. They wish the gays would stay out of the streets, and stay
silent, and stay behind closed doors, and never hold hands in public, or have the
basic human rights afforded them by their mere existence. Anyone who thinks
this is any better than those who think gays should be stamped out or should go
to hell is fooling themselves. This is just the cowards way of saying those
things.
Cody, I think you are just not understanding me. I don't spit on any group;it's just wrong to do so. If a person is gay, congradulations. But don't I have my own personal right to feel the way I do? As far as getting beaten I do think that is a shame. If somebody beat me because of my blindness though I doubt I'd form blindness pride groups. I'd say to myself, "what an ignorant (insert word)" and go on with my life as best as I could.
I think you're making a bad connection between having the right to think how
you wish, and having how you think be right. There is a difference between
something being right, and being a right. It is your right to paint yourself blue
and attend your next job interview in a speedo. There's no law against that, its
your right. It is not, however, the right thing to do.
You are free to think however you wish, I'm certainly not going to tie you to a
chair and clockwork orange you into watching gay porn until you think its ok.
However, simply because you have the right to think as you do, does not mean
that your thoughts are right. They're still ignorant and bigoted and hateful and
repugnant to rational and reasonable people. But it is well within your rights to
be an ignorant, bigoted, hateful and repugnant person. You go right on ahead
and be as quietly hateful as you want. I, and others like me, will freely ridicule
you for it, think you less of a human being, and actively avoid socializing with
you if given the choice, but that's our right. It happens that doing so is also the
right thing to do. Get the difference?
Oh, and I'd just like to say that if you were beaten by someone, or dragged
behind a truck, and your only response was to comment on how ignorant they
are, you're more of a coward than I was led to believe by your earlier posts. NO
wonder you won't come straight out and admit you don't like gay people. You
can't even stick up for yourself.
Wanna know why there are such things as gay pride parades? How much straight sex crap do we see on TV and read in books and hear in songs every single day? Why don't you ever tell those straight people to bottle it up and keep that crap out of sight as well? Why is it that only the gay people aren't allowed to show their PDA and the likes?
When a straight couple gets married, it's not a shock at all when they celebrate far and wide, having huge weddings with elaborate cakes and the likes. If the couple is famous, the wedding may even be televised. However, if it's a gay couple getting married, they're told to keep that shit to themselves and no one wants to see that shit and the likes. As a straight guy, Margorp, I dare say you've never even thought of that angle. It's just a right that you take totally for granted. If you had to hide your wife away like some dirty little secret, I think you'd begin to feel differently. Am I right? Here's some more soap. Go wash those hands.
Anthony, many straight people are told to hide that public display. It is mostly overly religious types but it happens. Straight women are told to be shy and not even talk about night time encounters. Many parents shelter their kids from even learning about dating because it could lead to *gulp* getting naked. Many straights are made to feel shame for having basic urges. So Anthony, why are you saying it doesn't happen? Oh and cody, show me where, in the 21st century, a gay person was dragged by a truck.
I didn't say it doesn't happen. I'm saying that we see a lot more straight crap on TV, we hear a lot more straight crap on the radio... Sure, there are a few shows and movies featuring the gay lifestyle, but it's very far from the norm. and as I said, how many gay or lesbian weddings do we hear about that get televised and have over 200 people attending it and the likes? Really now.
True, but that is because, as you stated, it is not the norm. Trust me, I have absolutely no problem with the gay lifestyle. Gay, straight, whatever. I don't care who you are attracted to personally. All I am saying is don't be shocked if it is not treated as normal. I can say that it isn't normal because you basically just admitted it.
So as long as you're quote normal and have all your rights, then you wash your hands of anyone who protests and fights for their rights? Way to go, Fella. Being blind isn't exactly normal either, you know. So keep that cane out of my sight. I don't wanna see that crap. It could effect me personally. What if I trip over it because you're too blind to realize that I'm headed straight for it?
ahahaha not what I meant at all. However, the blindness thing isn't the worst comparison I guess because many blind people have trouble getting married. If one or both partners is on social security they must jump through hoops. So, there ya go, discrimination. Yet all the fighting in the world hasn't changed anything. It is very sad. However, we aren't talking about the blind, we are talking about gay people. And as I've already stated, I have no problem with someone who is gay. My wife has a friend who refuses to shop at Target because according to her, that's where the gays shop. I am tempted to tell her to just grow up and recognize that both gay and straight people are everywhere. See I am able to laugh at her friend's behavior because I find it ignorant. She is clearly against the homosexual lifestyle. I am not.
But following that logic, are you saying there's no need to fight, since it won't accomplish anything anyway? If you know a blind couple who want to get married, do you tell them you don't agree with that lifestyle and that you are washing your hands of it?
Absolutely not. Fight all you can. And if gay people wish to fight, that's their parogative. I just hate having to live in fear of getting labeled a homophobe for not joining them.
So that particular lable really does have so much power over you that you live in fear of it? You don't agree with the gay lifestyle and you wash your hands of it. Now what if I live in fear of you straight people disagreeing with my lifestyle choices and washing your hands of me? If that were really the case, you'd say it was my problem, right? And if I didn't like it, I could always conform to society's view of the norm and then I wouldn't have to deal with that particular fear anymore. The tone I get from you is, "If I can't stomp it out, it should at least be swept under the rug so I never have to hear about or deal with it."
I wouldn't want it to be stomped out. Things have just become so politically correct that if I don't go along and tow the line, the homophobe label is right there. I'm sorry but it's ridiculous.
See what I mean, a repugnant human being. And you all thought I was just
saying that to be mean.
You are welcome to your opinion cody.
It's one thing to disagree, and another to actively or even passively oppose. One can disagree with a way of life, be it for moral, religious or personal reasons, even going so far as to secretly wish it would go away - which I don't by the way - and still stand up for the rights of one living that way of life. Certainly I'm not going to march in gay pride parades - though I'm by no means opposed to doing so either - but I will absolutely stand against anyone who demeans or belittles anyone who is gay. Just because that particular lifestyle doesn't resonate with me doesn't mean people don't have a right to live the way they want. In many ways this is very similar to struggles many other groups - African Americans and Women to name a couple - have faced, and to a large degree still are facing. It's frankly despicable in my oppinion that we still live in a world where equality is still a question, but it is a grim reality. And unfortunately, change does not come quickly in these matters.
I'm sorry to stray a little. But, all you guys that are picking on Chelsea, and you have a right to, are not hearing Cody. This is the same twisted person who if he could, would come out here with more racism than any of us have seen. So, Cody, I value your opinion for what it is worth. Trash. You come out here condemning our ways of thinking, and you go somewhere else on the same site, and show the same hatred you accuse others of having. Just remember guys, when you argue with this human being, that he's just as biggotted as he clames some people out here are.
Now, on Margorp's point, I've really and sincerely heard of a child of a lesbian couple feeling uncomfortable with 2 moms. I heard it from one of the girl's moms. I'm pointing this out, because some people seem to think that kids are just cool with the whole thing. They all aren't made fun of, but they suffer just like the class geek, the kid in a wheelchair, the kid with the white cane, the kid going through Chemo Therapy, the oddball kid, the kid who's short, tall, skinny, fat... Just examples of how children can be mean to other kids. And, if they find someone with a weak spot, they'll take advantage of it. The kids that go to school are your future computer developers, as well as future criminals. I don't see how anyone can say kids of same sex parents are not having any trouble with it. And, this mom I speak of, was mad at her 7-year-old, for not wanting both mommies at her school event.I will also say that I've seen kids totally all right with it. But, the bullying still goes on.
It certainly does. And also to stray a little, not to come down on you, but let's not bash cody. This is counterproductive. I'm not sticking up for him but this is not the place to trash each other.
I wish there were like buttons on these posts as with FB. Lol
Bonus, dislike buttons too.
Apart from his blatent attacks, Cody is right and of course Anthony who is one of us anyway.
Oh Sarah, you really should learn to remain silent when dealing with me. You
display your ignorance so readily. It really makes it too easy for me. I'm pretty
sure I know the post you're talking about, and anyone who is actually familiar
with the terms I used will happily explain to you why you're an ignorant fool
who needs to learn more before trying to speak to her betters. As I have
copious amounts of experience pointing this out to you, however, I'll save
myself the typing.
If there is anyone else, someone with the ability to learn, who wishes answers
to any questions Sarah might have raised, I'll happily provide them. You might
actually learn some interesting tidbits about dark parts of our history.
just a couple of things here:
Yes, okay. There are very occasionally children who are uncomfortable with gay or lesbian parents. I admit it.
But there are children who are stuck between fighting straight parents, children who are gay and afraid to tell straight parents, children who are the product of loveless straight marriages and damn well know it...you get my drift. For every one problem caused by a homosexual relationship, directly or indirectly, I could probably cite dozens or even hundreds found in straight relationships.
This is what being abnormal does, in a way. It means you are statistically not responsible because you make up a minority. If someone said "Kids today are having trouble with their parents"...well, most parents are straight, so by extension most kids having trouble with their parents aren't dealing with homosexual parents, correct?
I'd advise gently against further posturing and the like, you people.
Margorp, I will agree with you on one thing here:
If you simply didn't want to get your hands dirty, didn't want to get involved with gay rights activism and stuff, that doesn't make you a homophobe. People often do throw that word around too readily. I have trouble seeing where you actually stand though; one minute you seem to be saying you don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle - and you already know how I feel on that - and in the next breath it looks like you're saying "Go on and do it, it's just definitely not for me.", which is totally fine. We all have our preferences.
I think the phrase, "Its just not for me" is also over used. Now, Greg, I'm not
talking about you in this instance, because I know where you're coming from.
You've made your stance perfectly clear. Your stance, if I'm not mistaken is, I'm
fine with homosexuality, I'm just not a homosexual. So I don't care if a guy
wants to date a guy, he just can't date me because I don't swing that way. And
that's perfectly fine.
Others, however, use the phrase, "Its just not for me", to mean, "get it out of
my face, go away, get behind closed doors, and oh dear god that's disgusting."
Which is not ok. You and I, greg, agree that gays are fine, but we aren't part of
their community, so we don't want to date one of them. And I'm pretty sure the
gays are ok with that too. Others don't mean it like that, which I think has been
perfectly displayed here.
I have stated many times that I have no problem with the homosexual lifestyle. I have a problem with the labels that are thrown around. It is like I am bulleyed into marching alongside a gay person.
To further to point about how ridiculous it is to point out that children are uncomfortable with having homosexual parents, thus homosexual parents should not be, what about us blind parents? My son is the product of two blind parents. We are both totally blind, so not even a hint of sight. Don't you all think that us being blind will probabbly cause some conflicted feelings in him when he realizes the difference between his parents and that of his friends? Yet, we are straight. We are also good, conscious, loving and attentive parents. Should we not have had our child because we are blind? That's pretty much what you guys are saying about the gay community when you speak of a child's discomfort.
A child will be uncomfortable in any circumstance of minority. He might be adopted as a white boy into a family of black people. He might be the only one in his class to be Jewish. He might be the only kid in his school with atheist parents. There are a number of ways that parents can vastly differ from the majority of parents. And when you say that gay parents are bad for a child's potential identity problems or that the child will experience discomfort, you're saying something that's very obvious, and does not pertain to gay parents alone. You're saying something that pertains to the lot of us on this sight, since many of us are blind parents or are going to be in the future. So as blind parents, are we also to spare the children discomfort and an identity crisis by not having them in the first place? lol
Ah, just like the gay people are bullied in to hiding it away? Well well. Talk about full circle. Sosiety tries to bully gay people in to being straight all the time. Why else do all these gay and lesbian people have to marry and raise families? They don't want the label or the judgment. In your own perception, at least you have a good understanding on what it's like to be bullied for not conforming now.
I've always known what it's like Anthony and I agree that it is ashame. However, I shouldn't be condemned for having my views. I don't believe a gay person should be condemned eether. Yes, a child of a gay couple may grow up confused but kids of straight couples can be just as confused. It is all a part of the human ccondission. You learn to deal with the teasing and the nonsense.
margorp you are a flippin flip flopper. Cody is right. You contradict yourself because you fear blatantly pointing fingers and exposing yourself as a biggot. lol. Oh goodness.
I agree that words have lost meaning. Homophobe -- which I question that term anyhow -- misogynist, infidel, anything. But then again I place humans over ideology.
As to the parents / kids thing: There are kids who don't like being an only child, too. The Daughter used to complain to her mom about it. It was horrible, at least for me, because I'd thought we thought things through, etc., and the complaining was so pervasive I'd work hard all day only to come home at night to have what family we have undermined and devalued. It went on long enough, probably too long in my case, that I finally put my own foot down and said something to the effect our family was just fine as it is. I get it, it hurts. Personally, I hope the gays don't wait the years and years that I did, trying to be an attentive sensisitive parent, etc.
It's got nothing to do with gender / social construct / creation science / any other soft sciences blah blah bullshit, it's got to do with kids often being perpetually dissatisfied.
All I could say to the gays, if youre a parent, put your foot down sooner rather than later, unlike how I responded.
Oh and kids have a hard time with disabled parents too, once they realize other people are staring at mom or dad too. Kids have a hard time with a whole host of things.
Now as to why I think homophobe is not a valid term: it's not a phobia. Dislike isn't phobia. Taking out aggression on other people isn't phobia. It's just become another one of these umbrella terms that is just applied as a catch-all "sinner" word which by definition no longer has meaning. If we're talking hate crimes or terrorism against gay people, that's not phobia, that's hate crime or terrorism. Same goes for discrimination or just simple being rude or anything else. Catch-all terms are bad, IMHO, but I'm also not one of these young slacktavists trying to make a career in the Church, the State or the soft sciences.
Being gay and getting married isn't about acting straight though. It's about certifying the relationship -- which helps with parenting, home ownership, power of attorney in cases of a partner's sickness, wills and estates, and a whole host of other things.
Please show me where I have "flip flopped" Come on folks.
Can I also just point out that kids don't judge naturally? Kids don't hate on
their own. Look at Preschool classes, those kids get along no matter if they're
black, white, gay, straight, or whatever kind of home they come from. Its only
when they get older that they start to judge, because they hear their parents
judging. They learn that gay parents are wrong, and so they think gay parents
are wrong. And when they find out that Lucy has gay parents, they tease Lucy.
If their parents hadn't been bigoted assholes, Lucy wouldn't be getting teased.
Now, maybe the word homophobe is used too much, but you're saying that
your afraid of a label. No one is afraid of a label who isn't part of that label. You
know that your opinions actually fit under the label of homophobic. You know
that your opinions aren't popular, you know they're unacceptable by reasonable
society. You know this, and that is why you are trying your hardest to water
down your opinion, use the most wishywashy language possible, and do
everything in your power to avoid saying, "Yeah, I don't really like the gays."
Sure, you might think they have a right to be gay, but you still don't like them.
If you did, you'd have no problem marching beside them.
Look up at Sarah's post. sarah calls me a racist. I'm not afraid of that. I don't
rush to deny it. I don't twist words around so that it doesn't look like I'm really
a racist. I don't say things like, "its not that I dislike black people, I just wish
they'd keep their culture behind closed doors. I mean, why do I have to hear
rap music or southern blues? Keep that stuff to yourself." I don't say things like
that, because I'm not afraid of the label. I'm not afraid of the label because I
know that Sarah's just too stupid to actually know what she's talking about, and
smart people will know that I'm not a racist. Side note, if you're not a smart
person, I don't really give two shits about what your opinion of me actually is.
So, you keep trying to flop around like a fish, desperate to get out from under
the label of homophobic. The only reason you need to do that is because your
opinions are actually homophobic. Want evidence? Notice how the only people
who say that a word is used to often are people to whom the word applies. The
only reason you want homophobe to mean less things, is because you want it to
stop applying to you.
Hey, what would I need to do to prove to you that I am not homophobic? I'm not homophobic so just name it. You know, I shouldn't need to justify myself to you or anyone else. This is what I get for having opinions.
Well that's easy. Here's the exact thing you need to do to prove you are not
homophobic.
step One: Hold the opinion that gay people are just like you, should have all
the same rights you have, and should not have to hide their love away from you
or anyone else. Realize that homosexual love is just love, and that you don't
need to add any adjectives to it. Realize that gay people are absolutely no
different from you and that there is no such thing as gay community versus
straight community.
Step Two: Express that opinion and shun those who are too backward and
ignorant to agree with it. Make it clear that such opinions, while it is their right
to have them, are not welcome in any society of which you wish to be a part.
step Three: Get some coffee, or whatever you were going to do before, cuz
you're done. That's all their is to it.
Now watch, you're going to flipflop like a little fishy to try to avoid doing that.
I'd be willing to bet the phrase, "right to my opinion" will be used, or maybe
"don't have to justify." Come on fishy, flop for me.
Cody, I was with you in your post about "not for me", but not so much in your last post.
I think the word homophobe is overused, but I'm not one of those people who is caught under its umbrella. I don't think you have to be guilty of a particular vice in order to recognize that others misapplying labels is a thing.
Maybe in this case it is. Maybe it's not. but you made a sweeping generalization, I think, and I'm proof that it's not airtight.
I'm mostly with you otherwise, just not on that.
If I understand the flow of this discussion it looks like Margorp is more tolerant than I thought originally, which is cool.
As a side-note: I may never march in a gay-pride parade, but I'm never going to call anyone else out for doing it, nor am I going to protest anyone else's right to hold such a parade. It's just...not really for me. It's not right, or wrong, or anything. It just is. It doesn't legitimately hurt people, so let it alone; that's my stance on it.
But if he doesn't think the homosexual lifestyle is dirty, why feel the need to wash his hands of it? See what I mean? That's not acceptance. That's a grudging tollerence at best.
My point wasn't to make people mad. It was to correct a misconception, that no kids of gay parents have problems. I got teased too. Not because of my blindness, but because my mom was not nice to me. So, I'd get it at home, then at school.
Now in the case of the person I knew, I think she handled her daughter's anxiety poorly. Being upset with the kid because they are teased isn't how to handle it.
Cody, I'm done with you. You lose any credibility with me, when you throw stuff around like: "Is too stupid," and whatever you can to attempt to hurt others. If that's what you want out of life, all you ghave is sympathy from me. I'm sorry for you and whatever made you so cruel. It's pointless to argue with you. You know you are right, in your eyes. So anything me or someone else says is pointless to you. Have fun. I'm finished with your meanness.
Anyway, like I said before, the kids that get picked on are going to school with professional, intelligent, smart people. Also, they learn with the criminal element of life too. Public schools don't discriminate who they take.
I think you might reconsider your position slightly Greg, and maybe its
different for you since Canada has had gay marriage for a year. Here's my
question. its perfectly fine if you want to be apathetic about the whole issue I
suppose, but why would you want to in the first place? How can you look at an
issue like the fact that a group of people are being repressed for the simple fact
that they don't love who some religious people have deemed they should? How
can you look at that and go, "Well, I'm ok with them, but that's about as far as I
go." I just don't get that. I can't sit back and see people are hurting without
doing anything, even something small, something probably entirely pointless. I
just don't understand how people can see that and still not particularly care.
I do accept that love is love. Let me tell you something. If a friend said to me, "I'm gay and this is my partner" I'd be proud. Proud because they had the courage to stand up for who they are. Hey cody, let me tell you something else. My dad left my mom because he finally gave in to his true nature. His partner is actually really close with the family now. So watch out. Be ware of making sweeping generalizations.
And does he or his partner know that you wish he'd keep his love behind
closed doors? does he know you think he shouldn't be proud, or at the very
least display his pride? Does he know that you wash your hands of this whole
issue?
The basic cruz of your argument here is, "I have gay friends". That doesn't
work when its, "some of my friends are black", why should it work with gay
friends, or family members? Just because your father is gay, doesn't mean
you're not homophobic, or ignorant, or repugnant. You still haven't shaken that
label, you're still flopping like a fish.
It's not precisely that I don't care. It's more that I don't go out of my way to get involved with things. If I explained myself badly before I apologize.
I'm not an activist, that's all.
When I see or hear about injustices being done, I speak up. I've done it here. I've done it when I heard it on a bus. I've done it when I've been around my family and they've said something stupid. I've never mounted the ramparts for any cause in a serious way, that's all.
Cody, to answer your question. He is dead though the guy that was his partner is still around. No, I don't think he ever had to hide anything. I'm just not an activist I guess. Do what you want in this world. I am the type of person who will gladly defend a person's rights. I just feel like we live in a world where just having a conversation about homosexuality gets you labeled because sooner or later people want to jump on that homophobe band wagon. It has become a word that means nothing. But I am fine with a gay couple behaving like a gay couple. I never marched in a gay pride parade because I'm not gay and it is not an issue I hold close to my heart. You see, I wash my hands of it.
Hmm, that wasn't what you said earlier. This is why Bernadetta and I say you
flip flop. You say one thing, get challenged on it, then change what you said in
trying to explain it.
Its like if you tell a pretty girl that you like something, and she says she hates
it, and so you go, 'Well, its not like I love it. I just did it when I was a kid. I
mean, its so childish, but its like nostalgia for me. I don't really like it that
much." You're being wishy washy. Anyone with reading skills could see that.
I believe I am being upfront. I have no problem with homosexuality. You seem to want me to be homophobic just so you can be right.
This is going really far. It seems like everyone's having to defend themselves against Cody's accusations. That's not what this topic was about. Frankly, I don't care enough to defend myself to Cody. But, he's going after anyone and everyone. This is really not what this board was about.
If I was monitoring this board, I'd be ticked. If I had created this topic, I'd be furious.
All I can see lately is Cody=accusation, and everyone he accuses=defending themselves.
Now, is this fair?
Safe Haven, remember?
I don't feel threatened. I have nothing to fear, after all.
Cody, when you say that when a term gets applied and it doesn't fit, you're not bothered. That's not right and you know it. The problem is, words have meaning. Or at least used to. And if I'm going to claim that you're a homophobe, a misogynist, etc., it doesn't fall to you. It falls to me to prove it. There is no way yu can be expected to prove a negative. Perhaps you can do so in some cases, but it's the positive claimant that has the responsibility. Except for these new slacktavist social justice types who seem to throw rationality out the window on its ear.
So, yes it does technically matter when someone applies a term to someone else. And it falls to the one making the claim, not the one being claimed against, to prove it.
Now you may well have proven it in this case, but your assertion in your prior post that it shouldn't matter if one is really "not like that," is patently false. Just like a religious person would have to prove their positive claim that you or I as atheists are by necessity immoral. It doesn't fall to us to disprove that claim, e.g. prove a negative. And yes in fact it does matter that that irrational and false claim is made. In most states in the U.S., where an atheist cannot run for office, for instance.
The issue is, it seems, that Cody wants to be able to have something over me. He calls me a homophobe, I say I am not, and that isn't enough for him. His ego is tied into this topic.
Another issue, Margorp, is in the definition of "washing your hands of it". When many people I know say that, what they're saying is "I refuse to be involved" or "I'm totally done with it". There is usually, though not always, a sense of dismissal, even ascendency, in it.
Sometimes it means exactly what it says though. "This is as far as I go, I have no further feelings on it one way or another really". And if that's your stance, then the more negative connotations do not apply to you.
It has been hard to understand where exactly you stand, because you've used expressions that sometimes have muddy meanings. Thank you for clarifying though.
Well that's easy. Here's the exact thing you need to do to prove you are not
homophobic.
step One: Hold the opinion that gay people are just like you, should have all
the same rights you have, and should not have to hide their love away from you
or anyone else. Realize that homosexual love is just love, and that you don't
need to add any adjectives to it. Realize that gay people are absolutely no
different from you and that there is no such thing as gay community versus
straight community.
Step Two: Express that opinion and shun those who are too backward and
ignorant to agree with it. Make it clear that such opinions, while it is their right
to have them, are not welcome in any society of which you wish to be a part.
step Three: Get some coffee, or whatever you were going to do before, cuz
you're done. That's all their is to it.
Yes, I agree!
I agree as well so I guess we're done as I have shown that I am not homophobic.
Leo, what you described wouldn't be proving a negative. If I called you, lets say,
French, you could simply and easily prove that you are not French. same is true
of racist, or homophobic. All I would have to do, were I inclined, is demonstrate
that Sarah was wrong. Its not hard to do that. Its kind of a hobby at this point.
Proving that you are not something, is not the same as proving there is not
something. Its a subtle thing, but important.
So Cody, are you satisfied that I am not homophobic? I'm not sure how I can better prove myself to you, oh great one. Lol
Nope. I don't know why you wouldn't be sure how to prove yourself. I
specifically told you how to do it. All you had to do was hold a simple opinion.
You couldn't, or wouldn't, even do that. Not sure how I'm supposed to be
impressed with what you've done. Sorry I have too high of standards for you to
meet. I'm sorry that thinking people are equals is just too much work for you.
But, by all means, keep whining. I'm sure someone finds the pathetic bitch act
impressive. its not me, but I'm sure someone does somewhere.
Cody, I guess you haven't read my posts. I hold the opinion that love is love whether it is between a straight couple or a gay couple. I will not keep repeating myself so I ask that you pay attention to the conversation.
And yet you don't want them to have pride parades because you've never
seen a straight pride parade. Sorry, but you have a long hill to climb before I
can trust anything yous ay. That's the consequence of flopping like a fish. Maybe
next time you'll have a bit more conviction and we won't have to sit here and
pick through everything you say trying to figure out which things you mean, in
which manner, and which ones you're going to stick through under scruteny. I'd
have had more respect for you if you'd just stuck with your homophobic first
statements, instead of going through this whole song and dance. But, honestly,
I've never been all that impressed with your courage of conviction, in this or any
other board post I can remember.
I am fine with straight pride parades existing I just personally don't wish to be a part of one.
I'm not talking about straight parades. I'm talking about how you are
disgusted by gay pride parades. You claim to be fine with gay people existing,
yet you are disgusted by them having pride parades. I quote, "I care about
things that affect me directly. It only bothers me when the "gay issues" are
thrust in my face and the faces of people around the world. That is when I will
get an opinion. That is when I will become utterly disgusted. It is not gay people
that disgusts me, it is the whole gay pride marching in the streets thing. You
ever hear of a straight pride parade? Of course not;that's not a thing. Listen, if
you're gay your gay just leave me the hell alone."
That's why I say you're homophobic, because of statements like that, and
you're too much of a coward to cop to them. Know how I know that, because
the minute me, and Greg, and anthony started critcizing you for it, you started
dancing like we were shooting you in the foot. You were desperate to make it
look like your opinion wasn't as insulting and repellant as it was when you first
wrote it, but you weren't so desperate as to stop holding that opinion. You're a
coward. You can't handle having your opinions negatively questioned, and you
apparently don't have the balls to hold opinions of equality. You disgust me.
But you said, and I copy and paste:
I care about things that affect me directly. It only bothers me when the "gay issues" are thrust in my face and the faces of people around the world. That is when I will get an opinion. That is when I will become utterly disgusted. It is not gay people that disgusts me, it is the whole gay pride marching in the streets... End paste.
No, you don't hear of straight pride parades, but as I tried to point out, how much gay sexual content do you see on TV as compared to the amount of straight sexual content? It's in comercials, in music videos, in TV shows... So if I don't want this stuff thrust in my face, I have to not watch TV or listen to the radio? And if I do decide to watch TV or listen to the radio, then according to your own views, I have just as much of a right to be totally disgusted with straight stuff being thrust in my face as you have with gay stuff being thrust in yours. No? So many times on the zone, guys will tell me all about their straight encounters, but if I mention one of my gay encounters, they think I'm creepy, they don't want to hear it and the likes. Well, guess what? It's a two way street.
The parades themselves don't disgust me. What disgusts me is how such a big deal is made out of them. It does not have to be something we need to put on the news as if we need to be so shocked. It is a group of people saying that they deserve to be treated like anyone else. Why should we treat that like it is so unnatural? I believe it is the homophobic media that does this and that is what makes me sick.
Omg, wow... Just wow. lmao!
Being gay is not considered "the norm". I hate using those words, but there it is. So long as there are those in society who look at being gay as a secondary lifestyle there will be need for things like gay pride demonstrations. It's a way by which people who are feeling judged or oppressed or simply different can act in solidarity, standing against those who view them as "queer". Until there is equality between gay and straight such congrogations will continue to exist. And then afterwards they might still exist as a means of celebrating victory. Women and men are not equal, blacks and whites are not equal, blind and sighted are not equal and gay and straight are not equal. It's all getting better, but it's a long way off from true equality. Not equality in that we're all the same, but equality in that we're equally valued and have the same rights. And that ... that is what is truly disgusting.
I understand, but it seems to me that when such parades are talked about in the media it's like a form of exploitation. It's like they're laughing and saying "look at the gays." It's just sick. I know why it is done but it's just sick.
I imagine that would depend on the agenda behind the publicity. One could make a similar observation about publicizing the NFB convention or any other gathering. Certainly the two things aren't the same thing exactly, but they are of a vaguely similar spirit. The convention is all about blind people saying we're just as valuable and have the same rights as everyone else. Gay pride events are basically saying the same thing: look at us; we're people who deserve the same rights, respect and considerations as straight people. And I'd wager they didn't choose to be gay any more than you chose to be blind, or Rodney King chose to be black. That's just the way it is. Sure they can obstain from living the gay lifestyle, but how fair would that be? Why should we expect them to remain alone just because we deem it inappropriate?
I personally don't think it's inappropriate. After all, it's not hurting anybody anymore then my marriage is hurting anybody.
But your apathy is hurting people. If you say, "Well it doesn't effect me, so I
don't really care about it one way or the other" you are not only saying that you
don't mind if gay people kiss in public, but you don't mind if they get beaten up
for it too. After all, you're not gay, you didn't beat them up, it doesn't effect
your life, so why should you care.
There is no middle ground here, no matter how badly you want to avoid
having any finite opinion on this issue. You are either for gay rights, or you are
against them. Because doing nothing is being against them.
Its like if you saw a woman getting raped and went, "meh, not my sister or
girlfriend, so not my problem." You're just as disgusting as the rapest. Why
didn't you call the police, or try to defend the girl? Why did you do nothing.
I truly do not understand how anyone can sit back and do nothing when they
know things like this are going on in their country. And then for you to come out
here and try to pretend like you're ok, that you're not despicable. That disgusts
me.
It angers me when I here about somebody getting abused for just being born a certain way. That's just sick.
Well, you might want to tell your previous posts that, cuz they paint you as
kind of a dick.
This is what is really getting on my nerves. We're using a type of people, Cody, on their board, to raise our voices.
So, I think if we want to argue, ask the owner to make an argument board.
Forget that, let's go Monty Python, and have the Python Boards. "Here on these boards, we can get abusive, argue, put your "friends," down, and then pretend you flush their friendship in the toilet!"
Anyway, It reminds me of going to convention, and watching personal wars get sparked. Kind like using one's platform to belittle others. And, if this is safe haven...
Well, please to consider my thoughts.
Bless ya!
Sarah, I'm not exactly sure I understood that rant but it did make me chuckle.
Gotta be honest here. Some of the flaming that's gone on in here shouldn't have happened. Sarah is right. This board is labelled Safe Haven. I don't know how many people take it seriously, but there ya go.
I also personally wonder at putting such a live-wire sort of topic in Safe Haven in the first place. I think what's happened here is that people have just figured "Well, it's the zone, and it's a hot topic, and so-and-so is being a dick, so I'm gonna call 'em out". And that's all. The fact that it's considered the Safe Haven board simply hasn't registered.
Good observation. Sometimes we all get to hot under the collar over words on a screen.
It's rare, but I once in a blue moon, have been known to make sense. The way I am, people might pay to hear me make sense, but it does happen, sometimes. LOL
Now, to quote a completely ridiculous song:
"Be kind to your web-footed friends,
For a duck could be somebody's mother!"
There's wisdom in that. I sure hope the duck isn't homophobic.
If he is, he's quacked up, fo sho! LOL