NationStates Jolt Archive

All right, I'm sick of the stereotypical gay debates going on in the forum. So, I'm stepping away from that and giving you all my take on the gay rights issue, which drifts drastically away from the "normal" stance most homosexuals take, especially in America.

First, and foremost, I am a lesbian. I did not choose to be one, I was born this way. Simple as that.

Second, the gay rights activism needs to be done in an everyday setting. Homosexuals need not parade their sexuality in an attempt to draw attention to the fact that our lifestyles stray from the norm. Instead, gays everywhere need to just live their lives as if they weren't different, as hard as this may be, to show the rest of the world that may disagree with them that we aren't attention-seeking sexual predators.

These images of so-called pride parades, homosexuals flamboyantly showcasing their sexuality in nudity, mass make-out sessions, and general debauchery show the world that we are immature, lecherous, and in no means respectable. Instead, it shows that we are self-promoting loathesome creatures of predatory nature. We get this reputation by self-promoting ourselves, by showcasing ourselves in the poorest of light

Third, I support civil unions. Marriages have always been a religious institution. So long as homosexuals are guaranteed the same civil/legal rights as married heterosexual couples do, I'm all for civil unions. However, if this is not the case, then something needs to be overhauled so that we can share the bond of civil union in some state or fashion.

Basically, I believe a homosexual should just live their life and just go on with it rather than go out of their way to show that they are gay.

If I want to kiss my girlfriend in public, I kiss her; if I want to hold her hand, I hold her hand. I by no means try to draw attention to myself, I simply do what heterosexual couples do.

This is how homosexuals need to approach this battle, because we sure aren't winning it the way we're handling it now, and we won't EVER win it if we continue down this path of civil right self-destruction.

*applauds*

I agree with you 110%!

That is the best response I've ever seen here to the gay-issues. That is exactly what other people need to see as well, both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

*applauds*

:D Wow, my thoughts exactly. (I'm just waiting for someone to disagree, so I can beat them up... :twisted: )

Thank-you, everyone; it took me a long time to get to this point in thinking on how to be active in the gay rights battle.

As a homosexual, it is hard to live in America, but I get by. Yes, I'm called a "fag," among other things, even by my own family. I don't hold it against people. You can't fight ignorance with fire, you simply have to go on, and show that you can.

I know... But, it's hard sometimes when the people in your family are alarmingly racist and they aren't discreet about it around you...

I know... But, it's hard sometimes when the people in your family are alarmingly racist and they aren't discreet about it around you...

Oh, agreed. It is rough, and some don't make it through, but sometimes you just have to do it. Hopefully, someday, homosexuals will see that.

Yeah, I've heard that USA is like the "middle-school of the earth"

Yeah, I've heard that USA is like the "middle-school of the earth"

*snicker* doesn't surprise me.

Heh. I would agree in most cases. It has its bright flashes of maturity, but those are quickly obscured by the ignorant masses.

I agree with nearly everything you say. I think marriage is a private contract between two people and the government should stay out of it. There shouldn't be any benefits to being married and you should be able to will your property to whomever you so chose. So I'm with yall (the gays) just in a different kind of way.

Kryozerkia, that would be prejudicenot racism.

"Hats off gentlemen, a genius!"

Finally somone else is saying this!!! I'm bisexual and any gay friends I have make sure to put it right out there in peoples faces. I'm sick of all that. My other friends call me a hypocrite because I do like members of the opposite sex, but am against something like gay marriage because I view it as a religious issue. I agree when you say we aren't winning any popularity or respect with the pride parades. *tips hat to you* :)

Yeah, I've heard that USA is like the "middle-school of the earth"

I'd compare it to more like "high school of the earth," but who's to argue with semantics?

"Hats off gentlemen, a genius!"
I'm a gentlewomen, personally... hehe. :lol:

Finally somone else is saying this!!!
Seriously, I thought I was the only out there who thought this way.

Finally somone else is saying this!!!
Seriously, I thought I was the only out there who thought this way.

You're not alone...

you know, i never really thought about what it means to be gay. i just did the same stuff with my girlfriends as i had with my boyfriends, and i still don't understand why one situation made people profoundly uncomfortable while the other made them give those cutie-pie looks and cluck their tongues favorably over our cuddling.

i don't think about attracting or not attracting attention, because i genuinely don't care what anybody thinks of my relationships except for the person in the relationship with me. if some people think i am too flashy about it then that's fine...they can think that, and they can be just as mad and nasty as they want. they're wasting their time, because i don't care.

All right, I'm sick of the stereotypical gay debates going on in the forum. So, I'm stepping away from that and giving you all my take on the gay rights issue, which drifts drastically away from the "normal" stance most homosexuals take, especially in America.

First, and foremost, I am a lesbian. I did not choose to be one, I was born this way. Simple as that.

Second, the gay rights activism needs to be done in an everyday setting. Homosexuals need not parade their sexuality in an attempt to draw attention to the fact that our lifestyles stray from the norm. Instead, gays everywhere need to just live their lives as if they weren't different, as hard as this may be, to show the rest of the world that may disagree with them that we aren't attention-seeking sexual predators.

These images of so-called pride parades, homosexuals flamboyantly showcasing their sexuality in nudity, mass make-out sessions, and general debauchery show the world that we are immature, lecherous, and in no means respectable. Instead, it shows that we are self-promoting loathesome creatures of predatory nature. We get this reputation by self-promoting ourselves, by showcasing ourselves in the poorest of light

Third, I support civil unions. Marriages have always been a religious institution. So long as homosexuals are guaranteed the same civil/legal rights as married heterosexual couples do, I'm all for civil unions. However, if this is not the case, then something needs to be overhauled so that we can share the bond of civil union in some state or fashion.

Basically, I believe a homosexual should just live their life and just go on with it rather than go out of their way to show that they are gay.

If I want to kiss my girlfriend in public, I kiss her; if I want to hold her hand, I hold her hand. I by no means try to draw attention to myself, I simply do what heterosexual couples do.

This is how homosexuals need to approach this battle, because we sure aren't winning it the way we're handling it now, and we won't EVER win it if we continue down this path of civil right self-destruction.
You're the most awesome Lesbian i've ever heard speak. Will you be my friend?

you know, i never really thought about what it means to be gay. i just did the same stuff with my girlfriends as i had with my boyfriends, and i still don't understand why one situation made people profoundly uncomfortable while the other made them give those cutie-pie looks and cluck their tongues favorably over our cuddling.

It all comes down to ignorance and lack of belief that this does occur in the real world rather than the plastic bubble most live in nowadays.

As a Christian, I totally agree with you.....

I've been trying to figure out just why pride parades exist, since they do seem quite counterproductive these days. Perhaps they are a holdover from when people generally weren't aware that there were homosexuals in their towns. Perhaps it's just the same stupidity in numbers that presents itself in masses everywhere. Maybe it's getting together with more people with a common bond than you usually see in one place and just getting out of control. Thoughts? I've never really understood why pride parades went on.

The Onion did an article on gay pride parades:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3715/gay_pride_parade.html

All right, I'm sick of the stereotypical gay debates going on in the forum. So, I'm stepping away from that and giving you all my take on the gay rights issue, which drifts drastically away from the "normal" stance most homosexuals take, especially in America.

First, and foremost, I am a lesbian. I did not choose to be one, I was born this way. Simple as that.

Second, the gay rights activism needs to be done in an everyday setting. Homosexuals need not parade their sexuality in an attempt to draw attention to the fact that our lifestyles stray from the norm. Instead, gays everywhere need to just live their lives as if they weren't different, as hard as this may be, to show the rest of the world that may disagree with them that we aren't attention-seeking sexual predators.

These images of so-called pride parades, homosexuals flamboyantly showcasing their sexuality in nudity, mass make-out sessions, and general debauchery show the world that we are immature, lecherous, and in no means respectable. Instead, it shows that we are self-promoting loathesome creatures of predatory nature. We get this reputation by self-promoting ourselves, by showcasing ourselves in the poorest of light

Third, I support civil unions. Marriages have always been a religious institution. So long as homosexuals are guaranteed the same civil/legal rights as married heterosexual couples do, I'm all for civil unions. However, if this is not the case, then something needs to be overhauled so that we can share the bond of civil union in some state or fashion.

Basically, I believe a homosexual should just live their life and just go on with it rather than go out of their way to show that they are gay.

If I want to kiss my girlfriend in public, I kiss her; if I want to hold her hand, I hold her hand. I by no means try to draw attention to myself, I simply do what heterosexual couples do.

This is how homosexuals need to approach this battle, because we sure aren't winning it the way we're handling it now, and we won't EVER win it if we continue down this path of civil right self-destruction.


APPLAUSE!! :D

Go gay pride.

I've never really understood why pride parades went on.

I don't quite understand the aspect of "pride parades." I mean, heterosexuals definitely don't do it? Neither has any other civil rights activist group... so, I'm quite baffled by it myself. If you look up it up on Google or Yahoo! all you find is abstracts of histories from city parades, not the idea of history of itself.

I'm normally a very peaceful pothead type of person but when people get sexist, racist or otherwised prejudiced I can get violent... Grrr

I've never really understood why pride parades went on.

I don't quite understand the aspect of "pride parades." I mean, heterosexuals definitely don't do it? Neither has any other civil rights activist group... so, I'm quite baffled by it myself. If you look up it up on Google or Yahoo! all you find is abstracts of histories from city parades, not the idea of history of itself.
Well, ethnic groups sometimes have cultural parades, but they're usually associated with a holiday within that culture (Chinese new year, etc).

I've never really understood why pride parades went on.

I don't quite understand the aspect of "pride parades." I mean, heterosexuals definitely don't do it? Neither has any other civil rights activist group... so, I'm quite baffled by it myself. If you look up it up on Google or Yahoo! all you find is abstracts of histories from city parades, not the idea of history of itself.
Well, ethnic groups sometimes have cultural parades, but they're usually associated with a holiday within that culture (Chinese new year, etc).

I believe Gay pride parades (at least many of them; I know they are in NY) mark the end of the Stonewall riots, and thus do kind of mark an important date in gay history. There is some meaning behind it; it's not really just a display of hedonism (though that's probably part of it).

I've never really understood why pride parades went on.

I don't quite understand the aspect of "pride parades." I mean, heterosexuals definitely don't do it? Neither has any other civil rights activist group... so, I'm quite baffled by it myself. If you look up it up on Google or Yahoo! all you find is abstracts of histories from city parades, not the idea of history of itself.
Well, ethnic groups sometimes have cultural parades, but they're usually associated with a holiday within that culture (Chinese new year, etc).

Hence the theories I was toying with...gay pride parades seem quite unproductive, and I see no reason why tehy still go on. They just seem to be rather tasteless fuel for the fires burning against them. Are there more than one kind of "Pride Parade," though? Something other than the over-the-top productions that usually spring to mind?

The Onion did an article on gay pride parades:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3715/gay_pride_parade.html

Those pictures make me sick. You want to see a "normal" homosexual couple: Check out my pictures (http://www.skytowerpoet.net/thegirlfriend/pictures.html) of my girlfriend and I. I'm the brunette.

The Onion did an article on gay pride parades:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3715/gay_pride_parade.html

Those pictures make me sick. You want to see a "normal" homosexual couple: Check out my pictures (http://www.skytowerpoet.net/thegirlfriend/pictures.html) of my girlfriend and I. I'm the brunette.

wow, i'm really surprised to hear such venom from somebody who, by rights, should be a model of tollerance. those pics are used for comic effect, but even if they weren't there is no reason for you to feel sick simply because people don't chose to express sexuality the same way you do. it's not really my style either, but as long as everyone is a consenting adult i don't see any reason to be sickened by anything.

wow, i'm really surprised to hear such venom from somebody who, by rights, should be a model of tollerance. those pics are used for comic effect, but even if they weren't there is no reason for you to feel sick simply because people don't chose to express sexuality the same way you do. it's not really my style either, but as long as everyone is a consenting adult i don't see any reason to be sickened by anything.

First, you've taken my comments out of context, I was sick by the pictures, not the people or their practices showcased by them.

Why are these pictures showcased, why not more acceptable pictures, rather than ones that show homosexuality is a practice rather than a photo-seeking opportunity?

I know The Onion is satire, but when pride parades occur, all that is reported is the seemingly sexual seediness of homosexual lifestyle, rather than the down-to-earth lifestyle it really is in life.

I believe Gay pride parades (at least many of them; I know they are in NY) mark the end of the Stonewall riots, and thus do kind of mark an important date in gay history. There is some meaning behind it; it's not really just a display of hedonism (though that's probably part of it).

Unfortunately, the display of hedonism is what IS shown to the American public at large, and that is how most ignorant people understand homosexuality to be.

Side note: I'm off to bed for the night, so, if I don't respond it's because I'm sleeping. I'll get back to this thread tomorrow sometime; if you want to talk to me personally, TG me. Night, all!

wow, i'm really surprised to hear such venom from somebody who, by rights, should be a model of tollerance. those pics are used for comic effect, but even if they weren't there is no reason for you to feel sick simply because people don't chose to express sexuality the same way you do. it's not really my style either, but as long as everyone is a consenting adult i don't see any reason to be sickened by anything.

First, you've taken my comments out of context, I was sick by the pictures, not the people or their practices showcased by them.


i stand corrected.


Why are these pictures showcased, why not more acceptable pictures, rather than ones that show homosexuality is a practice rather than a photo-seeking opportunity?


i don't see anything less acceptable about what is shown in those pictures. if you don't think the behavior is wrong then why would pictures of it be wrong? sure, a skewed media is going to show the most sensational pics, but only the morons buy into their twisted sensationalism anyway, and the morons don't vote so nobody has to care what they think.


I know The Onion is satire, but when pride parades occur, all that is reported is the seemingly sexual seediness of homosexual lifestyle, rather than the down-to-earth lifestyle it really is in life.

erm, that's the exact point the Onion was making...but hey, it's all convoluted satire anyhow :).

Well, I'd say for the most part this was a pretty good discussion, and with that warm feeling, I sleep.

All right, I'm sick of the stereotypical gay debates going on in the forum. So, I'm stepping away from that and giving you all my take on the gay rights issue, which drifts drastically away from the "normal" stance most homosexuals take, especially in America.

First, and foremost, I am a lesbian. I did not choose to be one, I was born this way. Simple as that.

Second, the gay rights activism needs to be done in an everyday setting. Homosexuals need not parade their sexuality in an attempt to draw attention to the fact that our lifestyles stray from the norm. Instead, gays everywhere need to just live their lives as if they weren't different, as hard as this may be, to show the rest of the world that may disagree with them that we aren't attention-seeking sexual predators.

These images of so-called pride parades, homosexuals flamboyantly showcasing their sexuality in nudity, mass make-out sessions, and general debauchery show the world that we are immature, lecherous, and in no means respectable. Instead, it shows that we are self-promoting loathesome creatures of predatory nature. We get this reputation by self-promoting ourselves, by showcasing ourselves in the poorest of light

Third, I support civil unions. Marriages have always been a religious institution. So long as homosexuals are guaranteed the same civil/legal rights as married heterosexual couples do, I'm all for civil unions. However, if this is not the case, then something needs to be overhauled so that we can share the bond of civil union in some state or fashion.

Basically, I believe a homosexual should just live their life and just go on with it rather than go out of their way to show that they are gay.

If I want to kiss my girlfriend in public, I kiss her; if I want to hold her hand, I hold her hand. I by no means try to draw attention to myself, I simply do what heterosexual couples do.

This is how homosexuals need to approach this battle, because we sure aren't winning it the way we're handling it now, and we won't EVER win it if we continue down this path of civil right self-destruction.

I am a heterosexual but I believe that every person has the right to do what they want. It doesn’t matter your preference in sexual orientation you still disserve the same amount of rights given to you by the constitution. I know gay people and they are some of the best people I know. Homosexual couples live together, have bank accounts etc. Why can't homosexuals marry? The one thing that I don't understand is that the U.S. constitution is so hard to admen and we can't even admen the Electoral College why are we even looking at having an amendment for making gay marriage illegal? Makes absolutely no sense!!! No there is no reason for this.

As a conservative, I applaud your mature stance and restraint. There are a number of folks that I deal with that could learn a great deal from you.

Well said, and good show. I should pass that one on to Ziobia.

Cheers from a Catholic!
:D Aiera

First of all, wonderful post, Heights.

(Damn Bottle, one of us keeps following the other around it seems!)


Now, first I am a hetero, with all that accmpanies that, blah blah. However, I am also an atheist, which gives me a bit of a strange view on the idea of gay marriage.


First, why should marriage be the "norm" instead of civil unions? Why is the government allowed to perform civil marriages? Granted, its tradition and such, but wouldnt the government prefer civil unions, where it doesnt have to grant rights based on the joining of a couple by a Church (aka, a NGO or Non-governmental organization). Second, civil unions should of course be alowed the same rights and such, but why would anyone so virulently persecuted by religious groups for being who you are (homosexual, atheist, etc) want to be bound by marriage, by a religious figure? If civil unions were granted, wouldnt that be more preferable, or is it a matter of stigma?

Finally, I find it odd that the double standard of lesbians being "hot" to all these people against homosexuality, but gay men being strangely a taboo subject.


On that note, I shall leave it be. I support your efforts and such, and once more, your foresight to realize moderation, not radicalism, will lead to justice.

-Crownguard

"Matrix Action?!?! REAL Men Fight Like the Mario Bros!"

First, why should marriage be the "norm" instead of civil unions? Why is the government allowed to perform civil marriages? Granted, its tradition and such, but wouldnt the government prefer civil unions, where it doesnt have to grant rights based on the joining of a couple by a Church (aka, a NGO or Non-governmental organization). Second, civil unions should of course be alowed the same rights and such, but why would anyone so virulently persecuted by religious groups for being who you are (homosexual, atheist, etc) want to be bound by marriage, by a religious figure? If civil unions were granted, wouldnt that be more preferable, or is it a matter of stigma?
I was always under the impression that marriage preceded established religion. As such, this seems to be a debate more in the realm of anthropology and archeology than simple religious vs. rights debate. I would like to see some information on the historic and prehistoric roots of marriage myself.

Finally, I find it odd that the double standard of lesbians being "hot" to all these people against homosexuality, but gay men being strangely a taboo subject.
I have my own opinion on the matter of why one stigma is stronger than the other, but that is neither here nor there. I don't care much for either myself, though it is thankfully not my responsibility to live other people's lives.

I've never really understood why pride parades went on.

I don't quite understand the aspect of "pride parades." I mean, heterosexuals definitely don't do it? Neither has any other civil rights activist group... so, I'm quite baffled by it myself. If you look up it up on Google or Yahoo! all you find is abstracts of histories from city parades, not the idea of history of itself.I look at pride parades the same way I look at groups like PETA--they're on the edge, pushing the envelope of acceptable behavior, but acknowledging that they aren't the mainstream at the same time. What happens as a result is that the center of the debate gets shifted, and in the case of gay rights, that's a good thing.

Here's what I mean--30 years ago, a person could beat an openly gay man nearly to death and almost be assured of walking away a free man. The attitude was "the faggot had it coming." That's not the case anymore, because gays have taken a stand and demanded equal protection, and they've been able to do that because a fringe group decided that it was time to be proud and open about their sexuality. Over the years, the gay prode parades became a showcase for the freakier members of the community, but as a result, people like you and your girlfriend aren't regarded as freaks as often anymore because people know you for who you are as a person. Your friends and acquaintances are more likely to say "you're lesbian? But you look normal." And that's how the education of society continues.

So look at them this way--without the multiple-pierced freakshows taking the heat, you'd still be taking it. They're giving you covering fire in the culture wars, and as a result, your side is winning. Congrats, from a hetero male once married to a woman who didn't realize she was a lesbian (thanks to church) for 7 years.

What's next? Pedo-pride walks? You liberals will tolerate anything won't you.

Well, except those who disagree with you, like 'homophobes'. Those are insulted and discriminated against.

I've never really understood why pride parades went on.

I don't quite understand the aspect of "pride parades." I mean, heterosexuals definitely don't do it? Neither has any other civil rights activist group... so, I'm quite baffled by it myself. If you look up it up on Google or Yahoo! all you find is abstracts of histories from city parades, not the idea of history of itself.I look at pride parades the same way I look at groups like PETA--they're on the edge, pushing the envelope of acceptable behavior, but acknowledging that they aren't the mainstream at the same time. What happens as a result is that the center of the debate gets shifted, and in the case of gay rights, that's a good thing.

Here's what I mean--30 years ago, a person could beat an openly gay man nearly to death and almost be assured of walking away a free man. The attitude was "the faggot had it coming." That's not the case anymore, because gays have taken a stand and demanded equal protection, and they've been able to do that because a fringe group decided that it was time to be proud and open about their sexuality. Over the years, the gay prode parades became a showcase for the freakier members of the community, but as a result, people like you and your girlfriend aren't regarded as freaks as often anymore because people know you for who you are as a person. Your friends and acquaintances are more likely to say "you're lesbian? But you look normal." And that's how the education of society continues.

So look at them this way--without the multiple-pierced freakshows taking the heat, you'd still be taking it. They're giving you covering fire in the culture wars, and as a result, your side is winning. Congrats, from a hetero male once married to a woman who didn't realize she was a lesbian (thanks to church) for 7 years.

30 years ago? Openly gay? Back then wasn't sodomy a CRIME in the USA?
Have a look at this "documentary" about homosexuality from 1961 (so thats 40 years ago):
http://movies02-bu.archive.org/1/movies/boys_beware/boys_beware_256kb.mp4
(mpeg)
Notice how the child-molester gets sent to jail and his victim is released to his parents "on probation"...why? See, little Timmy broke the law... :roll:

What's next? Pedo-pride walks? You liberals will tolerate anything won't you.

Well, except those who disagree with you, like 'homophobes'. Those are insulted and discriminated against.

is there something about the word "consent" that is just too much to handle? i mean, it's not very long, it doesn't have unusual letters like "Q" or "Z," and it's not a cognate for anything bizarre. would it help if we wrote it in large text or underlined it?

I'm 'straight' if that's really a statement that anyone can make, but "Gay Pride" do's, are above all fun! Yeah, I too am uncomfortable when they are hijacked by the strident gayists who shout demands. I am not uncomfortable with gay guys or girls. I know the old 'some of my best friends are gay' thing has been misused too many times, but, as a bloke I can say I have some really good lesbian mates and I think the world of them.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I'm 'straight' if that's really a statement that anyone can make, but "Gay Pride" do's, are above all fun!

yeah, i agree on that one...i just like a good party, and Pride parades are always a lot of fun. of course, i'm a heathen strumpet who doesn't have a problem with sexuality, so that makes it a bit easy for me :).

What's next? Pedo-pride walks? You liberals will tolerate anything won't you.

Well, except those who disagree with you, like 'homophobes'. Those are insulted and discriminated against.

is there something about the word "consent" that is just too much to handle? i mean, it's not very long, it doesn't have unusual letters like "Q" or "Z," and it's not a cognate for anything bizarre. would it help if we wrote it in large text or underlined it?

It's that to them, "consent" is associated with "no."

:)

What's next? Pedo-pride walks? You liberals will tolerate anything won't you.

Well, except those who disagree with you, like 'homophobes'. Those are insulted and discriminated against.

is there something about the word "consent" that is just too much to handle? i mean, it's not very long, it doesn't have unusual letters like "Q" or "Z," and it's not a cognate for anything bizarre. would it help if we wrote it in large text or underlined it?

It's that to them, "consent" is associated with "no."

:)

:lol:

*helpless mirth*

quite.

Well, except those who disagree with you, like 'homophobes'. Those are insulted and discriminated against.

Are you saying that people shouldn't be treated according to their beliefs?

Because I beg to differ. If you believe in a legal system, then you do too, you just don't realise it.

Though I tend to think anything designed to show pride in a nation or concept is silly, unless it gives me a break from college. Black pride, gay pride, British pride, white pride, flag waving, and the whole hosts of prides that exist all seem really daft.

Gosh I dislike PETA.

...

Just as an aside, Justin Timberlake gyrating is just the most beautifully hilarious thing ever.

Damn right, Tuesday Heights. If 'gay-pride' organisers really wanted to show the world that gays were normal people, they'd create organisations to help gay people get into decent jobs like bank managers, and stop discrimination in the workplace.

British pride.

I didn't know that even existed.
In the words of Flanders and Swann, we don't need to go round saying how great we are. Everyone knows that.

Well, blatantly. My problem's more that the British National Front actually declares their pride in the nation. Where's the elan, the style, the social grace borne from knowing that everyone else already acknowledges your superiority?

:D

Well, to be perfectly honest, I think, at least in the current situation in the United States, it's gone way beyond just being about homosexual marriage to being about modifying the constitution to include discrimination and the willingness of President Bush to consider such. If this is the issue that this battle should be fought on, I don't know and can't say, but speaking as a Quaker who's meeting found clarity on this issue back in the 80s, it is a dangerous precedent to allow any group to suffer discrimination and it must be opposed.

As I've alread said in another thread on the UN board, in the 200 plus years of our country's existance, we have only modified the one document that codifies all our rights, responsibilities and freedoms 17 times. Each time, each amendment, was to insure the further of additional rights and freedoms. The right to bear arms (which I personal disagree with, but it's there and so it counts), the right for women to vote, the abolition of slavery. Each one of these amendments, in the original spirit of our Constitution, protected the individual and increased the liberty available for all.

Now, for the first time in a very long time, we have a President in the White House who not only is willing to make a ruling on what is very clearly a states rights issue, but is encouraging amending the Constitution, for the first time in the history of our country, to include discrimination.

You shouldn't care if you think homosexuals are either made by genetics or choice. You shouldn't care if you think the life style is right or wrong. What you should care about is that, in an unprecedented move, we have the leader of the largest democracy and the supposed world champion of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, advocating for the opposite of everything our country is supposed to represent and aspire to.

What's even worse, is that he is doing it to cover a shoddy domestic policy which amounts to little more than raiding the country for the gain of his political friends and an abysmal foreign policy that has not only failed to capture the man responsible for one of the most heinous terrorist acts the world has seen, but has managed to make us a global pariah.

In order to gain re-election, our he is willing to adulterate the very thing that our country was founded on: freedom.

We can argue all day about the morality of it, if it's against the will of God (which, given his nature, doesn't seem possible, but that's just my own clarity), if it should be called marriage. Debate is good and healthy. However, if you are a resident of the United States, please don't be complacent and think, "Well, I'm not gay, so this doesn't affect me," or "Well, I'm a Christian and don't think it's right." Think about our country. Think about the very fabric of our nation the very guiding principle our whole way of life was based on and then you will see the crux at which we are poised.

As for gay pride parades, I asked a gay friend of mine who frequently attends them what the attraction was. He said that, aside from the party aspect, it seemed like it was a way to be forcefully reinfranchised. It was a way to not only show the world that they are there and living their lives, but also to show each other that they are there as well. After being branded their entire lives as a "minority" it begins to stick in the subconcious and it sets you apart from society. You become isolated, withdrawn. Particularly with being gay. You can "pass" as straight so it's not like you can walk down the street and say, "Well, there's another gay man," like you can walk down the street and say, "Well, there's another black man," or "Well, there's another asian woman." It's a way to feel part of a community when you are usually forced into the role of an outsider. I pointed out to him that the images usually captured by the media don't really paint homosexuals in the best light and his response was simple. That's the media. Is every black person a gangsta thug drinking a 40 while polishing their glock and their bling bling? No, of course not. However, you might take that image away if all you know is what you see on T.V. So, like them or not, I think, in a way, gay pride parades are important for the gay community right now. Not only do they say, We're Here, but they say, We're Here Together.

Tuesday Heights for President!

I agree with nearly everything you say. I think marriage is a private contract between ''two people'' and the government should stay out of it.

What about a man and a boy? Why stop at two as long they all love each other? How about a 2 men and 4 women, what's wrong with that? Or maybe 4 men, 3 boys, 8 women, 7 sheep, and a car?

Tuesday Heights for President!

I second that nomination.

Yeah, I've heard that USA is like the "middle-school of the earth"

I'd compare it to more like "high school of the earth," but who's to argue with semantics?

Personally, I think "Detention Centre for the Soul" would work better... :P

The Onion did an article on gay pride parades:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3715/gay_pride_parade.html

Those pictures make me sick. You want to see a "normal" homosexual couple: Check out my pictures (http://www.skytowerpoet.net/thegirlfriend/pictures.html) of my girlfriend and I. I'm the brunette.

Snubis, step away from the link.

I agree with nearly everything you say. I think marriage is a private contract between ''two people'' and the government should stay out of it.

What about a man and a boy? Why stop at two as long they all love each other? How about a 2 men and 4 women, what's wrong with that? Or maybe 4 men, 3 boys, 8 women, 7 sheep, and a car?

again we seem to have trouble with the word "CONSENT." here, i'll say it louder: CON-FREAKING-SENT.

a minor cannot give consent. a sheep cannot give consent. adult humans can give consent, and any sexual activities they chose to engage in with other consenting adults are nobody's business but those involved.

I agree with nearly everything you say. I think marriage is a private contract between ''two people'' and the government should stay out of it.

What about a man and a boy? Why stop at two as long they all love each other? How about a 2 men and 4 women, what's wrong with that? Or maybe 4 men, 3 boys, 8 women, 7 sheep, and a car?

again we seem to have trouble with the word "CONSENT." here, i'll say it louder: CON-FREAKING-SENT.

a minor cannot give consent. a sheep cannot give consent. adult humans can give consent, and any sexual activities they chose to engage in with other consenting adults are nobody's business but those involved.
If it's not supposed to be our business, then why parade it in public with no sense of common decency?

I agree with nearly everything you say. I think marriage is a private contract between ''two people'' and the government should stay out of it.

What about a man and a boy? Why stop at two as long they all love each other? How about a 2 men and 4 women, what's wrong with that? Or maybe 4 men, 3 boys, 8 women, 7 sheep, and a car?

again we seem to have trouble with the word "CONSENT." here, i'll say it louder: CON-FREAKING-SENT.

a minor cannot give consent. a sheep cannot give consent. adult humans can give consent, and any sexual activities they chose to engage in with other consenting adults are nobody's business but those involved.
If it's not supposed to be our business, then why parade it in public with no sense of common decency?

same reason heterosexuals "parade" at spring break, Mardi Gras, and dozens of other contexts and festivals. nobody's forcing you to go to Pride parades, just like nobody forces me to go to the Easter Parade in my home town. i think the Easter parade is disgusting and a celebration of warped values, but i'm not going to tell people they haven't got the right to party for what they care about. quit bossing people around and deal with your own life...you should have plenty to keep you busy.

I agree with nearly everything you say. I think marriage is a private contract between ''two people'' and the government should stay out of it.

What about a man and a boy? Why stop at two as long they all love each other? How about a 2 men and 4 women, what's wrong with that? Or maybe 4 men, 3 boys, 8 women, 7 sheep, and a car?

again we seem to have trouble with the word "CONSENT." here, i'll say it louder: CON-FREAKING-SENT.

a minor cannot give consent. a sheep cannot give consent. adult humans can give consent, and any sexual activities they chose to engage in with other consenting adults are nobody's business but those involved.
If it's not supposed to be our business, then why parade it in public with no sense of common decency?

same reason heterosexuals "parade" at spring break, Mardi Gras, and dozens of other contexts and festivals. nobody's forcing you to go to Pride parades, just like nobody forces me to go to the Easter Parade in my home town. i think the Easter parade is disgusting and a celebration of warped values, but i'm not going to tell people they haven't got the right to party for what they care about. quit bossing people around and deal with your own life...you should have plenty to keep you busy.
agreed to some extent, i think gay pride parades actually do more harm to the gay community than good (there was a good onion article about this)

Seriously... <<<APPLAUSE>>>

Absolutely! I agree with every point and feel exactly the same way.

Seriously... <<<APPLAUSE>>>

Absolutely! I agree with every point and feel exactly the same way.with who?

I agree with nearly everything you say. I think marriage is a private contract between ''two people'' and the government should stay out of it.

What about a man and a boy? Why stop at two as long they all love each other? How about a 2 men and 4 women, what's wrong with that? Or maybe 4 men, 3 boys, 8 women, 7 sheep, and a car?

again we seem to have trouble with the word "CONSENT." here, i'll say it louder: CON-FREAKING-SENT.

a minor cannot give consent. a sheep cannot give consent. adult humans can give consent, and any sexual activities they chose to engage in with other consenting adults are nobody's business but those involved.
If it's not supposed to be our business, then why parade it in public with no sense of common decency?

same reason heterosexuals "parade" at spring break, Mardi Gras, and dozens of other contexts and festivals. nobody's forcing you to go to Pride parades, just like nobody forces me to go to the Easter Parade in my home town. i think the Easter parade is disgusting and a celebration of warped values, but i'm not going to tell people they haven't got the right to party for what they care about. quit bossing people around and deal with your own life...you should have plenty to keep you busy.
But nothing they do in the Easter parade would earn them a PG-13 or higher rating from television broadcast, would it?

Mardi Gras is for everyone last time I checked, so are Jazz Jubilees and various other events where odd people do odd things and have a good time. And, if the Cops catch you showing off your "assets", they will ticket you for indecent exposure.

Quit assuming i'm hating on Gays. I don't mind them at all, i've been active in the Drama department of my school for almost two years now, if I didn't get along with homosexuals, I wouldn't still be there.

There is such as thing as being over the top. Pride parades, as they are, are over the top. They serve no purpose other than to alienate people who have no problem with homosexuality but do have a problem with people acting in an indecent fashion in public.

Pride parades would be fine, if they were more tasteful. Showcase some artistic representations of famous Gays, have local gay organizations march in their tressed best, etc. In other words, make it like every other parade that focuses on the positive aspects of a sub-culture of American society.

On St. Patrick's day, do you see parade floats dedicated to shooting protestants? No! Why? It would be in bad taste.

I agree with nearly everything you say. I think marriage is a private contract between ''two people'' and the government should stay out of it.

What about a man and a boy? Why stop at two as long they all love each other? How about a 2 men and 4 women, what's wrong with that? Or maybe 4 men, 3 boys, 8 women, 7 sheep, and a car?

again we seem to have trouble with the word "CONSENT." here, i'll say it louder: CON-FREAKING-SENT.

a minor cannot give consent. a sheep cannot give consent. adult humans can give consent, and any sexual activities they chose to engage in with other consenting adults are nobody's business but those involved.
If it's not supposed to be our business, then why parade it in public with no sense of common decency?

same reason heterosexuals "parade" at spring break, Mardi Gras, and dozens of other contexts and festivals. nobody's forcing you to go to Pride parades, just like nobody forces me to go to the Easter Parade in my home town. i think the Easter parade is disgusting and a celebration of warped values, but i'm not going to tell people they haven't got the right to party for what they care about. quit bossing people around and deal with your own life...you should have plenty to keep you busy.
But nothing they do in the Easter parade would earn them a PG-13 or higher rating from television broadcast, would it?

Mardi Gras is for everyone last time I checked, so are Jazz Jubilees and various other events where odd people do odd things and have a good time.

Quit assuming i'm hating on Gays. I don't mind them at all, i've been active in the Drama department of my school for almost two years now, if I didn't get along with homosexuals, I wouldn't still be there.

There is such as thing as being over the top. Pride parades, as they are, are over the top. They serve no purpose other than to alienate people who have no problem with homosexuality but do have a problem with people acting in an indecent fashion in public.

Pride parades would be fine, if they were more tasteful. Showcase some artistic representations of famous Gays, have local gay organizations march in their tressed best, etc. In other words, make it like every other parade that focuses on the positive aspects of a sub-culture of American society.

On St. Patrick's day, do you see parade floats dedicated to shooting protestants? No! Why? It would be in bad taste.

i think that celebrating Christian values is in far worse taste than flaunting sexual behavior (though i'm not big on sexual flaunting either). so by your logic we should ban all Christian celebrations, because some people find them in poor taste, right?

I agree with nearly everything you say. I think marriage is a private contract between ''two people'' and the government should stay out of it.

What about a man and a boy? Why stop at two as long they all love each other? How about a 2 men and 4 women, what's wrong with that? Or maybe 4 men, 3 boys, 8 women, 7 sheep, and a car?

again we seem to have trouble with the word "CONSENT." here, i'll say it louder: CON-FREAKING-SENT.

a minor cannot give consent. a sheep cannot give consent. adult humans can give consent, and any sexual activities they chose to engage in with other consenting adults are nobody's business but those involved.
If it's not supposed to be our business, then why parade it in public with no sense of common decency?

same reason heterosexuals "parade" at spring break, Mardi Gras, and dozens of other contexts and festivals. nobody's forcing you to go to Pride parades, just like nobody forces me to go to the Easter Parade in my home town. i think the Easter parade is disgusting and a celebration of warped values, but i'm not going to tell people they haven't got the right to party for what they care about. quit bossing people around and deal with your own life...you should have plenty to keep you busy.
But nothing they do in the Easter parade would earn them a PG-13 or higher rating from television broadcast, would it?

Mardi Gras is for everyone last time I checked, so are Jazz Jubilees and various other events where odd people do odd things and have a good time.

Quit assuming i'm hating on Gays. I don't mind them at all, i've been active in the Drama department of my school for almost two years now, if I didn't get along with homosexuals, I wouldn't still be there.

There is such as thing as being over the top. Pride parades, as they are, are over the top. They serve no purpose other than to alienate people who have no problem with homosexuality but do have a problem with people acting in an indecent fashion in public.

Pride parades would be fine, if they were more tasteful. Showcase some artistic representations of famous Gays, have local gay organizations march in their tressed best, etc. In other words, make it like every other parade that focuses on the positive aspects of a sub-culture of American society.

On St. Patrick's day, do you see parade floats dedicated to shooting protestants? No! Why? It would be in bad taste.

i think that celebrating Christian values is in far worse taste than flaunting sexual behavior (though i'm not big on sexual flaunting either). so by your logic we should ban all Christian celebrations, because some people find them in poor taste, right? (sorry to jump in) most christian festivals follow social norms while at pride parades people can be seen having public sex

Explain what is wrong with Christian values Bottle?

Seriously... <<<APPLAUSE>>>

Absolutely! I agree with every point and feel exactly the same way.with who?

With the first post, Tuesday's perspective.

Seriously... <<<APPLAUSE>>>

Absolutely! I agree with every point and feel exactly the same way.with who?

With the first post, Tuesday's perspective.oh yes, very good

First post here. I am another conservative applauding Tuesday Heights. Wonderful post, Tuesday, I agree 110%!

First post here. I am another conservative applauding Tuesday Heights. Wonderful post, Tuesday, I agree 110%! good for you, as a conservative newbie beware of the red arrow, seriously, also resist the urge to flame him

hey hi hows everyone doin??

Tuesday Heights: w00t w00t. Mad props.

:lol: :x :D 8) :roll: :cry: :x :evil:

i totally agree!

i think that celebrating Christian values is in far worse taste than flaunting sexual behavior (though i'm not big on sexual flaunting either). so by your logic we should ban all Christian celebrations, because some people find them in poor taste, right? (sorry to jump in) most christian festivals follow social norms while at pride parades people can be seen having public sex

i find public sex less offensive than many current social norms, and certainly less offensive than Christian values in general. but i don't think my disgust should be used to prevent others from celebrating their values.

i think that celebrating Christian values is in far worse taste than flaunting sexual behavior (though i'm not big on sexual flaunting either). so by your logic we should ban all Christian celebrations, because some people find them in poor taste, right? (sorry to jump in) most christian festivals follow social norms while at pride parades people can be seen having public sex

i find public sex less offensive than many current social norms, and certainly less offensive than Christian values in general. but i don't think my disgust should be used to prevent others from celebrating their values.
Again Bottle, what is wrong with Christian values?

For those of you who haven't been to many prides there are three things you need to learn. Not everything at pride is about sexual flaunting, and in fact, media coverage blankets this section because it earns them higher ratings then showing the more "normal" parts of pride parade. There are several portions of pride parades that advocate such things as gay parenting, testing, the gay homeless, and there is even a section where they have just dozen of couples just holding hands walking down the route. Each parade is different though and some pride events do not even have pride parades.

Here come's part two. Most gay men go to pride looking for a boyfriend. Most gay people do not know other gay people because of this nice conveiniece called the closet. So the men are basically marketing themselves. Average Gay Male will preen himself so he will appear as sexy, suave, and drama-free as possible to becoming more appealing to prospective boyfriends. Of course when he is at the even he gets toasted on the supplied beer and liquor and um... well he let's his hormones take over. [I think the same is true for lesbians and music festivals]

The third thing is that when you bring the gay community into a pride event you don't just get meterosexuals. You get the gay, gayer, and the gayest. The gay community uses a rainbow as there symbol because of the diversity in the gay community. So those flamboyant queens are just as gay as the trukin lesbians in plaid and everyone in between.

However, of course all of my personal experiences are invalid and each of you should carry on thinking the way you did previously before you got all the facts.

For those of you who haven't been to many prides there are three things you need to learn. Not everything at pride is about sexual flaunting, and in fact, media coverage blankets this section because it earns them higher ratings then showing the more "normal" parts of pride parade. There are several portions of pride parades that advocate such things as gay parenting, testing, the gay homeless, and there is even a section where they have just dozen of couples just holding hands walking down the route. Each parade is different though and some pride events do not even have pride parades.
Well, the normal respectable individuals who are merely celebrating their place in American culture need to take their more radical compatriots aside and let them know they're really being over the top. Such parades have planning committees don't they? Such committees could be used to ensure these parades are as tasteful as they are prideful.

First, Tuesday Heights, way to go! That needs to be said so much.


If it's not supposed to be our business, then why parade it in public with no sense of common decency?

Eh? That was part of the OP's point, wasn't it?

As for the men, goats, boys, and women marriage, boys and goats no, men, women, hemaphrodites, and whatever, in whatever configuaration ok, as long as all consent to the legal contract.

i think that celebrating Christian values is in far worse taste than flaunting sexual behavior (though i'm not big on sexual flaunting either). so by your logic we should ban all Christian celebrations, because some people find them in poor taste, right? (sorry to jump in) most christian festivals follow social norms while at pride parades people can be seen having public sex

i find public sex less offensive than many current social norms, and certainly less offensive than Christian values in general. but i don't think my disgust should be used to prevent others from celebrating their values.
Again Bottle, what is wrong with Christian values?

nothing is wrong with them inherently, but from my perspective the belief in Christianity (as well as the worship of any supernatural force in a manner like that of modern major religions) makes it impossible for a person to ever act in a truly moral fashion. that's simply my personal moral stance, and i don't try to force it on others or pass laws requiring other people to accomodate my beliefs by shutting up about their own. i like contrast, i like conflict, and i wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone agrees.

nothing is wrong with them inherently, but from my perspective the belief in Christianity (as well as the worship of any supernatural force in a manner like that of modern major religions) makes it impossible for a person to ever act in a truly moral fashion.


In what sense? In the sense that a person steps outside the scientific norm and holds true to something beyond the pyhsical boundaries of this world? We've been over this - just because one is a Christian does not mean one necessarily rejects science.


that's simply my personal moral stance, and i don't try to force it on others or pass laws requiring other people to accomodate my beliefs by shutting up about their own. i like contrast, i like conflict, and i wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone agrees.

See, that makes more sense. If your morality necessarily promotes conflict, then yes, I can see how Christian values would be somewhat contrary to that.

:? Aiera

On that note, I shall leave it be. I support your efforts and such, and once more, your foresight to realize moderation, not radicalism, will lead to justice.

I couldn't have said it better myself. :D

So look at them this way--without the multiple-pierced freakshows taking the heat, you'd still be taking it. They're giving you covering fire in the culture wars, and as a result, your side is winning.

I don't think our side is winning at all. Being showcased outside the mainstream of our "sub-culture" is giving the mainstream the impression that that's what the entire lifestyle is about. This is how racial profiling occurs, and in our case, it's not sexual profiling.

What's next? Pedo-pride walks? You liberals will tolerate anything won't you.

Well, except those who disagree with you, like 'homophobes'. Those are insulted and discriminated against.

It's not that liberals will tolerate anything... it's more like they're willing to confront the things before them. Homosexuality being just one of them, whereas conservatives tends to shy away from confronting things that force them to discuss and debate.

30 years ago? Openly gay? Back then wasn't sodomy a CRIME in the USA?

It's still a crime in some places... between MALES and FEMALES and MALES and MALES, by the way.

I'm 'straight' if that's really a statement that anyone can make, but "Gay Pride" do's, are above all fun!

yeah, i agree on that one...i just like a good party, and Pride parades are always a lot of fun. of course, i'm a heathen strumpet who doesn't have a problem with sexuality, so that makes it a bit easy for me :).

They may be fun, but trying to fight a civil rights battle isn't about fun.

again we seem to have trouble with the word "CONSENT." here, i'll say it louder: CON-FREAKING-SENT.

a minor cannot give consent. a sheep cannot give consent. adult humans can give consent, and any sexual activities they chose to engage in with other consenting adults are nobody's business but those involved.

Amen!

Now, for the first time in a very long time, we have a President in the White House who not only is willing to make a ruling on what is very clearly a states rights issue, but is encouraging amending the Constitution, for the first time in the history of our country, to include discrimination.

Why does nobody else seem to see a problem with this other than the minority of Americans? A constitutional amendment to discriminate? I'm all for individual states making up their own minds, one way or another, but for the POTUS to do so through the Constitution... something's askew there.

For those of you who haven't been to many prides there are three things you need to learn. Not everything at pride is about sexual flaunting, and in fact, media coverage blankets this section because it earns them higher ratings then showing the more "normal" parts of pride parade. There are several portions of pride parades that advocate such things as gay parenting, testing, the gay homeless, and there is even a section where they have just dozen of couples just holding hands walking down the route. Each parade is different though and some pride events do not even have pride parades.

Each parade may be different, but unfortunately, they all end up being the same with regards to flagrant showcasing of the minor scale of mainstream homosexual life.

Well, the normal respectable individuals who are merely celebrating their place in American culture need to take their more radical compatriots aside and let them know they're really being over the top. Such parades have planning committees don't they? Such committees could be used to ensure these parades are as tasteful as they are prideful.

If they were planned properly, this wouldn't be an issue of discussion at all. Good thinking, MD!

So look at them this way--without the multiple-pierced freakshows taking the heat, you'd still be taking it. They're giving you covering fire in the culture wars, and as a result, your side is winning.

I don't think our side is winning at all. Being showcased outside the mainstream of our "sub-culture" is giving the mainstream the impression that that's what the entire lifestyle is about. This is how racial profiling occurs, and in our case, it's not sexual profiling.But look at the strides that have been made by the gay community in general society in just the last 30 years. 30 years ago, in a large part of the US, it was dangerous for a gay person to come out of the closet--not just socially uncomfortable--dangerous. That's far more of an exception than the rule today, even in very conservative areas. 30 years ago, if a gay character was on a tv show, it was as an object of ridicule or as a stand in for a pedophile. That's not the case anymore either.

Your side is winning this battle--the demographics are on your side. The latest polls on same-sex marriage show that the greatest opposition comes from people over 60 and the greatest support comes from people 18-25. Time is on your side in this battle.

Well, blatantly. My problem's more that the British National Front actually declares their pride in the nation. Where's the elan, the style, the social grace borne from knowing that everyone else already acknowledges your superiority?

:D

Indeed. Any country that needs to go on about how good it is *cough*america*cough* obviously isn't up to much. If you have to go around beating up people of different colours to show how good you are, you are self-evidently pathetic.

bump, I think.

This is my first post on this string, so I'll begin by saying that I could not agree with you more in your initial post Tuesday Heights. When I first read your post, I was quite amazed because you addressed the same issues which I have been trying to get across for some time now.

I, being gay myself, do not believe that the cause behind Gay Pride Parades is what it should be. IF we are trying to make the Gay lifestyle more acceptable in todays society, parading around, donning heinous clothing and acting in a juvenile manner is not the way to go about it. Yes, I'm sure these parades are entertaining, and probably a relief to many closeted gay individuals who can act themselves for a short period of time, but it is more hindering the essential cause than helping it. I'm not saying these parades should be halted, just perhaps, toned down.

I am only 18, which I'm not sure gives any more or less merit to my opinion, but still this issue has sparked great interest in myself and many others of my age.

I honestly can't see why people have a problem with gay pride. I mean, they're not forcing you to watch. They're in the street, not in your living room. If there was a Klan rally coming through town, I wouldn't like it much, but I wouldn't go and watch. I'd stay home, and hope I don't get firebombed. And I can understand why people don't want to see gay people on a float or whatever, but then I don't like the KKK, and I don't like plaid, flannel wearing, cheese eating conservatives telling me I'm depraived for not wanting to legislate what I'm allowed to put on a bumper sticker, what I'm allowed to see on a movie screen, what I'm allowed to burn in protest or what sex I'm allowed to have sex with.

So, yeah, maybe the gay pride parades don't do much for tolerance or acceptance of gay people, but then I don't think that Bush does much for my tolerance or acceptance of the Republican party, so go figure.

i think that celebrating Christian values is in far worse taste than flaunting sexual behavior (though i'm not big on sexual flaunting either). so by your logic we should ban all Christian celebrations, because some people find them in poor taste, right? (sorry to jump in) most christian festivals follow social norms while at pride parades people can be seen having public sex

i find public sex less offensive than many current social norms, and certainly less offensive than Christian values in general. but i don't think my disgust should be used to prevent others from celebrating their values.
Again Bottle, what is wrong with Christian values?

nothing is wrong with them inherently, but from my perspective the belief in Christianity (as well as the worship of any supernatural force in a manner like that of modern major religions) makes it impossible for a person to ever act in a truly moral fashion. that's simply my personal moral stance, and i don't try to force it on others or pass laws requiring other people to accomodate my beliefs by shutting up about their own. i like contrast, i like conflict, and i wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone agrees.
But wouldn't the world be better if everyone was just forced to agree?

I don't remember if I already said this or not, but I do support you, TH, and it's good to see some other people fighting the fight from the right side.
I have a large number of gay friends who tend to agree with you, and then there's the "Gay- Straight Alliance" at my school that I joined last year because I thought they actually meant the straight part. Instead they ended up being a "Gay-Bi Alliance to Hate Straight People" and I was naturally constantly uncomfortable around them. They participated in loud and lewd parades and general showcases of debauchery. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that most of them weren't even gay or bi, but just liked all the attention they got from such activities... :(
To convince people that you deserve rights to, you have to present yourself as intelligent.

Bravo, Tuesday Heights! Pandorus, your opinion has as much merit as anyone else's. Thanks for posting it.

The problem with the Gay Prided parades is, IMHO, that so many people seem to be TRYING to offend everyone else. As Pandorus and other of my homosexual friends have told me before, not every gay guy wants to crossdress, or act like the stereotypical 'fairy'. Not even the majority, and yet those parades tend to give the impression that every gay guy might, at any moment, suddenly wave his spiked leather thong (and schlong) at you. :roll:

Most of the homosexual men I've known were perfectly... Manly. No lisp, no naked butt wiggling, no effeminate affectations. I don't know what makes some people do that, but I steer clear of them, much the same as I'd steer clear of a heterosexual person who was acting in an offensive manner.

If there's anyone here who is gay and DOES act that way, please start a thread to try to make the rest of us understand why a man who is attracted to men... would want a man who ACTS like a woman... (Or a Lesbian be attracted to a woman who ACTS like a man...( by that, I mean the clothing and manner of the person...) That confuses the hell out of me.

i think that celebrating Christian values is in far worse taste than flaunting sexual behavior (though i'm not big on sexual flaunting either). so by your logic we should ban all Christian celebrations, because some people find them in poor taste, right? (sorry to jump in) most christian festivals follow social norms while at pride parades people can be seen having public sex

i find public sex less offensive than many current social norms, and certainly less offensive than Christian values in general. but i don't think my disgust should be used to prevent others from celebrating their values.
Again Bottle, what is wrong with Christian values?

nothing is wrong with them inherently, but from my perspective the belief in Christianity (as well as the worship of any supernatural force in a manner like that of modern major religions) makes it impossible for a person to ever act in a truly moral fashion. that's simply my personal moral stance, and i don't try to force it on others or pass laws requiring other people to accomodate my beliefs by shutting up about their own. i like contrast, i like conflict, and i wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone agrees.
And yet you argue your local Easter parade needs to be banned while Gay pride parades, in their current offensive and over the top style, need to be protected?

And yet you argue your local Easter parade needs to be banned while Gay pride parades, in their current offensive and over the top style, need to be protected?No she didn't.



nothing is wrong with [christian values] inherently, but from my perspective the belief in Christianity (as well as the worship of any supernatural force in a manner like that of modern major religions) makes it impossible for a person to ever act in a truly moral fashion. that's simply my personal moral stance, and i don't try to force it on others or pass laws requiring other people to accomodate my beliefs by shutting up about their own. i like contrast, i like conflict, and i wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone agrees.

She said the exact opposite of what you tried to tell her she said.

I've been trying to figure out just why pride parades exist, since they do seem quite counterproductive these days. Perhaps they are a holdover from when people generally weren't aware that there were homosexuals in their towns. Perhaps it's just the same stupidity in numbers that presents itself in masses everywhere. Maybe it's getting together with more people with a common bond than you usually see in one place and just getting out of control. Thoughts? I've never really understood why pride parades went on.

I don't know... I don't think I necessarily agree with the idea that "pride parades are counterproductive"- it depends on what the goal of the parade is in the first place. I've never thought the point of pride parades was to gain acceptance; it seemed to me more like a chance for gay people (or at least the gay people who choose to participate) to "be themselves". It seems, to me at least, to be more about bolstering INTERNAL self-esteem- "We can be like this, and it's ok", etc... rather than, "Look, people! Look! We're gay! GAAAAAY!"

I would argue that in this respect, it's similar to other pride parades. Nobody marching in the St. Patrick parade is marching for "acceptance of Irish people".

I've been trying to figure out just why pride parades exist, since they do seem quite counterproductive these days. Perhaps they are a holdover from when people generally weren't aware that there were homosexuals in their towns. Perhaps it's just the same stupidity in numbers that presents itself in masses everywhere. Maybe it's getting together with more people with a common bond than you usually see in one place and just getting out of control. Thoughts? I've never really understood why pride parades went on.

I don't know... I don't think I necessarily agree with the idea that "pride parades are counterproductive"- it depends on what the goal of the parade is in the first place. I've never thought the point of pride parades was to gain acceptance; it seemed to me more like a chance for gay people (or at least the gay people who choose to participate) to "be themselves". It seems, to me at least, to be more about bolstering INTERNAL self-esteem- "We can be like this, and it's ok", etc... rather than, "Look, people! Look! We're gay! GAAAAAY!"

I would argue that in this respect, it's similar to other pride parades. Nobody marching in the St. Patrick parade is marching for "acceptance of Irish people".

But if gays were accepted in society in the first place, would they still have such parades as they do now? I wouldn't doubt they would still have parades, but would there be as great a need to "be themselves" in such a grand public display if the gay lifestyle was more widely accepted?

Greetings , I'm not gay actually but my cousin is , and if I might say.. If you were to walk up to him or spend some time with him I'm 100% sure you would not know if he was gay or not..

And for what 'Abnar' said about Parades.. I cant necessarily agree with the Parade thing because it really depends on the character of a gay person.. Some don't want to be recognized as 'Gay' by the world; they would rather be accepted by family instead of a lot of people they really dont know.. I don't have a problem with any gay person.. Obviously :twisted:

She said the exact opposite of what you tried to tell her she said.
You should really read the whole thread. Much earlier she was stating why the local Easter parade needed to be shut down, because it was offensive.

She said the exact opposite of what you tried to tell her she said.
You should really read the whole thread. Much earlier she was stating why the local Easter parade needed to be shut down, because it was offensive.
She was using that to show the fallacy in your logic- she doesn't believe it. (at least I feel confident saying that since I generally agree with her)

Wow... this is as bad as middle school....

you go to a particularly free-thinking middle school?

i agree with you for the most part, excpet i don't think that marriage is a religious ordeal per se. My father has been married twice, only the latter being a religious ordeal, the former was done by a Justice of the Peace (since his first wife wasn't really religious. and he is an atheist). Marriage, i think, is only religious if God is brought into it. Further, since Marriage is a state recognized institution, and there is a seperation between church and state, it cannot be truly a religious idea in America. So with this in mind, "Civil unions" i don't think is enough, as it would, in many people's eyes, be "inferior" too marriage, and as this is a land of equal opportunities (which is SUPPOSED to be extended to homosexuals as well) marriage must be offered to homosexuals. As for it being a religious experience, there are emerging branches of Christianity who are supportive of homosexuality, as was illustrated by a gay pastor, therefore, in these branches, should it be legal, i think Gay Marriage "in the eyes of God" can't be too terribly far behind. But as for the "I'm gay, look at me look at me" mentality... i recomend shock therapy (not because being "gay" or "bi" is any sort of illness, but because they obviously have SOMETHING wrong with them if they are that desperate for attention).

you go to a particularly free-thinking middle school?
Nah i'm in college... but i haven't heard this much bickering over such a simple issue. People have sexual preferences... some aren't to the social norms... but everyone should live by a simple set of rules... keep your INTIMATE sexual life in the bedroom. gay or straight... its simple... Pride is the sign of a foolish man/woman

I don't believe there is any such thing as a "homosexual" (noun). Homosexual behaviour, sure. Homosexual preferences, yes. The sliding scale of human sexuality, definitely.

If I have to choose between a pickle (gherkin) and a KitKat, I'll go for the chocolate every time. This does not make me a KitKatual.

I don't believe there is any such thing as the "gay community". Or if there is, one is not a member of it because of one's sexual preferences.

I belong to various communities. These communities are based on shared interests. I'm not interested in dressing up as a nun. I most certainly am not interested in some of the more (to me) revolting sexual behaviour some people get up to. Why would I want to join a community famous for bottom-less leather chaps and chains?

I don't believe there is any such thing as "gay pride". (Or wanker pride, or black pride, or Polish-American pride, for that matter.) How can I be "proud" of my desires or skin colour or ancestry? No-shame is not the same as "pride".

I'm proud of my accomplishments, not of my desires.

I don't believe there is any such thing as "gay rights". There are fundamental human rights. The right to seek to be happy, for example. The right to dignity.

The struggle should be about fundamental rights for ALL people.

All over the world people's fundamental human rights are being violated. In the US, the right to life is violated by the state. There are actually gay people who support capital punishment!

In the US, rape is used in prisons as a method of control.

In the US, people are imprisoned without access to counsel. In Guantanamo, people will be tried in secret.

All over the world, women are victims of violence. Children are victims of violence. Legally.

I understand, though, that sometimes we have to get specific. We have to fight for the rights of particular groups of people, because human beings seem to be able to focus on only one thing at a time. I also understand that to get what is our due we sometimes have to demand the outrageous. We have to adopt bargaining tactics.

Still. We mustn't forget. Human rights are HUMAN rights. And we mustn't let the hypocrites forget that.

(Join Amnesty International.)

you go to a particularly free-thinking middle school?
Nah i'm in college... but i haven't heard this much bickering over such a simple issue. People have sexual preferences... some aren't to the social norms... but everyone should live by a simple set of rules... keep your INTIMATE sexual life in the bedroom. gay or straight... its simple... Pride is the sign of a foolish man/woman

So no parades for anything ever again?

... Works for me. :wink:

She said the exact opposite of what you tried to tell her she said.
You should really read the whole thread. Much earlier she was stating why the local Easter parade needed to be shut down, because it was offensive.

no, i didn't. i was pointing out that i find the Easter parade very offensive, yet i can be offended and not force other people to abide by my personal beliefs. i was very clear that i do NOT advocate banning the expression of beliefs which conflict with my own.

please read more carefully, i have been very clear about this and i don't appreciate your sloppy attempts to put words in my mouth.

Lausannia, very interesting post. When I'm not so tired, I'll come and respond more thoroughly. :D

i can't be bothered to read all 6 oages of this, but.......

Absolutely! I agree with you completely. Although im straight, i do have friends that are gay and, as far as i've seen, they agree with you aswell.

I have two major problems about Gay Issues.
The first is the Gay apologist, who wants to beg for respect from the hetrosexual community, not by standing up and saying I'm G.A.Y. (which incidentally is an acronym for Good As You, first used in the Gay Stonewall riots of the 1950'). All Gay people live in societies where they are denied basic civil rights, are treated as second class citizens, are shown little respect by a predominantly homophobic society, which includes the type who says "I've nothing against gays...just so long as the leave me alone", etc. That sort of attitude is just crass bigotry dressed up in seeming liberal acceptance of a minority in society. As a gay man , don't just want.....I EXPECT respect not because I'm a man, gay or any other reason....just because I'm human. It is the majority who cause the problems around being gay, not the other way around. Gays just tend to be sidelined, blamed for anti heterosexual lifestyles, paedophilism, self promotion, sexaul infidelity, over the top behaviour etc. Notice how it is all the negative stereotypes that gays are landed with.......for you apologists, I ask you to think about it....how much do you need your strings pulled by society, to the extent that you become involved in the bigotry against Gay and Lesbian people.

The second issue is to tell the bigots, that we are here, we will not be going anywhere and if you want us to stop pushing our sexuality in your face, then you who are bigots, need first to stop pushing your heterosexual agenda into our faces. When you bigots get off your own Heterosexual platforms and stop trying to shout us down but instead, stand in support of our legitimate demands for equality with you, our demands against prejudice, our protection in law against violence from the state or society, our right to live as family units, including having children if need be, then we can stop our "offensive" self promotion and get down to the issue of living in life, ordinary and everyday types, not those Poofs, queers, benders, batty boys, dykes, deisels, fags, pervets etc, names which you lot think is acceptable to put on us. IF YOU WANT US TO STOP THIS SHAMELESS HOMOSEXUAL SELF PROMOTION THEN YOU LOT HAVE TO STOP YOUR UNNACCEPTABLE, VIOLENT, SHAMEFUL AND BIGOTED DISCRIMINATION. Then, hopefully we can all live together in mutual respect.

I EXPECT respect not because I'm a man, gay or any other reason....just because I'm human.

Isn't that kind of a naive expectation in view of human history? :D

I EXPECT respect not because I'm a man, gay or any other reason....just because I'm human.

Isn't that kind of a naive expectation in view of human history? :D
Agreed... there would be no wars then haha or fighting... equality will never be reached

I have two major problems about Gay Issues.
The first is the Gay apologist, who wants to beg for respect from the hetrosexual community, not by standing up and saying I'm G.A.Y. (which incidentally is an acronym for Good As You, first used in the Gay Stonewall riots of the 1950'). All Gay people live in societies where they are denied basic civil rights, are treated as second class citizens, are shown little respect by a predominantly homophobic society, which includes the type who says "I've nothing against gays...just so long as the leave me alone", etc. That sort of attitude is just crass bigotry dressed up in seeming liberal acceptance of a minority in society. As a gay man , don't just want.....I EXPECT respect not because I'm a man, gay or any other reason....just because I'm human. It is the majority who cause the problems around being gay, not the other way around. Gays just tend to be sidelined, blamed for anti heterosexual lifestyles, paedophilism, self promotion, sexaul infidelity, over the top behaviour etc. Notice how it is all the negative stereotypes that gays are landed with.......for you apologists, I ask you to think about it....how much do you need your strings pulled by society, to the extent that you become involved in the bigotry against Gay and Lesbian people.

The second issue is to tell the bigots, that we are here, we will not be going anywhere and if you want us to stop pushing our sexuality in your face, then you who are bigots, need first to stop pushing your heterosexual agenda into our faces. When you bigots get off your own Heterosexual platforms and stop trying to shout us down but instead, stand in support of our legitimate demands for equality with you, our demands against prejudice, our protection in law against violence from the state or society, our right to live as family units, including having children if need be, then we can stop our "offensive" self promotion and get down to the issue of living in life, ordinary and everyday types, not those Poofs, queers, benders, batty boys, dykes, deisels, fags, pervets etc, names which you lot think is acceptable to put on us. IF YOU WANT US TO STOP THIS SHAMELESS HOMOSEXUAL SELF PROMOTION THEN YOU LOT HAVE TO STOP YOUR UNNACCEPTABLE, VIOLENT, SHAMEFUL AND BIGOTED DISCRIMINATION. Then, hopefully we can all live together in mutual respect.

Amen!

I have two major problems about Gay Issues.
The first is the Gay apologist, who wants to beg for respect from the hetrosexual community, not by standing up and saying I'm G.A.Y. (which incidentally is an acronym for Good As You, first used in the Gay Stonewall riots of the 1950'). All Gay people live in societies where they are denied basic civil rights, are treated as second class citizens, are shown little respect by a predominantly homophobic society, which includes the type who says "I've nothing against gays...just so long as the leave me alone", etc. That sort of attitude is just crass bigotry dressed up in seeming liberal acceptance of a minority in society. As a gay man , don't just want.....I EXPECT respect not because I'm a man, gay or any other reason....just because I'm human. It is the majority who cause the problems around being gay, not the other way around. Gays just tend to be sidelined, blamed for anti heterosexual lifestyles, paedophilism, self promotion, sexaul infidelity, over the top behaviour etc. Notice how it is all the negative stereotypes that gays are landed with.......for you apologists, I ask you to think about it....how much do you need your strings pulled by society, to the extent that you become involved in the bigotry against Gay and Lesbian people.

The second issue is to tell the bigots, that we are here, we will not be going anywhere and if you want us to stop pushing our sexuality in your face, then you who are bigots, need first to stop pushing your heterosexual agenda into our faces. When you bigots get off your own Heterosexual platforms and stop trying to shout us down but instead, stand in support of our legitimate demands for equality with you, our demands against prejudice, our protection in law against violence from the state or society, our right to live as family units, including having children if need be, then we can stop our "offensive" self promotion and get down to the issue of living in life, ordinary and everyday types, not those Poofs, queers, benders, batty boys, dykes, deisels, fags, pervets etc, names which you lot think is acceptable to put on us. IF YOU WANT US TO STOP THIS SHAMELESS HOMOSEXUAL SELF PROMOTION THEN YOU LOT HAVE TO STOP YOUR UNNACCEPTABLE, VIOLENT, SHAMEFUL AND BIGOTED DISCRIMINATION. Then, hopefully we can all live together in mutual respect.

Amen!

Honour you give yourself, respect you have to earn! No-one owes you respect unless you earn it. It is not a right!!!!!!!!!!!

First, and foremost, I am a lesbian. I did not choose to be one, I was born this way. Simple as that.

I would applaud you for this, but your quoted comment busted your reasoning. No one is born Homosexual, Heterosexual, Or whatever. They learn to be it, NOT BORN WITH IT. If you were born with it, I'd be born with it too, easily picke dout by my attitude of a "gay dude". Luckily, Thank the Good Lord God, I am not in such a pathetic reality created by some human individual wishing to get away from the challenges of every-day life by changing to a different aspect of sexuality.

Fool, don't rant about your sexual prevences, many people already dislike your kind. Your species has pleaqued mankind for centuries, all because one person decided to run away from his or her battles and have sex with someone of the same sex for some off reason.

I thank Lord God I am straight, and Thank God everyone is born with Free Will to choose as they please.

First, and foremost, I am a lesbian. I did not choose to be one, I was born this way. Simple as that.

I would applaud you for this, but your quoted comment busted your reasoning. No one is born Homosexual, Heterosexual, Or whatever. They learn to be it, NOT BORN WITH IT. If you were born with it, I'd be born with it too, easily picke dout by my attitude of a "gay dude". Luckily, Thank the Good Lord God, I am not in such a pathetic reality created by some human individual wishing to get away from the challenges of every-day life by changing to a different aspect of sexuality.

Fool, don't rant about your sexual prevences, many people already dislike your kind. Your species has pleaqued mankind for centuries, all because one person decided to run away from his or her battles and have sex with someone of the same sex for some off reason.

I thank Lord God I am straight, and Thank God everyone is born with Free Will to choose as they please.

Please refer to my earlier message regarding homophobic fools such as this one!

I have a few irks with this message. Firstly, the blatant disregard for grammatical rules. In accordance with the laws governing Grammar Nazism, I have corrected your post.

First, and foremost, I am a lesbian. I did not choose to be one, I was born this way. Simple as that.

I would applaud you for this, but your quoted comment busted your reasoning. No one is born homosexual, heterosexual, or whatever. They learn to be it, they are not born with it. If you were born with it, I'd be born with it too, easily picked out by my attitude of a "gay dude". Luckily, thank the Lord, I am not in a pathetic reality created by some human individual wishing to get away from the challenges of every day life by changing their sexuality.

Minor interlude here. You are a member of a mainstream religion, therefore you are in a pathetic reality created by some human individual wishing to get away from the challenges of every day life.

Fool, don't rant about your sexual preferences, many people already dislike people who stand up to commonly accepted misconceptions. Your species has plagued (read: been a part of) mankind for centuries (append: and the natural world for a heck of a lot longer than that), all because one chimpanzee decided to run away from his or her tribe and have sex with another of the same sex for some odd reason.

I thank the Lord God I am straight, and thank God that everyone is born with free will and can choose as they please.

Have a nice day.

EDIT: Typo... :?

First, and foremost, I am a lesbian. I did not choose to be one, I was born this way. Simple as that.

I would applaud you for this, but your quoted comment busted your reasoning. No one is born Homosexual, Heterosexual, Or whatever. They learn to be it, NOT BORN WITH IT. If you were born with it, I'd be born with it too, easily picke dout by my attitude of a "gay dude". Luckily, Thank the Good Lord God, I am not in such a pathetic reality created by some human individual wishing to get away from the challenges of every-day life by changing to a different aspect of sexuality.

Fool, don't rant about your sexual prevences, many people already dislike your kind. Your species has pleaqued mankind for centuries, all because one person decided to run away from his or her battles and have sex with someone of the same sex for some off reason.

I thank Lord God I am straight, and Thank God everyone is born with Free Will to choose as they please.


Actually..they ARE born with it. Rather odd that the statistics for gay people stay roughly constant throughout history? That some gay people kill themselves when they find out they are queer? Or maybe the fact that they have to hide from bible-beating bastards like yourself? That MIGHT have a factor with why its more evident today.

I have a few irks with this message. Firstly, the blatant disregard for grammatical rules. In accordance with the laws governing Grammar Nazism, I have corrected your post.

First, and foremost, I am a lesbian. I did not choose to be one, I was born this way. Simple as that.

I would applaud you for this, but your quoted comment busted your reasoning. No one is born homosexual, heterosexual, or whatever. They learn to be it, they are not born with it. If you were born with it, I'd be born with it too, easily picked out by my attitude of a "gay dude". Luckily, thank the Lord, I am not in a pathetic reality created by some human individual wishing to get away from the challenges of every day life by changing their sexuality.

Minor interlude here. You are a member of a mainstream religion, therefore you are in a pathetic reality created by some human individual wishing to get away from the challenges of every day life.

Fool, don't rant about your sexual prefences, many people already dislike people who stand up to commonly accepted misconceptions. Your species has plagued (read: been a part of) mankind for centuries (append: and the natural world for a heck of a lot longer than that), all because one chimpanzee decided to run away from his or her tribe and have sex with another of the same sex for some odd reason.

I thank the Lord God I am straight, and thank God that everyone is born with free will and can choose as they please.

Have a nice day.

You warmed this atheist's heart.... :D

10% of people in the world are highly susceptible to hallucinations. Kind of makes you wonder how many "religious visions" are not that divine after all..........

If you were born with it, I'd be born with it too, easily picke dout by my attitude of a "gay dude".

So by that logic... blond people don't exist, since if people were born blond, I'd be born blond, too? :roll:

Peng-Pau, you have warmed this grammar Nazi's heart! :wink:


Joe Stalin, you have a point, but I feel that you might be stereotyping straight people: Not all straight people are homophobes, and the behavior I see in some "Gay Pride" parades would be just as repulsive to me if it were done by heterosexuals. Decency has no sexual orientation.

I find it amusing that most of the extremely anti-gay people I've run into are also 1)So-called Christians 2)poorly educated and 3)not the least bit eloquent.

I love a good debate. A GOOD debate gives both sides an insight into the other's beliefs, but the sides should be equally armed.. :roll:

BTW, JS - thanks for that definition of G.A.Y. I wondered about that. It follows, to me, that 'gay' should be written as 'GAY', at the very least.. (or is that just the spelling/grammar Nazi coming out in me?) :shock:

Always glad to amuse. ;)

Peng-Pau, you have warmed this grammar Nazi's heart! :wink:


Joe Stalin, you have a point, but I feel that you might be stereotyping straight people: Not all straight people are homophobes, and the behavior I see in some "Gay Pride" parades would be just as repulsive to me if it were done by heterosexuals. Decency has no sexual orientation.

I find it amusing that most of the extremely anti-gay people I've run into are also 1)So-called Christians 2)poorly educated and 3)not the least bit eloquent.

I love a good debate. A GOOD debate gives both sides an insight into the other's beliefs, but the sides should be equally armed.. :roll:

BTW, JS - thanks for that definition of G.A.Y. I wondered about that. It follows, to me, that 'gay' should be written as 'GAY', at the very least.. (or is that just the spelling/grammar Nazi coming out in me?) :shock:

Point taken about stereotyping straight people but what i wanted to emphasise is that it's straight people who make up aprox 90% of society and it's society which determines the morals and attitudes which become predominant. Sadly in most western societies, Homophobia is prevelant.

There is no such thing as homphobia, I am not afraid of gays.

:lol: I reiterate.... Go look at what I said in Joe Stalin's last post.

Sheesh!

IF YOU WANT US TO STOP THIS SHAMELESS HOMOSEXUAL SELF PROMOTION THEN YOU LOT HAVE TO STOP YOUR UNNACCEPTABLE, VIOLENT, SHAMEFUL AND BIGOTED DISCRIMINATION.

There is no such thing as "homosexual self-promotion." Homosexual, to us, is normal; just as heterosexual is normal to others.

The word "self-promotion" makes homosexuality sound as if it's a label, not a normal way of life for us.

NOTE: Sorry for the delay in response, I've been on Spring Break.

I EXPECT respect not because I'm a man, gay or any other reason....just because I'm human.

Isn't that kind of a naive expectation in view of human history? :D

I agree QahJoh.

I don't ask for respect for being a homosexual, I ask for merely tolerance.

oops

civil unions are a violation of civil rights.

they restrict one group from doing the same things another group can do.

I would applaud you for this, but your quoted comment busted your reasoning. No one is born Homosexual, Heterosexual, Or whatever. They learn to be it, NOT BORN WITH IT. If you were born with it, I'd be born with it too, easily picke dout by my attitude of a "gay dude".

Wrong.

Science, biology specifically, proves that humans are born inherently with the instinct to procreate. Procreation, the instinct, is a heterosexual desire, technically, since the act of male/female procreation is a heterosexual sexual act as opposed to a homosexual sexual act.

Luckily, Thank the Good Lord God,

I was waiting for someone to bring God into this equation, in this respect.

God will judge each man/woman on their own merits as they ascribe to Christian doctrine. Your judgments, your praises, mean nothing in this topic. If you want to talk about God relating to this, start a new topic or post in the numerous other ones.

I am not in such a pathetic reality created by some human individual wishing to get away from the challenges of every-day life by changing to a different aspect of sexuality.

I have no challenges to escape. I am what I was born as, a homosexual, and this is how I live my life. How dare you judge me without even knowing me. You claim to thank the Lord for your sexuality, then judge me, that makes you no worthier than me in the eyes of God. Only God judges, my friend, not you as you just did.

Fool, don't rant about your sexual prevences, many people already dislike your kind.

I can rant about whatever I want, so long as I follow the rules Max Barry has laid down for his web site and forums.

Your species has pleaqued mankind for centuries, all because one person decided to run away from his or her battles and have sex with someone of the same sex for some off reason.

Again, with the personal character attacks about homosexual life you know nothing about.

Have any proof we've "pleaqued mankind for centuries?"

Didn't think so or else you would've linked to it.

I thank Lord God I am straight, and Thank God everyone is born with Free Will to choose as they please.

Free will is God-granted, yes, but we all die sinners no matter what choices we make: Good or bad.

Nodea Rudav, after the insults of your post personally to me and my so-called "challenges" in life, I hereby ban you from my thread. I am allowed to do so, if you want to post something without laying down personal attacks or judgments, TG me, and maybe I'll reconsider, but your comments are neither constructive nor inoffensive personally to this topic.

I am merely responding to show I am not scared, nor offended, to step up to your kind.

civil unions are a violation of civil rights.

they restrict one group from doing the same things another group can do.

However, "violation of civil rights" never intended to deal with the consequences of one group defining a word (i.e. "marriage) in a religious context. There's no constitution or legislature that deals with changing a pre-conceived notion to validate civil rights.

I'm all for civil unions, so long as I can "marry" my girlfriend in a non-religious ceremony and that we have the same, EXACT, rights a married couple has in the United States.

Honour you give yourself, respect you have to earn! No-one owes you respect unless you earn it. It is not a right!!!!!!!!!!!

Amen.

However, "violation of civil rights" never intended to deal with the consequences of one group defining a word (i.e. "marriage) in a religious context. There's no constitution or legislature that deals with changing a pre-conceived notion to validate civil rights.

I'm all for civil unions, so long as I can "marry" my girlfriend in a non-religious ceremony and that we have the same, EXACT, rights a married couple has in the United States.

however you must also consider that some homosexuals do want to have a religious ceremony, not a civil union. I respect anyone who is for civil unions, if you are not religious then why get married like you are? however i am do not agree with someone who restricts marrages to certain groups

:?

however you must also consider that some homosexuals do want to have a religious ceremony, not a civil union. I respect anyone who is for civil unions, if you are not religious then why get married like you are? however i am do not agree with someone who restricts marrages to certain groups

I am getting "married," because I define marriage as union between two "people." It wasn't until this debate (civil unions vs. marriage) came up that marriage has been strictly defined as a religious service between man and woman. We also love each other the same way a heterosexual couple loves one another.

I understand some homosexuals want to partake in religious services, however, this will never happen in America. The Bible states the definition of marriage and that homosexuality is a sin, and our nation is a Christian nation. What makes anyone think the Bible is going to be changed to accomodate homosexuals?

Is anyone around here truly gay.

Is anyone around here truly gay.

What do you mean by "truly gay," Cuneo?

I am homosexual, and have been since the earliest of my memories, in that I, as a woman, love other women. I am defined as homosexual by the definition of the word itself. That makes me truly gay, I do believe.

I am getting "married," because I define marriage as union between two "people." It wasn't until this debate (civil unions vs. marriage) came up that marriage has been strictly defined as a religious service between man and woman.

I understand some homosexuals want to partake in religious services, however, this will never happen in America. The Bible states the definition of marriage and that homosexuality is a sin, and our nation is a Christian nation. What makes anyone think the Bible is going to be changed to accomodate homosexuals?




Marrage is not a religoius ceremony (in my opinion). It did start out as noe, but that was back when most people if not all were religious. Many people are not religious today, and they want to respected by people who are, and that can be acheived by not separating them with in religious ceremonies.

The bible has been changed, for example, people against women voters claimed that is was agaisnt their religion. But women can vote today cant they? So homosexuals should marry as well.

Marrage is not a religoius ceremony (in my opinion). It did start out as noe, but that was back when most people if not all were religious. Many people are not religious today, and they want to respected by people who are, and that can be acheived by not separating them with in religious ceremonies.

The bible has been changed, for example, people against women voters claimed that is was agaisnt their religion. But women can vote today cant they? So homosexuals should marry as well.

I'm not speaking against your opinion of marriage, I'm defining the religious significance.

Religious people, the silents ones, are only vocal when a big change is coming towards them, such as this talk of allowing homosexuals to marry.

If this comes to a vote in America, civil unions will prevail, anybody can see that.

i'm still not going to back down :P

Is anyone around here truly gay.

I fuck men, does that count? :P

i'm still not going to back down :P

I know. Neither am I. :lol:

Is anyone around here truly gay.

I fuck men, does that count? :P

Anybody can do that... male or female.

Is anyone around here truly gay.

I fuck men, does that count? :P

Anybody can do that... male or female.

True...

IF YOU WANT US TO STOP THIS SHAMELESS HOMOSEXUAL SELF PROMOTION THEN YOU LOT HAVE TO STOP YOUR UNNACCEPTABLE, VIOLENT, SHAMEFUL AND BIGOTED DISCRIMINATION.

There is no such thing as "homosexual self-promotion." Homosexual, to us, is normal; just as heterosexual is normal to others.

The word "self-promotion" makes homosexuality sound as if it's a label, not a normal way of life for us.

NOTE: Sorry for the delay in response, I've been on Spring Break.
Don't you recognise irony when you see it, that is why I printed it in capital letters. I suggest you think about the bulk of my statement about Gay Apologists.

I EXPECT respect not because I'm a man, gay or any other reason....just because I'm human.

Isn't that kind of a naive expectation in view of human history? :D

I agree QahJoh.

I don't ask for respect for being a homosexual, I ask for merely tolerance.
While I expect respect for the simple fact of being human. If you think that is naive, then I'm sorry for your world view. Oh and I also expect respect for being a gay man, same as I would if I were another sexuality or sexual gender, adult or child. You see giving and receiving respect isn't so difficult.

however you must also consider that some homosexuals do want to have a religious ceremony, not a civil union. I respect anyone who is for civil unions, if you are not religious then why get married like you are? however i am do not agree with someone who restricts marrages to certain groups

I am getting "married," because I define marriage as union between two "people." It wasn't until this debate (civil unions vs. marriage) came up that marriage has been strictly defined as a religious service between man and woman. We also love each other the same way a heterosexual couple loves one another.

I understand some homosexuals want to partake in religious services, however, this will never happen in America. The Bible states the definition of marriage and that homosexuality is a sin, and our nation is a Christian nation. What makes anyone think the Bible is going to be changed to accomodate homosexuals?Here's the flaw in your argument that same-sex marriage will never be accepted in the US. As much as conservative christians would like us to believe differently, the US is not a "Christian" nation. In legal terms, it is a secular one, and in social terms is becoming increasingly multi-religious as the years pass. Fifty years ago, an anti-same-sex marriage amendment would have flown through the Congress and the statehouses in months. Thirty years ago, it probably would have passed, but it would have been tight. Today, there's virtually no chance it will even get out of Congress. Why? Because a larger portion of citizens, including many who lay claim to a religion, feel that they shouldn't impose their personal beliefs on others. And that percentage is getting larger. I've said it before TH--the demographics are on your side here--the younger the population, the more accepting they are of homosexuality.

Now I know that there's a big gulf between not banning same-sex marriage and full acceptance, but look at the example of mixed race marriage as a parallel. Fifty years ago, when the Supreme Court decided Loving v. Virginia, public opinion was decidedly against the decision, and many states tried to resist it even as recently as 30 years ago. But as time passed and as both pop culture and individual communities noticed that the sky wasn't falling as a result of these marriages, society became more accepting of them, to the point now that almost anyone who objects to a mixed-race marriage is viewed as a moron. The same thing will happen with same-sex marriage, and has already started to happen in many cases. Just be patient and it will come.

Don't you recognise irony when you see it, that is why I printed it in capital letters. I suggest you think about the bulk of my statement about Gay Apologists.

First, don't insult my intelligence. Of course, I saw the irony in your statement, I'm an English major.

I was replying to it seriously, as opposed to ignoring it, because I thought my response would show the difference between self-promotion of sexuality.

My "mainline" protestant congregation accepts gay marriage.

Two Unitarian ministers in my TV broadcast area of upstate NY have been arrested for performing same-sex marriages. They were right; the state is wrong (and in violation of the Constitution).

The Episcopal church has gay bishops.

There is a tide working in this country, and religious communities are not unaffected. It's about time, too.

I EXPECT respect not because I'm a man, gay or any other reason....just because I'm human.

Isn't that kind of a naive expectation in view of human history? :D

While I expect respect for the simple fact of being human. If you think that is naive, then I'm sorry for your world view.

I agreed with the statement I bolded above. While I may not agree that it's right or wrong to "expect," as you say, respect. I do agree that in the broad scheme of human history, it is naive to think that you will automatically get respect for being a human being, because in today's day and age, this simply is NOT true. You cannot demand respect today, because it is defined by such virtues as monetary gain, societal position, and worldy accomplishments.

I'm not saying that all people respect people this way, I'm just saying this is how it's seen in the context of history as we know it today.

Oh and I also expect respect for being a gay man, same as I would if I were another sexuality or sexual gender, adult or child.

You can't expect respect from people for anything other than the character of who you are not what you were born as. Respecting someone superficially for sexuality is like respecting someone for wearing an Armani suit.

You see giving and receiving respect isn't so difficult.

Yes, it is, especially when the person is in complete opposition to who you are as a person.

Is anyone around here truly gay.

I most certainly am. If you have any questions about it, feel free to ask and I'll asnwer as sincerely as possible. Don't be afraid even if you feel what you want to ask is controversial, I don't get offended easily.

I EXPECT respect not because I'm a man, gay or any other reason....just because I'm human.

Isn't that kind of a naive expectation in view of human history? :D

I agree QahJoh.

I don't ask for respect for being a homosexual, I ask for merely tolerance.
While I expect respect for the simple fact of being human. If you think that is naive, then I'm sorry for your world view. Oh and I also expect respect for being a gay man, same as I would if I were another sexuality or sexual gender, adult or child. You see giving and receiving respect isn't so difficult.

If respect isn't earned, then it isn't respect, it's toleration or just a right to be heard. Anyone who expects respect for just being themselves, doesn't deserve it!

Incertonia and Collaboration, I agree, some groups are being more tolerant of letting homosexuals marry. I still hold true to the belief though that the majority of religious groups are still hesitant to take the steps of doing so.

Don't you recognise irony when you see it, that is why I printed it in capital letters. I suggest you think about the bulk of my statement about Gay Apologists.

First, don't insult my intelligence. Of course, I saw the irony in your statement, I'm an English major.

I was replying to it seriously, as opposed to ignoring it, because I thought my response would show the difference between self-promotion of sexuality.
Then i suggest you do not insult others intelligence. Use your own justification for your arguments, do not try to twist what other people may be saying.

Secondly, you seem to be hung up on Respect. I think you have some difficulty with the concept. When I am talking about respect, I am not referring to respecting self promotion along the lines of "I'm an English major", because quite frankly, that means nothing to me. However, I believe you are a Lesbian. That suggests to me you have a specific life experience, distinct from a heterosexual woman. It is that, which I respect, not any supposed qualities of excellence you may believe you have. As I mentioned earlier. It is this distinction I think you are perhaps being confused about. All people are entitled to respect, it is never earned, though it can be lost. How could I respect a racist, homophobe or American president, for instance.

Think of this, we do not agree with each other, we will never meet, I beleieve you to be a gay Apologist, yet, despite all that, I respect you for your views. Do not confuse that with thinking that I admire you for those qualities.

All right, I'm sick of the stereotypical gay debates going on in the forum. So, I'm stepping away from that and giving you all my take on the gay rights issue, which drifts drastically away from the "normal" stance most homosexuals take, especially in America.

First, and foremost, I am a lesbian. I did not choose to be one, I was born this way. Simple as that.

Second, the gay rights activism needs to be done in an everyday setting. Homosexuals need not parade their sexuality in an attempt to draw attention to the fact that our lifestyles stray from the norm. Instead, gays everywhere need to just live their lives as if they weren't different, as hard as this may be, to show the rest of the world that may disagree with them that we aren't attention-seeking sexual predators.

These images of so-called pride parades, homosexuals flamboyantly showcasing their sexuality in nudity, mass make-out sessions, and general debauchery show the world that we are immature, lecherous, and in no means respectable. Instead, it shows that we are self-promoting loathesome creatures of predatory nature. We get this reputation by self-promoting ourselves, by showcasing ourselves in the poorest of light

Third, I support civil unions. Marriages have always been a religious institution. So long as homosexuals are guaranteed the same civil/legal rights as married heterosexual couples do, I'm all for civil unions. However, if this is not the case, then something needs to be overhauled so that we can share the bond of civil union in some state or fashion.

Basically, I believe a homosexual should just live their life and just go on with it rather than go out of their way to show that they are gay.

If I want to kiss my girlfriend in public, I kiss her; if I want to hold her hand, I hold her hand. I by no means try to draw attention to myself, I simply do what heterosexual couples do.

This is how homosexuals need to approach this battle, because we sure aren't winning it the way we're handling it now, and we won't EVER win it if we continue down this path of civil right self-destruction.

Great. Im gonna eat mayonnaise.

Thank you! The Gay Pride Parades are just putting the view of gay people back a few decades...

Can you please spread your knowledge to the bigger gay pride groups? You'd do everyone a favor.

I have two major problems about Gay Issues.
The first is the Gay apologist, who wants to beg for respect from the hetrosexual community, not by standing up and saying I'm G.A.Y. (which incidentally is an acronym for Good As You, first used in the Gay Stonewall riots of the 1950'). All Gay people live in societies where they are denied basic civil rights, are treated as second class citizens, are shown little respect by a predominantly homophobic society, which includes the type who says "I've nothing against gays...just so long as the leave me alone", etc. That sort of attitude is just crass bigotry dressed up in seeming liberal acceptance of a minority in society. As a gay man , don't just want.....I EXPECT respect not because I'm a man, gay or any other reason....just because I'm human. It is the majority who cause the problems around being gay, not the other way around. Gays just tend to be sidelined, blamed for anti heterosexual lifestyles, paedophilism, self promotion, sexaul infidelity, over the top behaviour etc. Notice how it is all the negative stereotypes that gays are landed with.......for you apologists, I ask you to think about it....how much do you need your strings pulled by society, to the extent that you become involved in the bigotry against Gay and Lesbian people.

The second issue is to tell the bigots, that we are here, we will not be going anywhere and if you want us to stop pushing our sexuality in your face, then you who are bigots, need first to stop pushing your heterosexual agenda into our faces. When you bigots get off your own Heterosexual platforms and stop trying to shout us down but instead, stand in support of our legitimate demands for equality with you, our demands against prejudice, our protection in law against violence from the state or society, our right to live as family units, including having children if need be, then we can stop our "offensive" self promotion and get down to the issue of living in life, ordinary and everyday types, not those Poofs, queers, benders, batty boys, dykes, deisels, fags, pervets etc, names which you lot think is acceptable to put on us. IF YOU WANT US TO STOP THIS SHAMELESS HOMOSEXUAL SELF PROMOTION THEN YOU LOT HAVE TO STOP YOUR UNNACCEPTABLE, VIOLENT, SHAMEFUL AND BIGOTED DISCRIMINATION. Then, hopefully we can all live together in mutual respect.
At last, someone with some sense on this board. thank you for posting a realistic appraisal of homophobia. I want to hear more from you.

Think of this, we do not agree with each other, we will never meet, I beleieve you to be a gay Apologist, yet, despite all that, I respect you for your views.

I am not a "gay apologist," as you so coined the phrase. How can you say that is what I am when you just said that we will never meet?

I also respect you for your views, no matter how much we may disagree.

I don't agree with homosexuality in the slightest bit, but I think that such a policy of not flaunting the PDA's (most heteros I know don't go around making out in broad daylight...only the trashy ones) and everything else mentioned in the original post is very good. I recognize that homosexuality is not going to disappear any time soon if ever, and I have a few gay acquaintances/colleagues...I'm perfectly capable of toleration, and I think that the views portrayed in the original post work perfectly towards toleration. I especially like the seperation of "civil unions" from "marriage". As a Christian, I don't believe it makes sense for homosexuals to have a holy union. I'm sorry if I have offended "Christian Gays", but this is the way I feel about my religion.

I disagree strongly with homosexuality, but I'm a kind and smart person, so I don't hate the people. I just disagree with the act. In cases like this, we can all get along even though we disagree.

Incertonia and Collaboration, I agree, some groups are being more tolerant of letting homosexuals marry. I still hold true to the belief though that the majority of religious groups are still hesitant to take the steps of doing so.No question most religious groups are still opposed to homosexual marriage, and may continue to be in the foreseeable future. But the demographics of religious belief are such that their influence on the day to day lives of people is waning, and has been for at least the last 30 years in the US, at least as far as conduct s concerned. But more than religion, human attitudes are changing, and that's where the battle will ultimately be won or lost.

However, "violation of civil rights" never intended to deal with the consequences of one group defining a word (i.e. "marriage) in a religious context. There's no constitution or legislature that deals with changing a pre-conceived notion to validate civil rights.

I'm all for civil unions, so long as I can "marry" my girlfriend in a non-religious ceremony and that we have the same, EXACT, rights a married couple has in the United States.

however you must also consider that some homosexuals do want to have a religious ceremony, not a civil union. I respect anyone who is for civil unions, if you are not religious then why get married like you are? however i am do not agree with someone who restricts marrages to certain groups

I disagree strongly with homosexuality, but I'm a kind and smart person, so I don't hate the people. I just disagree with the act. In cases like this, we can all get along even though we disagree.

Exactly. In this day and age, we need more religious people, such as yourself, to step up to the plate and simply open their mind. I applaud your efforts.

But more than religion, human attitudes are changing, and that's where the battle will ultimately be won or lost.

I totally agree with you here.

Once the attitudes change, then, everything else will follow.

I don't agree with homosexuality in the slightest bit, but I think that such a policy of not flaunting the PDA's (most heteros I know don't go around making out in broad daylight...only the trashy ones) and everything else mentioned in the original post is very good. I recognize that homosexuality is not going to disappear any time soon if ever, and I have a few gay acquaintances/colleagues...I'm perfectly capable of toleration, and I think that the views portrayed in the original post work perfectly towards toleration. I especially like the seperation of "civil unions" from "marriage". As a Christian, I don't believe it makes sense for homosexuals to have a holy union. I'm sorry if I have offended "Christian Gays", but this is the way I feel about my religion.

I disagree strongly with homosexuality, but I'm a kind and smart person, so I don't hate the people. I just disagree with the act. In cases like this, we can all get along even though we disagree.
You are the sort of person who does not deserve respect, because you are a bigot and your views lead to oppression and offence towards others.

I don't agree with homosexuality in the slightest bit, but I think that such a policy of not flaunting the PDA's (most heteros I know don't go around making out in broad daylight...only the trashy ones) and everything else mentioned in the original post is very good. I recognize that homosexuality is not going to disappear any time soon if ever, and I have a few gay acquaintances/colleagues...I'm perfectly capable of toleration, and I think that the views portrayed in the original post work perfectly towards toleration. I especially like the seperation of "civil unions" from "marriage". As a Christian, I don't believe it makes sense for homosexuals to have a holy union. I'm sorry if I have offended "Christian Gays", but this is the way I feel about my religion.

I disagree strongly with homosexuality, but I'm a kind and smart person, so I don't hate the people. I just disagree with the act. In cases like this, we can all get along even though we disagree.
You are the sort of person who does not deserve respect, because you are a bigot and your views lead to oppression and offence towards others.

I'm sorry, but what part of that makes me a bigot? I'm just curious because I don't see it. I have a love for all people, mankind as a whole. This includes homosexuals, even though I disagree with their sexual preference. It's kind of like disagreeing with someone about vegetarianism, only there is the religious disagreement supporting it (and obviously the homosexuality issue is more controversial and touchy). I don't share the view, I don't share the desire (and yes it creeps me out), but that doesn't make me a bigot. I don't hate homosexuals simply because they prefer people of the same sex. To put it lightly, I don't hate someone until I get to know them. If you're a person truly worthy of my hate (and I can honestly say it takes a LOT for me to hate someone, I hate very very few people), you'll get it, regardless of your skin color, ethnic background, or sexual preference. I do not oppress gays...I afford them the same opportunities as everyone else, but I would not expect two atheists to get married in a Christian church and I don't expect two gays to either.

The definition of a bigot (according to dictionary.com) is "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."
Well of course I'm partial to my religion and politics. They're like my teams. Race? Not really. I have friends from many different backgrounds...if I have more white friends than friends from minorities, it's because there are simply more white people around in my area...just a statistics issue. Intolerant of those who differ? Well, I think I made it pretty clear that I tolerate those I disagree with.

I want it to be clear that my tone isn't meant to be heated...it's often difficult to portray a calm, steady tone through a post on a message board.

Peace,
Tammy

I don't agree with homosexuality in the slightest bit, but I think that such a policy of not flaunting the PDA's (most heteros I know don't go around making out in broad daylight...only the trashy ones) and everything else mentioned in the original post is very good. I recognize that homosexuality is not going to disappear any time soon if ever, and I have a few gay acquaintances/colleagues...I'm perfectly capable of toleration, and I think that the views portrayed in the original post work perfectly towards toleration. I especially like the seperation of "civil unions" from "marriage". As a Christian, I don't believe it makes sense for homosexuals to have a holy union. I'm sorry if I have offended "Christian Gays", but this is the way I feel about my religion.

I disagree strongly with homosexuality, but I'm a kind and smart person, so I don't hate the people. I just disagree with the act. In cases like this, we can all get along even though we disagree.
You are the sort of person who does not deserve respect, because you are a bigot and your views lead to oppression and offence towards others.

I'm sorry, but what part of that makes me a bigot? I'm just curious because I don't see it. I have a love for all people, mankind as a whole. This includes homosexuals, even though I disagree with their sexual preference. It's kind of like disagreeing with someone about vegetarianism, only there is the religious disagreement supporting it (and obviously the homosexuality issue is more controversial and touchy). I don't share the view, I don't share the desire (and yes it creeps me out), but that doesn't make me a bigot. I don't hate homosexuals simply because they prefer people of the same sex. To put it lightly, I don't hate someone until I get to know them. If you're a person truly worthy of my hate (and I can honestly say it takes a LOT for me to hate someone, I hate very very few people), you'll get it, regardless of your skin color, ethnic background, or sexual preference. I do not oppress gays...I afford them the same opportunities as everyone else, but I would not expect two atheists to get married in a Christian church and I don't expect two gays to either.

The definition of a bigot (according to dictionary.com) is "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."
Well of course I'm partial to my religion and politics. They're like my teams. Race? Not really. I have friends from many different backgrounds...if I have more white friends than friends from minorities, it's because there are simply more white people around in my area...just a statistics issue. Intolerant of those who differ? Well, I think I made it pretty clear that I tolerate those I disagree with.

I want it to be clear that my tone isn't meant to be heated...it's often difficult to portray a calm, steady tone through a post on a message board.

Peace,
Tammy

I didn't see bigotist notions in that either

I have a single question.

What on Earth is a "gay apologist"?

You are the sort of person who does not deserve respect, because you are a bigot and your views lead to oppression and offence towards others.

Since when did we start attacking others in response to what they've said their opinions are on this issue, by attacking Tammy, you're showing that you yourself are intolerant and disrespectful towards other people's ideas on a given subject. This view, your view, in your own words "lead to oppression and offence towards others."

I have a single question.

What on Earth is a "gay apologist"?

I've been called one, and I'd sure as heck like to know what Joe Stalin thinks it is. The way I see it, it's someone who apologizes for being gay. Joe, any definitions out there? Official ones, I'd like to see, please.

I want it to be clear that my tone isn't meant to be heated...it's often difficult to portray a calm, steady tone through a post on a message board.

Your tone was clear, Tammy. You're not a bigot.

I don't agree with homosexuality in the slightest bit, but I think that such a policy of not flaunting the PDA's (most heteros I know don't go around making out in broad daylight...only the trashy ones) and everything else mentioned in the original post is very good. I recognize that homosexuality is not going to disappear any time soon if ever, and I have a few gay acquaintances/colleagues...I'm perfectly capable of toleration, and I think that the views portrayed in the original post work perfectly towards toleration. I especially like the seperation of "civil unions" from "marriage". As a Christian, I don't believe it makes sense for homosexuals to have a holy union. I'm sorry if I have offended "Christian Gays", but this is the way I feel about my religion.

I disagree strongly with homosexuality, but I'm a kind and smart person, so I don't hate the people. I just disagree with the act. In cases like this, we can all get along even though we disagree.
First, some definitions from the Concise Oxford Dictionary:
Bigot - One who holds, irrespective of reason and attaches disproportionate weight to some creed or view.

Apologist - One who defends by argument, from the Greek "apologia", a speech in defence.

Now we are clear abou the terms, here are my justifications for using them
Tammy, you have shown your innate bigotry by stating the following;
"I think that such a policy of not flaunting the PDA's (most heteros I know don't go around making out in broad daylight", you make a gross generaliasation, then try to defend it by seeming to criticise "the trashy heteros" (whatever you may mean by that?)
"I disagree strongly with homosexuality" Yes we gather that, yet you insist this must be part of your "balanced" even handed argument, "In cases like this" Listen matey, I am not a "Case study", I'm a human.

"As a Christian, I don't believe it makes sense for homosexuals to have a holy union" you also mention that you are sorry if you have offended. Yes, you probably have offende Christian gay people, For myself, I have no problem with civil unions. so you have not offended me. However, speaking as an advocate of gays who I know that are Christian, your unwillinginess to support and acknowledge, the love between two people in the eyes of your God, is part of the reason why the faith you believe in is inherently offensive and is just not suitable for most people in western society today. To summarise, I believe you are a bigot, this is not to say you are a cruel and intolerant person, instead it shows your innate misunderstanding and ignorance of the experiences, lifestyles and sexual identies of other people, who have just as much right to be all they can be without prejudice being imposed upon them by society.

Tuesday, you are an apologist because you want to defend the state of affairs where gay people should be grateful for any crumbs of favour being given to us by society. Earlier, you spoke about naiveity and human history, now I suggest it is you whois being naive if you truly think that equality and respect are given to us by the heterosexual majority. It has been the militancy and reaction of Gay people who have taken to the streets and demanded equality, Gay people (other than you and me) have helped to give us the rights we enjoy today. You may be happy with the odd bit of "toleration" given you by society, as for me I do want want to be "tolerated" (suggesting that there is something wrong with my sexuality?). Heres a scenario, I have no problems with heterosexuals exhibiting their sexuality in my face, I see it on the streets, in cinemas, restuarants, theatres, workplaces, colleges. The whole of society is geared to meet the needs of heterosexuals, yet still I have no problem with it, I even have a heterosexual family, who I love dearly. I would always welcome heterosexuals into my group of friends, I would always defemd my freinds from bigotry and violence. I would deny no heterosexual the right to become what they choose to be, or access the institutions they wanted. There are only 2 requirments I would insist upon. In the course of getting all those "privileges", that no one is harmed or given unreasonable offence. Secondly, every one of those privileges be given to all gay, or other minority sections of society. I do not read anything from you which expects anything similar, except that you want to be tolerated by society, that is why I call you a gay Apologist.

*applauds the sanity of this statement* I know what you mean! We don't have to go all militant, that'll just prove we are what they assume we are! Thank you for your vocalization and sense!

:wink:

I don't agree with homosexuality in the slightest bit, but I think that such a policy of not flaunting the PDA's (most heteros I know don't go around making out in broad daylight...only the trashy ones) and everything else mentioned in the original post is very good. I recognize that homosexuality is not going to disappear any time soon if ever, and I have a few gay acquaintances/colleagues...I'm perfectly capable of toleration, and I think that the views portrayed in the original post work perfectly towards toleration. I especially like the seperation of "civil unions" from "marriage". As a Christian, I don't believe it makes sense for homosexuals to have a holy union. I'm sorry if I have offended "Christian Gays", but this is the way I feel about my religion.

I disagree strongly with homosexuality, but I'm a kind and smart person, so I don't hate the people. I just disagree with the act. In cases like this, we can all get along even though we disagree.
You are the sort of person who does not deserve respect, because you are a bigot and your views lead to oppression and offence towards others.

I feel compelled to say, Joe, that being openly gay would be a LOT easier if every bigot was as easygoing about homosexuality as TammyWammies.

I think you may be strectching the definition a little here: she(he?) stated only that she disagreed and felt a little creeped out by gays. I can say I feel the same way about S&M, domination games or other fetishes: still, because I don't practice these fetishes and get a little queasy thinking about or seeign them doesn't mean I'm gonna be a bastard if someone around me confesses indulging in such pleasures :-P

At any rate, Tammy must have the most neutral, non-agressive position held by someone justifying disapproval of homosexuality by his/her religion. At least she can stay in context and realize gays are still human beings who deserves respect and the same legal protection as everyon else; a lot of very religious poeple cannot.

Tuesday, you are an apologist because you want to defend the state of affairs where gay people should be grateful for any crumbs of favour being given to us by society.

I am grateful for whatever favor society is giving to me right now, but that does not mean I apologize for being gay in order to get it. I do want favor to shift, more favor to be given, rather, equal favor to be given. I know better based on the events of previous civil rights battle that this does not happen overnight, and that's why my view of society as it stands now is deemed "apologitst" by you.

Let's face it: Homosexuals campaigning for equal rights in America is another civil rights battle.

Go back and read the accounts of civil rights battles the women's right movement and the black culture movements went through in the just the last 100 years.

Homosexuals should be grateful for the favor they've gained in the last fifty years, and continue to work for my favor in the future, through battles that are going to support their cause not flush it down the drain.

Earlier, you spoke about naiveity and human history, now I suggest it is you whois being naive if you truly think that equality and respect are given to us by the heterosexual majority.

Respect, yes, is given by EVERYONE (not just one majority or minority group). However, one must earn respect, not simply demanding it.

A serial killer can demand respect, does that mean you should give it to him/her simply because he/she murders people? The way I understand you is that you demand respect for being homosexual, so, if you're a homosexual and serial killer, should I respect you because you sleep with men and murder people?

I don't think so.

It has been the militancy and reaction of Gay people who have taken to the streets and demanded equality, Gay people (other than you and me) have helped to give us the rights we enjoy today. You may be happy with the odd bit of "toleration" given you by society, as for me I do want want to be "tolerated" (suggesting that there is something wrong with my sexuality?).

I never said that homosexuals should be merely "tolerated." What I have said, and stand firm to, is that fact that right now, be content with being tolerated. It took homosexuals the last half of the century to get where they are today in the civil rights arenas.

Like I've stated above, we aren't going to earn equality overnight. Women and African Americans alike are still not equal in America today. What makes you think are fight for equal rights on all fronts is going to be different from that?

Heres a scenario, I have no problems with heterosexuals exhibiting their sexuality in my face, I see it on the streets, in cinemas, restuarants, theatres, workplaces, colleges.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals strutting their sexuality in my face, simply because I am so used to it that it doesn't effect me anymore.

I don't have a problem with heterosexuals, let me state that as a fact here and now before anyone accuses me of that.

So long as I can hold my girlfriend's hand in public, kiss her once in awhile, that's good enough for me, because that's all the tasteful expressions I'd want to see from a heterosexual couple on the streets.

The whole of society is geared to meet the needs of heterosexuals, yet still I have no problem with it.

Society is geared to meeting heterosexual needs. However, those needs are unequal when compared to what homosexuals want in society.

If the stage is already unequal, than how can you be for equal rights for homosexuals if you're complacent within your own society? How can you call me a "gay apologitist" if you are saying you are perfectl fine with the heterosexual needs dominating, unequally, over homosexual needs for equality?

I even have a heterosexual family, who I love dearly. I would always welcome heterosexuals into my group of friends, I would always defemd my freinds from bigotry and violence.

Someday, I'll have kids with my girlfriend, which means I look forward to having a family. I don't see that as a "heterosexual family." I see it as a family. Simple as that.

I also have heterosexual friends, and I would protect them as well from unequality, bigotry, and violence.

I would deny no heterosexual the right to become what they choose to be, or access the institutions they wanted.

Neither would I, so, long as they aren't "choosing" to be homosexual. I have issues with that, but this is neither the time nor the thread for that discussion.

There are only 2 requirments I would insist upon. In the course of getting all those "privileges", that no one is harmed or given unreasonable offence. Secondly, every one of those privileges be given to all gay, or other minority sections of society.

Exactly my point. However, considering you said previously that you are perfectly fine with this being a heterosexually-geared world, how can you insist on giving rights and privileges to minority groups (especially homosexuals) after clearly stating you have no offense to the way the present system works in society placating heterosexuals in the majority position?

I do not read anything from you which expects anythin similar, except that you want to be tolerated by society, that is why I call you a gay Apologist.

You need to go back and clearly reread everything I've said, because you're wrong.

I merely said I am content with being tolerated for now, because I know it's going to take much longer than that to have full tolerance for being a homosexual in society. This battle won't be won in a day, and I realize that, accept that, and live my life in a way to carry myself through to that day.

I pick and choose my civil rights battles, especially when I'm involved in them, and this is a battle I tread on very lightly in order to preserve dignity and to earn respect of my heterosexual colleagues in life.

So, stop calling me a "gay apologitist," because I understand the context of history homosexuals live in today. I'm not a "gay apologitist," but, I'm beginning to think you are.

At any rate, Tammy must have the most neutral, non-agressive position held by someone justifying disapproval of homosexuality by his/her religion. At least she can stay in context and realize gays are still human beings who deserves respect and the same legal protection as everyon else; a lot of very religious poeple cannot.

Agreed, if more of the religious community could see beyond the word of God and such, the world (in general for everyone) would be a much better place.

Why are you two(Joe and Tuesday) arguing,anyway? Both of you are saying we must keep working toward equality,no?

The only difference I see between you two is that Tuesday says we should actually enjoy what we already have, to a point, while Joe says we should keep working on it.

Both of you are right!

We do have our lives a lot easier than the previous generation had: I know quite a bit of older men who came out of the clost in the 70s or 80s, and believe me, we've made progress.

Are we equal with heterosexuals yet, both our rights on paper and in reality? Not yet, but I don't see anyone saying to just roll over and die here. What we do have to realize, is that not ALL gays and lesbians can afford or want to be fighting like lions to get more rights NOW.

On a side note, I'm on of those roaring and fighting, but I don't expect everyone to be. I do it because I enjoy it, and because it's in my personnality(I'm fiercely opposing to any sort of discrimination, and I do speak up for other minorities as well). But I do have to respect those who aren't ready to invest as much time or energy into that fight.

Why are you two(Joe and Tuesday) arguing,anyway? Both of you are saying we must keep working toward equality,no?

I agree. We're arguing because we're on two different sides of the issue, but we both want the same thing. I'm just under the impression, and Joe can correct me if I'm wrong, that he doesn't think I want anything more rights-wise than homosexuals have now; he's wrong about that.

Oh, and I failed to mention in my previous post: there are many ways of fighting for equality. Being militant and just being yourself both are equally valid ways of working toward equality, in my opinion.

*applauds the sanity of this statement* I know what you mean! We don't have to go all militant, that'll just prove we are what they assume we are! Thank you for your vocalization and sense!

:wink:Thanks for your comments Mehaic, the main point i'd like to get across though, is that we are nothing like they think we are, rather we are just the same as them, with all the same faults and qualities. And therefore entitled to expect exactly the same treatment.

Skalador, I'm not sure that you have properly read the post I criticised and my response to it. Prjudice can still be prejudice when the bigot is smiling at you, while denying you entry to the wedding. "geddit?" :?

And you don't have to ve gay to support gay rights. I'm not gay (though I wish I was bi) and I support gay rights.

I am just a guy who likes mounds of fat on the chests of those of the opposite species. Does that make any sense? No. It just is. And that is what sexual attraction is all about.

P.S. I still hate Christians.

Why are you two(Joe and Tuesday) arguing,anyway? Both of you are saying we must keep working toward equality,no?

I agree. We're arguing because we're on two different sides of the issue, but we both want the same thing. I'm just under the impression, and Joe can correct me if I'm wrong, that he doesn't think I want anything more rights-wise than homosexuals have now; he's wrong about that.
Tuesday, for the first time I agree with you, about expecting equality and respect. However, I don't think we would ever stand together demanding the same things. I still saee you as an apologist, please do not confuse yhat with me accusing you of apologising for being gay, rather as a person who is grateful for what society has given you. You must measure this however, with the reasons why you started this discussion "Another type of Gay Activist", you (it seems to me) want to be validated by a society which still has the right to impose restictions upon you. I am different, I reject that approach, I have the right to continually challenge and question such unfairness.

One other thing, you are not doing yourself any favours by deliberately applying arguments attributed to me, which I did not say. If you read my previous message, I said I had no problems with living in a heterosexualy dominated society, that has nothing to do with my being gay. It's just a statement of fact. To use your perceived argument, we live in a society where most people are able bodied, therefore should disabled people not expect their rights and expect society to take account of their needs? Think about it, my argument is that the majority have society reflecting their needs but the needs of others must be met also.

You are also hung up on respect, I keep reminding you that respect should not be just earned. Do you not (as a matter of course) respect the stranger in the street? You are part of the fabric of society, you have agreed to many of the expected social functions in society, those are based on an innate respect for others. Respect should never have to be earned, it should always be given to individuals as a matter of courtesy. It can however, quickly be lost, if the individual does not deserve respect.

*applauds the sanity of this statement* I know what you mean! We don't have to go all militant, that'll just prove we are what they assume we are! Thank you for your vocalization and sense!

:wink:Thanks for your comments Mehaic, the main point i'd like to get across though, is that we are nothing like they think we are, rather we are just the same as them, with all the same faults and qualities. And therefore entitled to expect exactly the same treatment.

Skalador, I'm not sure that you have properly read the post I criticised and my response to it. Prjudice can still be prejudice when the bigot is smiling at you, while denying you entry to the wedding. "geddit?" :?

Of course I do, but you can't expect to change mentalities overnight: especially when mentalities are still deeply ingrained with religious notions that go against what we're trying to achieve.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand your point.

What I was trying to say is that I think the world would be a much more happy place if this was all the bigotry we'd have to suffer. I want to convey that I feel it is much more important to change the behaviour of those who still openly use violence, physical, psychological or otherwise against gays, before we go and start trying to change the way poeple feel or perceive us.

I think it's more important to stop fag bashing, to stop this suicide-fest going on among young gay men, to stop discrimination such as refusing a gay or a lesbian a job, or poeple insulting gays in public, using homosexual epiteths as derogatory terms. I think these issues are IMMENSELY more important tha marriage.

If I learn tomorrow that I get to chosse between all this and marriage, I'll have hesitations. Even though I want to marry the man I love, I feel it would be egoistical of me to do so while so many others still suffer.

Marriage is the cherry on top of the cake, agreed. But what I want - what we deserve - is the cake. I'd rather live in a society were gays truly are equals to straights but get to settle with civil unions, than a place where I can marry my boyfriend but other gays are still commiting suicide attempts, being bashed or discriminated against.

Which is why I don't care much about what you call smiling bigots(although I still think you stretch the definition). I won't care about them as long as there are angry, hostile bigots around. And God knows there are still plenty of those around.

I'll get to work changing "smiling bigots" in smiling friends when I'm done with those who would rather see us all imprisoned or killed. There's still work to be done.

And you don't have to ve gay to support gay rights. I'm not gay (though I wish I was bi) and I support gay rights.

I am just a guy who likes mounds of fat on the chests of those of the opposite species. Does that make any sense? No. It just is. And that is what sexual attraction is all about.

P.S. I still hate Christians.
Well said, you are the sort of person that has a clear unbaised approach to sexuality, thank you, I'd even go to your wedding :wink:

Only one thing though, I think I understand what you mean when you say "I still hate Christians", I don't hate christians, I hate what Established Religion has been in history, what evil and murder it has been responsible for, I hate the offence and intolerence it is capable of and I hate those who willingly give their support and encouragement to such repugnance and bigotry.

I'm Straight but the taht was extremely well said I think the majority of rightminded people think that way to.

I still saee you as an apologist, please do not confuse yhat with me accusing you of apologising for being gay, rather as a person who is grateful for what society has given you.

Okay, I finally understand what you mean by that, as I did not until you made this statement.

I still don't see how it makes me an apologitist, however.

One other thing, you are not doing yourself any favours by deliberately applying arguments attributed to me, which I did not say.

I've never said that you said something you didn't say in this thread. I simply am applying that which you say into other situations, as you cleary do not see me doing.

You are also hung up on respect, I keep reminding you that respect should not be just earned.

Respect is not a matter of courtesy in the real world society of today. I am hung up on it, because I disagreewith you, which is the basis of most of disagreements now.

Do you not (as a matter of course) respect the stranger in the street? You are part of the fabric of society, you have agreed to many of the expected social functions in society, those are based on an innate respect for others. Respect should never have to be earned, it should always be given to individuals as a matter of courtesy.

No, I don't respect someone for simply seeing them on the street. I expect those around me to earn my respect, because just existing does not show me the value of their character. Anybody can appear, on the outside, to be anything they choose to be, but the true value of a person is what they are on the inside. Not everyone chooses to be truthful about who they appear to be, by no means am I giving someone respect until I see the true value of their character.

I used the example of a serial killer earlier, and I'll use it again.

Joe, if you meet someone on the street, say at a bus stop and sit down and talk to someone. I assume you respect them. What happens if later that night you watch the evening news and discover that man is a serial killer? Obviously, he's lost your respect, but do you want to place your judgment of character based on mere sight and existense?

That's your choice, but I will not respect someone who does that, nor will I change the idea that I base my value of respect in character.

It can however, quickly be lost, if the individual does not deserve respect.

The only point in this post that I agree with.

Joe, you seem not to want to refute anything I said, instead, you say I'm making arguments. I'm not making arguments, I'm making connections. Why not confront those rather than waste everyone's time and debating properly.

Oh, and I failed to mention in my previous post: there are many ways of fighting for equality. Being militant and just being yourself both are equally valid ways of working toward equality, in my opinion.

I don't believe being militant works in fighting for equality. Did the race riots of the 60s and the civil rights movement actually help the cause for Blacks to be equal with whites in America? No, it didn't, it took leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. to a more democratic, peaceful, route to equality.

As I stated before, equality still hasn't been reached fully in this case.

Oh, and I failed to mention in my previous post: there are many ways of fighting for equality. Being militant and just being yourself both are equally valid ways of working toward equality, in my opinion.

I don't believe being militant works in fighting for equality. Did the race riots of the 60s and the civil rights movement actually help the cause for Blacks to be equal with whites in America? No, it didn't, it took leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. to a more democratic, peaceful, route to equality.

As I stated before, equality still hasn't been reached fully in this case.

there's more shades of grey then i think most people are admitting, however. the Civil Rights movement needed people to be very vocal and aggressive about their status, and it wouldn't have succeeded nearly as well if black people simply went quietly about their lives and tried to slowly change opinions. sometimes you have to push for radical change in laws, and start working toward full understanding and tollerance AFTER equal rights are established.

rioting and true militant action are rarely effective in changing convention because people just dislike you that much more after you smash shop windows and beat up the opposition. but loud demonstrations are often extremely effective (and necessary) in cases where the public would rather just ignore an issue and wait for it to go away. most gay people would like to just get on with their lives and quit dealing with all the hype, but the unfortunate reality is that for a while none of us are going to be able to do that...not if we ever want our children to have the world we dream of. we have to be loud, we have to be aggressive, and we have to make it clear that the current state of affairs is unacceptable.

I'm a bit odd (asperger's syndrome'll do that to you), but I've never understood discrimination against homosexuals. I admit that I'm not exactly comfy with the mechanics of male on male sex from an aesthetic viewpoint, but then again, the mechanics of heterosexual sex aren't exactly hygenically pleasing either.

As for same-sex marriages...I think the government should get out of the marriage business, since it's none of their business. Make *all* legally recognized partnerships the same thing, and recognize them (within reason) no matter what the construction thereof is. The word 'marriage' (and its derivative and parent terms) should be reserved for religious institutions.

So...as far as homosexuals...the real question for me is..."Who wants to play euchre, cribbage, or rummy?" In other words, it's a non-issue that has nothing to do with me. I don't care what gender my <insert relationship here>'s partner is. In fact, while I've never felt any sexual feelings for someone of the same gender as I, I doubt I would care what gender *my* partner was, so long as the relationship was healthy and mutually satisfying to all parties directly involved.

Something I would really like to know is this: Why are the people that find the nature of homosexuality so terrible so violently against it? I find Brussels sprouts to be absolutely abhorrent. To me, alcohol is among the most disgusting things on the planet. I cannot bring myself to consume hominy without gagging. Strangely, none of these things move me to violence when I see someone else happily pursuing enjoyment thereof. Some of the people who feel the way I just described about homosexuality will cite its 'sinful nature' (a concept I do not accept), and yet they are not as angry about debauchery and excess of a similar nature (frequently their own).

So...why are they so PO'd? I really don't see it.

I'm sorry you guys have to put up with the small minds of others. Slowly but surely, that's changing.

Subbie

Something I would really like to know is this: Why are the people that find the nature of homosexuality so terrible so violently against it? I find Brussels sprouts to be absolutely abhorrent. To me, alcohol is among the most disgusting things on the planet. I cannot bring myself to consume hominy without gagging. Strangely, none of these things move me to violence when I see someone else happily pursuing enjoyment thereof. Some of the people who feel the way I just described about homosexuality will cite its 'sinful nature' (a concept I do not accept), and yet they are not as angry about debauchery and excess of a similar nature (frequently their own).

So...why are they so PO'd? I really don't see it.


i've often wondered about this myself. there are a lot of behaviors that i find disgusting or ridiculous, but as long as they aren't causing harm to others i don't try to stop people from doing whatever stupid things they want. for some reason there is a large chunk of the population who just can't deal with disliking things, and need to have everything they dislike made illegal and hushed up...what's up with that, anyway?

I still saee you as an apologist, please do not confuse yhat with me accusing you of apologising for being gay, rather as a person who is grateful for what society has given you.

Okay, I finally understand what you mean by that, as I did not until you made this statement.

I still don't see how it makes me an apologitist, however.

One other thing, you are not doing yourself any favours by deliberately applying arguments attributed to me, which I did not say.

I've never said that you said something you didn't say in this thread. I simply am applying that which you say into other situations, as you cleary do not see me doing.

You are also hung up on respect, I keep reminding you that respect should not be just earned.

Respect is not a matter of courtesy in the real world society of today. I am hung up on it, because I disagreewith you, which is the basis of most of disagreements now.

Do you not (as a matter of course) respect the stranger in the street? You are part of the fabric of society, you have agreed to many of the expected social functions in society, those are based on an innate respect for others. Respect should never have to be earned, it should always be given to individuals as a matter of courtesy.

No, I don't respect someone for simply seeing them on the street. I expect those around me to earn my respect, because just existing does not show me the value of their character. Anybody can appear, on the outside, to be anything they choose to be, but the true value of a person is what they are on the inside. Not everyone chooses to be truthful about who they appear to be, by no means am I giving someone respect until I see the true value of their character.

I used the example of a serial killer earlier, and I'll use it again.

Joe, if you meet someone on the street, say at a bus stop and sit down and talk to someone. I assume you respect them. What happens if later that night you watch the evening news and discover that man is a serial killer? Obviously, he's lost your respect, but do you want to place your judgment of character based on mere sight and existense?

That's your choice, but I will not respect someone who does that, nor will I change the idea that I base my value of respect in character.

It can however, quickly be lost, if the individual does not deserve respect.

The only point in this post that I agree with.

Joe, you seem not to want to refute anything I said, instead, you say I'm making arguments. I'm not making arguments, I'm making connections. Why not confront those rather than waste everyone's time and debating properly.

Tuesday, either you're being deliberately obtuse, or argumentative. Either way, you are missing the main point, which is that you are not representative of the experience of being gay, so please make it clear that you are speaking from your own perspective and not advocating on behalf of gay people generally. At that point, I can say I agree with you one more time. This dialogue is time wasting, you are unwilling to open your mind to other arguments and I for one see no worth in continuing this with you. It is for others to see where your priorities and consideration of oppression and prejudice lie. Cutting up my posts and then misrepresenting them does not, in itself provide any rational argument or response to what I'm writing.

Subjugator and bottle, it is refreshing to read the argumentsd you have both posted. it is people like yourselves who show clearly the absurdity of intolerence. I agree with the point about not liking things, I hate football but spend time listening to one of my friends talk endlessly about it, I'm not going to stop being friends, let alone hate him for this.

Only one point Sugjugator, don't think established religion should continue imposing it's moral value judgements upon those who are different but who nevertheless identify with the core belifs of whichever faith. Earlier on someone argued that the "smiling bigot" was not the problem in society, instead it was the intolerant violent bigot that needed to be dealt with. I would say, yes you need to respond to violence and bigotry when it's forced upon you. But you also need to deal with the hidden bigotry, lying behind the smiles. For instance Religious institutions, lay claim to tolerence, love and concern for others, then just trample over the feelings, rights, expectaions of others, while still maintaining they can keep the moral highground. Or the parent who says, I'm not a homophobe, then refuses to allow their child access to education around Homosexual issues in school, along with more general issues. It is that sort of creeping insidious unseen bigotry that I think is very dangerous because you cannot really confront it, or change it, other than through bringing it out into the open and seeking to challenge it, forcing the "smiling bigots" to confront their own prejudices. We don't have it bad, at the moment, being gay in western society, but my point is we should never be complacent. We expect nothing less than what every heterosexual takes for granted today, in society.

Tuesday, either you're being deliberately obtuse, or argumentative. Either way, you are missing the main point, which is that you are not representative of the experience of being gay, so please make it clear that you are speaking from your own perspective and not advocating on behalf of gay people generally.

How am I not representative of the gay experience, being a homosexual myself? I fail to see how that makes any sense.

The members here see that I am speaking from my own perspective; why can't you?

At that point, I can say I agree with you one more time. This dialogue is time wasting, you are unwilling to open your mind to other arguments and I for one see no worth in continuing this with you.

Good. You never had any ammunition to debate me properly to begin with, so, good riddance. Joe Stalin, I wish you not to participate in this thread furthermore, if you do, I will report you to the moderation for failing to debate properly and for insulting my character on several fronts.

I am unwilling to open my mind to other arguments I say as fallacies, which I see your non-responses as.

It is for others to see where your priorities and consideration of oppression and prejudice lie. Cutting up my posts and then misrepresenting them does not, in itself provide any rational argument or response to what I'm writing.

Read my posts thoroughly, my position is loud and clear.

Cutting up your posts helps me better deal with the issues you've brought to the table, if you can't debate and refute properly, perhaps, you shouldn't have brought them up to begin with.

I have banned you from this thread, please, respect that and move on.

Bottle, I agree with you on some levels. Militantism does help initially, but I think we've seen from the reaction to it regarding homosexuals in America, that it isn't working well enough to continue on. New methods of dialogue and communication need to be opened at this point for equality to have a foundation.

I have banned you from this thread, please, respect that and move on.

give me a break. this is a public forum, and i am totally disgusted with the new trend of authors banning people from their threads. if you don't like what he has to say then don't read it or don't respond, but for the love of pete would you people stop being such whiny little children and quit trying to make your threads into exclusive little clubs?! the whole point is for there to be disent and difference of opinion, and mods will delete anybody who is just flaming or spamming, so DEAL WITH IT. if you can't handle people not agreeing with you then go some place else...you guys are making this forum crappier and crappier every day with this kind of behavior.

Bottle, my thread, I can do what I choose. If you aren't going to argue back, you're going to insult my intelligence instead, well, then, you're banned.

Joe didn't argue back, he tried to make me seem like I was the wrong with the problem, which was not the case. If you go back and read the thread, you'll see that as truth.

I have no problem with debating someone, so, long as they are willing to debate. Joe was not willing to do this, and if you aren't willing to do it either, I will ban you, as is my right in NS.

Only one point Sugjugator, don't think established religion should continue imposing it's moral value judgements upon those who are different but who nevertheless identify with the core belifs of whichever faith. Earlier on someone argued that the "smiling bigot" was not the problem in society, instead it was the intolerant violent bigot that needed to be dealt with. I would say, yes you need to respond to violence and bigotry when it's forced upon you. But you also need to deal with the hidden bigotry, lying behind the smiles. For instance Religious institutions, lay claim to tolerence, love and concern for others, then just trample over the feelings, rights, expectaions of others, while still maintaining they can keep the moral highground. Or the parent who says, I'm not a homophobe, then refuses to allow their child access to education around Homosexual issues in school, along with more general issues. It is that sort of creeping insidious unseen bigotry that I think is very dangerous because you cannot really confront it, or change it, other than through bringing it out into the open and seeking to challenge it, forcing the "smiling bigots" to confront their own prejudices. We don't have it bad, at the moment, being gay in western society, but my point is we should never be complacent. We expect nothing less than what every heterosexual takes for granted today, in society.

I am assuming you're speaking of my position on the word `marriage' and related terms. The reason I think that should be left to the religions...and I mean *any* religion...maybe I should have said private organizations instead of religions...because my real intent was to state that I wanted it in the hands of something other than a governmental body. Whether or not I'm married is none of the government's business. If I want a partnership that grants me certain rights and responsibilities with my partner(s), then it should be a normal legal partnership (note...I'm saying that *all* groupings should be like this...homo, hetero, plural, etc). If I want a union recognized by God, then that's between the religion and us, and has nothing to do with Daddy Government.

Just to clarify something, in case you got the wrong impression...I am not a bigot of any flavor whatsoever. I am unusual in that I don't actively hate bigots though...I just dislike them. This dislike means that I avoid them. I avoid them and dislike them because I don't like people that are stupid, and bigotry is a fine indicator of the absense of logic in a person.

Sub

First stuff is for Joe Stalin...

Upon rereading your post, I have to say that religions and people should have the absolute right to be bigots. If a religion, as a private institution decides they don't want to marry homosexuals, then they should be able to give a simple answer of 'no' to requests from homosexuals to marry.

Also...with the parent that doesn't want their child getting information on homosexuality from their school, I'm not sure I agree with you there either. Maybe the parents don't think the kid is old enough to address issues of a sexual nature. Maybe the parents want to address those issues by themselves. There is a lot of rational reasons why someone would want to prevent their child from getting education on a sensitive subject (human sexuality being one of them) from a third party. Calling it bigotry as a blanket statement is wrong, and is in fact a form of prejudice.

I do agree that in an ideal society, people would of their own choice decide not to hold any bigotry in their hearts.

Also...if I were you, I would not hold an expectation of what every heterosexual takes for granted, but what every heterosexual thinks they should have as rights for themselves (a fine line, but it makes the difference of including things that wronging heterosexual people and changing them for all preferences).

:)

Now...secondly...what's up with banning people from posts? I'm new here and don't quite get it. Is recognition of the ban a matter of courtesy, or does said ban have teeth?

Subjugator

Now...secondly...what's up with banning people from posts? I'm new here and don't quite get it. Is recognition of the ban a matter of courtesy, or does said ban have teeth?

Subjugator

apparently the author of a thread has the power to order people out of their thread, and the mods will enforce it. it seems like a pretty pathetic tactic on the part of the thread founder to me, but i guess the forum rules allow it.

The ban is a matter of courtesy.

Unfortunately, Joe refused to argue with me as a proper debate flows and was waste of conversation in this thread. Thus, I banned him, and have received word he will accept that.

apparently the author of a thread has the power to order people out of their thread, and the mods will enforce it. it seems like a pretty pathetic tactic on the part of the thread founder to me, but i guess the forum rules allow it.

First, don't call me pathetic, as you probably haven't read the entire 11 pages of this thread. The nation I banned, Joe Stalin, did not debate properly in this thread. Instead, he accused me of changing his words around when I was merely challenging them. If you aren't going to offer something constructive, then, why bother posting in this thread anyway?

apparently the author of a thread has the power to order people out of their thread, and the mods will enforce it. it seems like a pretty pathetic tactic on the part of the thread founder to me, but i guess the forum rules allow it.

First, don't call me pathetic, as you probably haven't read the entire 11 pages of this thread. The nation I banned, Joe Stalin, did not debate properly in this thread. Instead, he accused me of changing his words around when I was merely challenging them. If you aren't going to offer something constructive, then, why bother posting in this thread anyway?

wow, how disappointing. i DID post something constructive: i answered the question posed by another player. i also offered my opinion on the subject. you don't like my opinion (or apparently the opinions of anybody who doesn't agree with you) so you want me to go away. that's poor debating.

i did read the rest of the thread, and while i agree that Joe Stalin was irritating in places he certainly wasn't as bad as many people on the forums, and he made several good points. from what i can see you just didn't want to have him around, so you booted him. then when somebody posted the opinion that your choice wasn't a good on, you booted them too. honestly, if you want to totally discredit yourself you are well on your way; i don't see much point in discussing anything with you, since if i start making good points i will be banned from the thread.

good luck in your efforts, i'm sure you'll enjoy them.

Oh, and I failed to mention in my previous post: there are many ways of fighting for equality. Being militant and just being yourself both are equally valid ways of working toward equality, in my opinion.

I don't believe being militant works in fighting for equality. Did the race riots of the 60s and the civil rights movement actually help the cause for Blacks to be equal with whites in America? No, it didn't, it took leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. to a more democratic, peaceful, route to equality.

As I stated before, equality still hasn't been reached fully in this case.

Ah, but you seem to attach a different meaning to the term "militant" than I do. In my opinion, Mr. Luther King WAS a militant. He openly fought against prejudice in the public place, and demanded that changes be made toward equality. I consider that a militant attitude. What signification do you attach to the term?

Plain-Belly Sneetches, I did not mean to convey that I thought you posted something unconstructive in your thread. I was referring to Joe, who did not respond to any of my criticism of what he said. It's clear to all that he went around my arguments, because he couldn't handle debating me when I could refute everything he had to say. Our argument was a waste of time, because he could not handle arguing with me properly.

I did not ban you from this thread, and I apologize that I assumed you hadn't read the thread; it's tiring when people start attacking you for defending a thread that is being invaded by people who refuse to argue back and make me, the author, look like a bigot for not wanting to waste 11 pages worth of thread continuing a non-sensical non-existant argument.

Ah, but you seem to attach a different meaning to the term "militant" than I do. In my opinion, Mr. Luther King WAS a militant. He openly fought against prejudice in the public place, and demanded that changes be made toward equality. I consider that a militant attitude. What signification do you attach to the term?

I see how your definition of militantism applies now, Skalador. I agree with your definition of it, I simply overlooked it. Attaching the idea of militant = violent opposition as opposed to militant = opposing views.

Thank-you for pointing out to me my mistake. :)

I also agree with your view as MLK, Jr. as a militant.

I have nothing to say regarding homosexuality- i respect homosexuals and some of my friends are...but i detest it as i do detest playing soccer..*shrug*

and Tuesday i really liked what you said at the begining, you seemed to be a person of tolerance...but im really kind of dissapointed how you started controlling how this ended

I can't be bothered reading the whole thread to see if someone already made this point but...

One of the best things that a Pride can do is create awareness of the LGBT* community to people who aren't members of it yet. Lots of people grow up quite sheltered without exposure to gay people, and some of them will be gay themselves. Coverage of Pride Parades lets them know that they're not alone, and how to explore more about the community.

By the way, nice post Tuesday, I agree completely!

Aidan

*Add any or all of the following: DQ,DK,BD,SM,L,SA, etc etc

and Tuesday i really liked what you said at the begining, you seemed to be a person of tolerance...but im really kind of dissapointed how you started controlling how this ended

I never intended to "end" this thread, however, when those who oppose anyone fail to defend their point and instead make it look like the original poster is the one at fault for being a bigot and ignorant, I see no point in continuing a debate with close-minded posters who will not argue back but instead insult my posts and my intelligence.

Wow, someone who agrees with me!

The whole idea of pride parades is horribly ridiculous. If straight people did such a thing, homosexuals everywhere would be all over it, saying how it isn't fair that they get their own *parade* for the simple reason that they are heterosexual. No matter what some people believe, sexuality is not a choice, and therefore really doesn't need to be *celebrated.* It's much different from things like celebrating black history and what not, because there's no heritage to being gay. You just are, plain and simple. And you're completely right. The only way we're going to get respect and be treated like everyone else is if we live our lives normally, and not act like we're a bunch of animals and parade ourselves around.

This comes up a lot with friends or whoever else that find out/I let know that I'm gay. A lot of the time they always ask, "Why didn't you tell me?" or "Why couldn't I tell?" I don't tell people unless I see that its important for them to know, or if the situation just comes up. I don't go around assuming people will tell me their sexuality. They'd never say "Why didn't you tell me you were straight!?" if I'd never talked about guys before and suddenly I was. And why couldn't you tell? Because there wouldn't be much of a difference in me if I had turned out straight, I don't think. Just because I don't cut my hair short and act like a guy (not that there is anything wrong with either) doesn't mean there's no way I like girls.

The ignorance of the world just continues to amaze me, from heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

Hey, Tuesday Heights, don't get disheartened. You posted a valid opinion that started a thread. The thread brought a great deal of discussion to your standpoint. It was not the usual 'attack is the best form of defence' standpoint and as such has earned you respect.

You are well aware of the flame which any discussion of 'gay issues' will attract.

You know in advance that you will attract the ignorant, the juveniles, the God-botherers, and the Gay and Straight people who see it differently to you "and nothing you or anyone can say will change their opinion because that's how it is and they're right anyway so you should just agree with anything they say so they don't need to argue their point anyway."

Oh,... And I for one think you done good!!!

Ah, but you seem to attach a different meaning to the term "militant" than I do. In my opinion, Mr. Luther King WAS a militant. He openly fought against prejudice in the public place, and demanded that changes be made toward equality. I consider that a militant attitude. What signification do you attach to the term?

I see how your definition of militantism applies now, Skalador. I agree with your definition of it, I simply overlooked it. Attaching the idea of militant = violent opposition as opposed to militant = opposing views.

Thank-you for pointing out to me my mistake. :)

I also agree with your view as MLK, Jr. as a militant.

It's always a pleasure poiting out other poeple's mistakes, as opposed to having mine pointed out :-P

That being said, and the word "militant" clarified by both of us, I mainly agree that violent action isn't really what we need now. It was necessary in the past, as a sort of "shock therapy" to wake ppl up, but today I believe the battles will be won on another battlefield.

It's always a pleasure pointing out other people's mistakes, as opposed to having mine pointed out :-P

:P

It's always a pleasure pointing out other people's mistakes, as opposed to having mine pointed out :-P

:P

I suppose it is easier to deal with gay insanity if you think you are born that way and it is not your fault.

Narilahr, I agree with you, sometimes I do feel like I'm on display for my family, my friends, and my society. Unfortunately, the attention pride parades get in the news, showcases us in that light, and all of us are lumped together as the "majority" of homosexuals when it just isn't the case. I don't like spotlights much anyway.

One of the best things that a Pride can do is create awareness of the LGBT* community to people who aren't members of it yet. Lots of people grow up quite sheltered without exposure to gay people, and some of them will be gay themselves. Coverage of Pride Parades lets them know that they're not alone, and how to explore more about the community.

However, pride parades throw heterosexuals never exposed to homosexuality into a complete and utter culture shock which is hard to reverse, especially if they disagree with our lifestyle. There are other, more subtle ways of introducing homosexuality to sheltered heterosexuals without throwing them into the extreme from of our lifestyle, which is not how a majority of us live.

Oh,... And I for one think you done good!!!

Thanks, Albione! :D

I suppose it is easier to deal with gay insanity if you think you are born that way and it is not your fault.

It's not insane to be gay if you're born that way, because it's as natural as so-called "straight insanity" for being born heterosexual.

I know... But, it's hard sometimes when the people in your family are alarmingly racist and they aren't discreet about it around you...

Oh, agreed. It is rough, and some don't make it through, but sometimes you just have to do it. Hopefully, someday, homosexuals will see that.


What does racism have to do with being homosexual? Homosexuals aren't another race.

are you sure about that?

I know... But, it's hard sometimes when the people in your family are alarmingly racist and they aren't discreet about it around you...

Oh, agreed. It is rough, and some don't make it through, but sometimes you just have to do it. Hopefully, someday, homosexuals will see that.

What does racism have to do with being homosexual? Homosexuals aren't another race.

Racism is just a form of prejudice, used as an example of the attitudes towards homosexuals in this exam.

and Tuesday i really liked what you said at the begining, you seemed to be a person of tolerance...but im really kind of dissapointed how you started controlling how this ended

I never intended to "end" this thread, however, when those who oppose anyone fail to defend their point and instead make it look like the original poster is the one at fault for being a bigot and ignorant, I see no point in continuing a debate with close-minded posters who will not argue back but instead insult my posts and my intelligence.

Gotcha :D *thumbs up*

Oh,... And I for one think you done good!!!

Thanks, Albione! :D

Hey, you're the one that earned my respect, my thanks to you 8)

However, pride parades throw heterosexuals never exposed to homosexuality into a complete and utter culture shock which is hard to reverse, especially if they disagree with our lifestyle. There are other, more subtle ways of introducing homosexuality to sheltered heterosexuals without throwing them into the extreme from of our lifestyle, which is not how a majority of us live.

Agreed, pride parades can be a culture shock. But in some instances, culture shocks are actually needed. I think the 70s culture shock was a good thing, because it prevented heterosexual from dismissing the issue of "that very very small, loud minority".

It made sure the gay rights issue couldn't be ignored entirely, as many heteros would undoubtedly have done at the time.

homosexuality is a disease that needs a cure.

homosexuality is a disease that needs a cure.

Och ye wee saddo! :roll:

Against ma will, A'm comin' tae the conclusion that those who state twaddle like ye do, are just insecure in their own sexuality.

Ye either need tae grow up a few years an' do wi'out yer mutha's tit for a while, or ye need to get oot mair.

Och ye wee saddo! :roll:

Against ma will, A'm comin' tae the conclusion that those who state twaddle like ye do, are just insecure in their own sexuality.

Ye either need tae grow up a few years an' do wi'out yer mutha's tit for a while, or ye need to get oot mair.

There is much thruth in what you said. It is my personnal experience that heteros who are secure in their own sexuality seldom judge or feel threatened by others who doesn't share their preferences.

And it is also a fact that some of the most violent homophobes sometimes turns out to be gays with internalized feelings of homophobia.

Oh,... And I for one think you done good!!!

Thanks, Albione! :D

Hey, you're the one that earned my respect, my thanks to you 8)

See, I did prove respect is earned. :D

Double-posting.

Agreed, pride parades can be a culture shock. But in some instances, culture shocks are actually needed. I think the 70s culture shock was a good thing, because it prevented heterosexual from dismissing the issue of "that very very small, loud minority".

Some instances do take better to culture shocks. However, I since emotions are tied much more to this issue than other movements, it might be more pertinent not to provoke this culture shock against the majority of homosexuals so they do not stereotype homosexuals as what they see during pride parades and such in the media, their primary exposure to the minority of the gay lifestyle.

It made sure the gay rights issue couldn't be ignored entirely, as many heteros would undoubtedly have done at the time.

I love how heterosexuals try to ignore us but draw even more attention to us by trying to do so. It's sort of like atheists trying to ignore God, which suggests they have to believe in what they're ignoring in order to ignore it.

Och ye wee saddo! :roll:

Against ma will, A'm comin' tae the conclusion that those who state twaddle like ye do, are just insecure in their own sexuality.

Ye either need tae grow up a few years an' do wi'out yer mutha's tit for a while, or ye need to get oot mair.

There is much thruth in what you said. It is my personnal experience that heteros who are secure in their own sexuality seldom judge or feel threatened by others who doesn't share their preferences.

And it is also a fact that some of the most violent homophobes sometimes turns out to be gays with internalized feelings of homophobia.

Amazingly true!

Ah but, y'see A've a Lesbian mate doon in Nottingham, and I keep promising tae 'cure' her :lol:

Ah but, y'see A've a Lesbian mate doon in Nottingham, and I keep promising tae 'cure' her :lol:

Doesn't every male want to turn a lesbian straight? LOL! :lol:

Ah but, y'see A've a Lesbian mate doon in Nottingham, and I keep promising tae 'cure' her :lol:

Doesn't every male want to turn a lesbian straight? LOL! :lol:

I will have nothing to do with dykes. Though it would be better for her soul if she turned from the path of sin.

I will have nothing to do with dykes. Though it would be better for her soul if she turned from the path of sin.

No need to turn from the path of sin; God has nothing to do with being gay.

Some instances do take better to culture shocks. However, I since emotions are tied much more to this issue than other movements, it might be more pertinent not to provoke this culture shock against the majority of homosexuals so they do not stereotype homosexuals as what they see during pride parades and such in the media, their primary exposure to the minority of the gay lifestyle.


Well, to be fair they were stereotyping us that way long before pride parades and homosexual visibility became common(at least in Canada, it's getting quite common). That's just my opinion, but I think they'll keep pushing stereotypes and prejudice even if we did stop to say "hello, I'm here, and I'm gay". So we might as well keep going , that way we can control to an extant the image we project.

Besides, I'd like to add a thought. Personnally, I'm far from the flaming queen or any other gay stereotype. I had to prove to my friends I really was by kissing my boyfriend in front of them when I had my coming out of the closet because they thought I was kidding. I'm really not the type of guy you can see walking down the street and say: "Hey, there comes the gay guy".

However, and that's something I always make a point of telling everyone whenever I hear gay jokes or steroetypes and prejudice, is that even the most flaming queen, the most effeminate boy, the most leathery-clad bear have the right to dress, behave, and speak however they damn wish. And I'll never judge them for it. I'll even fight tooth and nails to protect their right. Why should they(we?) conform to the norm and deny what they are? Just to please those who would feel shocked or insulted?

Give me a break. Yes, it's a culture shock and it may turn some against us, but everyone has a right to be who they want to be. It goes further than just the question of sexual orientation: it also includes all straights who just want to differ from the norm. A straight guy can act in a feminine way and still be striaght, and he should be able to do so without fear of prejudice. Goths, punks, effeminate men and tomboy girls, EVERYONE is entitled to be who they are. And the day we start conforming and being "discreet" so as not to acttract attention and try not to shock anyone, is a day where we start denying everyone the right to be different.

I wouldn't live in a world where we're all the same, it would be boring to death. Like my national motto says, our differences are precious, and they're what makes us unique.

I will have nothing to do with dykes. Though it would be better for her soul if she turned from the path of sin.

Is there no way to spend a second on a forum about homosexuality without hearing someone say "homosexuality is a sin and gays will burn in hell because the bible says so and I don't bother thinking for myself and take everyothing in at literal value, even though I ignore half of what's in it regarding other issues" ?

UUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! :evil:

I had to take that out of my system.

Well, to be fair they were stereotyping us that way long before pride parades and homosexual visibility became common(at least in Canada, it's getting quite common). That's just my opinion, but I think they'll keep pushing stereotypes and prejudice even if we did stop to say "hello, I'm here, and I'm gay".

Yes, we've been stereotyped for quite some time. However, it is possible to change that stereotype. I agree, we will always be stereotyped by the majority, just as all others that stray from the "norm" of a given society (such as women, African Americans, etc. etc. etc.).

So we might as well keep going , that way we can control to an extant the image we project.

I agree with can control the image we project, I just believe it should be changed to reflect the more moderate lifestyle of the homosexual instead of projecting the idea that all homosexuals who participate in pride activities are that extreme.

I'm far from the flaming queen or any other gay stereotype. I had to prove to my friends I really was by kissing my boyfriend in front of them when I had my coming out of the closet because they thought I was kidding. I'm really not the type of guy you can see walking down the street and say: "Hey, there comes the gay guy".

Oh, I won't flame them either or condone them for that matter. It's a shame your friends didn't want to just accept you and you had to prove to them that you were gay; that's horrible to me, really, and I'm sorry you had to deal with that aspect. Luckily, I never had to do that.

However, and that's something I always make a point of telling everyone whenever I hear gay jokes or steroetypes and prejudice, is that even the most flaming queen, the most effeminate boy, the most leathery-clad bear have the right to dress, behave, and speak however they damn wish. And I'll never judge them for it. I'll even fight tooth and nails to protect their right.

I agree whole heartedly with you. I will protect their rights to live their life the way they want to, but I will not defend it if they project that lifestyle on a public scale so that the perception of myself as a homosexual is tainted to society by their lack of regard for the macrocosm of the homosexual rights battle.

This is not saying that I want to deny anyone the right to do anything in their lives, I'm simply saying I do not like the PROJECTION of their lifestyle as stereotyping ALL homosexuals. They can do whatever they please in their lives, so long as they don't do it in a way to change how people perceive how the grand scheme of homosexuals live in life.

Why should they(we?) conform to the norm and deny what they are? Just to please those who would feel shocked or insulted?

I'm not saying we have to please anyone; I'm simply saying their are more productive ways to change people's minds.

Give me a break. Yes, it's a culture shock and it may turn some against us, but everyone has a right to be who they want to be.

Yes, they do. I've never denied that. I simply deny the right of the minority of homosexuals to deny the majority of what we truly are in the public eye.

It goes further than just the question of sexual orientation: it also includes all straights who just want to differ from the norm. A straight guy can act in a feminine way and still be striaght, and he should be able to do so without fear of prejudice. Goths, punks, effeminate men and tomboy girls, EVERYONE is entitled to be who they are. And the day we start conforming and being "discreet" so as not to acttract attention and try not to shock anyone, is a day where we start denying everyone the right to be different.

I'd apply the same principles above to heterosexuals above, if I were in that category.

I wouldn't live in a world where we're all the same, it would be boring to death. Like my national motto says, our differences are precious, and they're what makes us unique.

I like your motto, and I agree with it, I might add. :D

This is by far the best argument I've ever heard. I'd kiss you, but ya know. :P

I'm not disagreeing that some people feel the way you do, but please, get
over this idea that everyone has to be the same. As someone else said,
it's so teenage-social comformity. Blah!

To me, crashing out is just something that many people go through when
they discover a new interest. Crashing out is what i'm used to calling it in
the bi community - the period where it's all new and exciting and such a
change from the old repressed way of being that the excitement can
overwhelm common sense (and everything else). The stronger the
repression, the stronger the react as a rule. So your new stamp collector
is likely to say "gosh, I like stamp collecting", while someone from a
still-upper-lip christian family is likely to run around kissing total strangers,
just because they can.

I think pride marches are an expression of that feeling - a way for those
still experiencing it to really go to town, and a way for those who
remember it to put the message out there that you don't have to live in
the closet forever. Because there's still a strong element in many places
that would like to make everyone different just go away. Especially in
the US, where the religious wrong seems to get stronger every day.

Here in Sydney, the annual G&L Mardi Gras is also a great big social
occaision, and a time where people come from far places, so we get
to catch up with friends we haven't seen for ages and so on. If there
wasn't Mardi Gras, we'd just have to invent something like it to do the
same job.

But remember - it's not compulsory, and you can quite reasonably tell
anyone who accuses you of being "one of them" that you're not, any more
than they're a ... (whatever they look like). Sheesh, not all weedy white
morons are the president of the USA, so surely dykes can be stay at
home types if they want? Or even out-all-huors clubbing fans who just
don't want to get naked on a pride float every year. It's not like anyone's
going to take away your lesbian license if they don't see your tits on the
TV.

Moz