NationStates Jolt Archive

So just for the hell of it, I just want to see how many people there are out there who take somewhat of a “middle road” on this issue, sharing some of my viewpoints.

To start off, I’m a registered Republican living in the United States, but before you start laughing and making anti-Bush comments, I think you’ll find that I’m not your typical Republican. You see, I’m very fiscally conservative, strongly believing in Reagan economics and rather appalled and Bush’s “budget.” But that’s not what this thread’s about…it’s about social issues.

Socially, I’m far more center of the road, if not even liberal leaning. Anyone who knows me knows that I’m hardly against pre-marital sex, and I’m cool with a woman president as long as it’s not Hilary. As for the ever-present “Gay” issue…it gets a little more grey…

I’m not religious, so any opinion I make is purely my own. I haven’t quite accepted that being homosexual is some sort of gene, or something that you’re born with. Sure there are studies that “prove” it is, but there are also studies that “prove” the opposite, as well as studies that “prove” smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Generally, studies reflect those who give them funding, so until I see proof, I see it as a choice.

That being said, I think it’s a “choice” that people should have the right to make. What right does the government have to be in our bedrooms telling us how or who to fuck? Simply put, it has none.

My problem with homosexuality arises with, for lack of a better term, the “flamers” or “queens” of the group. Now before you jump down my throat with flames and the like, hear me out. In my eyes, these people who purposefully act ridiculously over the top in public and expect to be accepted are no better than people with two teeth and overalls saying “I hate faggots” in southern accents. Extremes on either end are rather ridiculous, and acceptance is far different than going out of your way to put up with nonsense.

So…I’m not really looking for a debate or anything here, I’m just wondering if anyone else shares my “be gay, just don’t expect to be treated differently” point of view. I find that so many people either outright hate homosexuality or blindly support it and lash out against any opponents. As I said, my views are a bit more “middle of the road.”

I'm much of the opinion that if it involves any number of consenting adults behind closed doors, then they should be allowed to do it as long as no one without a choice is in danger.

I'm much of the opinion that if it involves any number of consenting adults behind closed doors, then they should be allowed to do it as long as no one without a choice is in danger.

Aye

In my eyes, these people who purposefully act ridiculously over the top in public and expect to be accepted are no better than people with two teeth and overalls saying “I hate faggots” in southern accents. Extremes on either end are rather ridiculous, and acceptance is far different than going out of your way to put up with nonsense.

Except they're not preaching pointless hatred. (Ridiculously over-the-top campness does annoy me, though. (And, I feel, project an unfair stereotype for other gay men; the protrayal in the media being a large part of this problem.) I'm not going to do anything about it, of course. You're free to act the way you like as long as you doesn't impinge on my freedom. I just find it annoying.)

I generally agree with you, and quite often I do find myself irritated with people who, upon greeting you, immediately state that they're gay. I mean, it's like they define themselves by their sexuality, something that really does kind of throw me off. It's more than slightly odd in my opinion, I mean, after all, I'm pretty sure I've never walked up to someone and said "Hi, I'm Andy. In case you're wondering, I'm straight."

Except they're not preaching pointless hatred.

No, but the type I meantioned are being ridiculous in public and demanding acceptance for it, not because that's who they are, but based on the assumption that they are just being "gay." I'm sorry...sexual orientation is not an excuse for flashy rudeness and overexaggerated lisps. Social skills should exists regardless.

My problem with homosexuality arises with, for lack of a better term, the “flamers” or “queens” of the group. Now before you jump down my throat with flames and the like, hear me out. In my eyes, these people who purposefully act ridiculously over the top in public and expect to be acceptedWhy shouldn't they be?

I generally agree with you, and quite often I do find myself irritated with people who, upon greeting you, immediately state that they're gay. I mean, it's like they define themselves by their sexuality, something that really does kind of throw me off. It's more than slightly odd in my opinion, I mean, after all, I'm pretty sure I've never walked up to someone and said "Hi, I'm Andy. In case you're wondering, I'm straight."

Exactly. I more than most am quite willing to formulate my opinion on you as a person based on your personal merit, i.e. intelligence, character, and things that honestly matter. Your sexuality doesn't mean shit in the longrun.

This reminds me of my abnormal psychology course. The professor was talking about a news report he had seen of a gay pride parade, and thus...

Reporter (To gentleman in suit): Why did you allow the (flamers) to march with you? Doesn't this hurt your case?
Gentleman in Suit: We wouldn't be marching for equality if we excluded them, would we?

So just for the hell of it, I just want to see how many people there are out there who take somewhat of a “middle road” on this issue, sharing some of my viewpoints.

Nope, I don't take the "middle road" when it comes to treating humans with equal respect and dignity. I find that only the "extreme" is acceptable in this case. I don't believe it is ever acceptable to award somebody rights, or enforce upon them responsibilities, that are solely based on their gender or sexual orientation.

Objecting to people who act out in public is an entirely different matter. You aren't "taking the middle ground" when you suggest that all people should be held to a certain standard of public conduct, because essentially nobody is arguing that gay people should have the right to act out in ways that straight people are not allowed. Some people do argue that gay people have the right to act out because all people have the right to act out, but I've yet to encounter anybody arguing that gay people should have any special right to act out while straight people should be banned from doing so.

That's the problem with most "centrists" these days. Usually they are finding a "middle ground" between one real extreme (ex: people who want to ban homosexuality across the board) and one make-believe extreme (ex: people who want gay people to have special rights to act out in public while straight people are not allowed to do so).

The actual "middle ground" between the real sides of the argument will be quite different. For instance, one side will be arguing that gays never get to touch each other in public in any way, while the other side is arguing that gay people should be allowed to display affection in public to the same extent as straight people are allowed. The middle ground would be saying that gay people sometimes get to show PDA, but not as freely as straight people.

Regardless, if you want to go with the actual "middle ground" on this subject, you're going to have to be okay with holding homosexuals to a different standard than heterosexuals specifically because of their sexual orientation. If you don't want to do that, then welcome to the "extreme" end of the debate! :D

Why shouldn't they be?

First of all, good "location" lol.

Second, because as I said in a following post, your sexuality doesn't give you a free pass to be rude or over-the-top in public. Or if you believe it does, than your sexuality doesn't make you somehow free of ridicule from the masses. If you act that way, you're not being "gay," you're being an idiot.

No, but the type I meantioned are being ridiculous in public and demanding acceptance for it, not because that's who they are, but based on the assumption that they are just being "gay." I'm sorry...sexual orientation is not an excuse for flashy rudeness and overexaggerated lisps. Social skills should exists regardless.

It's just a different way of behaving. It's the same as saying Jocks shouldn't behave that way, or any other subculture shouldn't. While personally I might find it annoying, I'm not going to say they can't behave that way as long as it doesn't affect me.

No, but the type I meantioned are being ridiculous in public and demanding acceptance for it, not because that's who they are, but based on the assumption that they are just being "gay." I'm sorry...sexual orientation is not an excuse for flashy rudeness and overexaggerated lisps. Social skills should exists regardless.

For some people, it's really not 'overexaggerated'. I have a slight lisp, and coincidentally, I'm a geek who identifies as gay. I get shit all the time for 'being a fag' because of the way I speak.

I don't see how the hell it hurts people to simply avoid or ignore those they cannot accept.

This reminds me of my abnormal psychology course. The professor was talking about a news report he had seen of a gay pride parade, and thus...

Reporter (To gentleman in suit): Why did you allow the (flamers) to march with you? Doesn't this hurt your case?
Gentleman in Suit: We wouldn't be marching for equality if we excluded them, would we?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating only giving rights to those who act a certain way...I'm just ranting basically, giving personal opinions instead of some thought out and edited essay on homosexuality.

...

So…I’m not really looking for a debate or anything here, I’m just wondering if anyone else shares my “be gay, just don’t expect to be treated differently” point of view. I find that so many people either outright hate homosexuality or blindly support it and lash out against any opponents. As I said, my views are a bit more “middle of the road.”

"Be any way you like, but expect to be treated the same as eveyone else" is my motto. Subtle difference there ;)

I may be known to have some pretty extreme views on different issues, mainly leaning over to the conservative side but I do have some "middle of the road views" too.

I agree with your Mrs. President as long as it's not Hilary. I agree with how the government should stay out of the bedrooms. As for the gays, they are completely different than heterosexuals. With them being different than straights I don't feel that it would be right for them to take the "traditional marriage" in name. With that being said, I don't have a problem with them getting together in terms of a "civil union" that grants them the same benefits that married couples get. I agree I'm biased against the Queens and the Super Gay. They have the tendency to act inappropriate and to be irresponsible and they get upset if other people treat them differently. That's their own fault. I'm sure if you take your average gay couple and compare them to the extreme gay couple you will see a tremendous different between the 2 and you will notice how people will treat them differently too.

While some claim I'm a neo-con extremist or whatnot. In reality, I will not classify myself as a conservative. I'm Npa "No Party Affiliation" I do have a tendency of sliding to the conservative side but it all really depends on the issue and my personal feelings. I do not allow religion or politics form my views. I allow myself to form my own views. Views that I feel are moral and correct.

Regardless, if you want to go with the actual "middle ground" on this subject, you're going to have to be okay with holding homosexuals to a different standard than heterosexuals specifically because of their sexual orientation. If you don't want to do that, then welcome to the "extreme" end of the debate! :D

Lol...very interesting way of looking at things. I suppose under that definition...I'm a little more "extreme" than I thought...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating only giving rights to those who act a certain way...I'm just ranting basically, giving personal opinions instead of some thought out and edited essay on homosexuality.

Nah I got that, I was just relating what seemed like a pertinent story.

I agree with you, being up in someone's face about anything is the wrong way to approach a situation. Most people don't want to hear about my Zen Catholicism, so I keep it to myself unless I'm asked. :D

For some people, it's really not 'overexaggerated'. I have a slight lisp, and coincidentally, I'm a geek who identifies as gay. I get shit all the time for 'being a fag' because of the way I speak.

I don't see how the hell it hurts people to simply avoid or ignore those they cannot accept.

But while you may very well be "being yourself," I find it hard to believe that so many gay people who fall into that subcatagory are.

It's no different in my mind than scene kids dressing like they do to be "different," while actually dressing like every other scene kid.

...
To start off, I’m a registered Republican living in the United States, but before you start laughing and making anti-Bush comments, I think you’ll find that I’m not your typical Republican. You see, I’m very fiscally conservative, strongly believing in Reagan economics and rather appalled and Bush’s “budget.” .

Sadly, from what I've heard that IS a typical republican, or at least what a typical republican is supposed to be...

Anyway. Good, sensible post. While I disagree with you on certain points (choice or biology, etc.) you make many very valid points.

Second, because as I said in a following post, your sexuality doesn't give you a free pass to be rude or over-the-top in public. Or if you believe it does, than your sexuality doesn't make you somehow free of ridicule from the masses. If you act that way, you're not being "gay," you're being an idiot.So then you dislike all rude or over-the-top people? Drunks? Overzealous sports fans? Aggressive or poor drivers?

As for the gays, they are completely different than heterosexuals. How so?

Lol...very interesting way of looking at things. I suppose under that definition...I'm a little more "extreme" than I thought...
I think the whole problem is with the idea that everybody should be trying to find a middle between two equal and opposite points. Why is this automatically perceived as a good idea, to be "moderate" or "centrist"? Do we praise people who find a "middle ground" on the subject of human slavery?

If people must be grouped into different groups or categories...Practically all of those groups will have their Extreme Radicals to the more moderate to the most liberal...Extreme to Extreme. Of course some of the extremes do give the rest a bad name..."One bad apple ruins the bushel"

But while you may very well be "being yourself," I find it hard to believe that so many gay people who fall into that subcatagory are.

It's no different in my mind than scene kids dressing like they do to be "different," while actually dressing like every other scene kid.

Well, the behaviour is on a sliding scale, just like most behaviors. You have men who are ultra-feminists and men who are, quite simply, far beyond sexist. There are gay gals and guys, like myself, who - aside from our speech patterns - can fit in nicely into a crowd. Then there are the freaks who enjoy wearing the gold bikinis. I might think they're freaks, and that the men who are 'beyond sexist' are assholes, but really, there isn't much difference in the way most people treat them - generally, revulsion. (Although I try to treat people kindly and with respect, no matter how big a douchebag they're being.)

The simple thing is that you get people who don't exactly fit the category, but get lumped in there anyways, like myself. We tend to get bitter and angry. ;p

Nobody's asking you to like them. Just acknowledge their right to do whatever it is they're doing. It does, after all, have nothing to do with you.

If it's any consolation, everyone offends someone. Your political stance, for example, offends me to no end, and 99+% of the time, every single fucking thing about people with that political stance, offends me to no end. From the way you dress, to the way you talk, to the way you live, to your sense of ethics. I can almost guarantee you there's no way in hell I'd ever have the slightest bit of respect for you, or anything you'll ever do. Yet it's got fuck-all to do with me, so go right ahead & be whatever you want. You don't need Sim's Seal of Approval to live your life, you just need me to mind my own damn business - just like those flaming queers you can't stand.

So then you dislike all rude or over-the-top people? Drunks? Overzealous sports fans? Aggressive or poor drivers?

I certainly do, but I try to treat them with respect nonetheless.

Nobody's asking you to like them. Just acknowledge their right to do whatever it is they're doing. It does, after all, have nothing to do with you.

If it's any consolation, everyone offends someone. Your political stance, for example, offends me to no end, and 99+% of the time, every single fucking thing about people with that political stance, offends me to no end. From the way you dress, to the way you talk, to the way you live, to your sense of ethics. I can almost guarantee you there's no way in hell I'd ever have the slightest bit of respect for you, or anything you'll ever do. Yet it's got fuck-all to do with me, so go right ahead & be whatever you want. You don't need Sim's Seal of Approval to live your life, you just need me to mind my own damn business - just like those flaming queers you can't stand.

:heart:

Sadly, from what I've heard that IS a typical republican, or at least what a typical republican is supposed to be...

Hah...Republican maybe, not neo-con I'm afraid though...

I think the whole problem is with the idea that everybody should be trying to find a middle between two equal and opposite points. Why is this automatically perceived as a good idea, to be "moderate" or "centrist"? Do we praise people who find a "middle ground" on the subject of human slavery?

No I agree with you. I'm quite extreme in some areas. Get me talking about wellfare, abortion, or perhaps affirmative action and you'll see my "extreme" ideas. I'm just saying that on the issue of homosexuality I'm a bit more in the middle.

So then you dislike all rude or over-the-top people? Drunks? Overzealous sports fans? Aggressive or poor drivers?

You got it. I'm not simply hating on queens.

Nobody's asking you to like them. Just acknowledge their right to do whatever it is they're doing. It does, after all, have nothing to do with you.

If it's any consolation, everyone offends someone. Your political stance, for example, offends me to no end, and 99+% of the time, every single fucking thing about people with that political stance, offends me to no end. From the way you dress, to the way you talk, to the way you live, to your sense of ethics. I can almost guarantee you there's no way in hell I'd ever have the slightest bit of respect for you, or anything you'll ever do. Yet it's got fuck-all to do with me, so go right ahead & be whatever you want. You don't need Sim's Seal of Approval to live your life, you just need me to mind my own damn business - just like those flaming queers you can't stand.

Haha...well I applaud you for your honesty at least.

So just for the hell of it, I just want to see how many people there are out there who take somewhat of a “middle road” on this issue, sharing some of my viewpoints.

To start off, I’m a registered Republican living in the United States, but before you start laughing and making anti-Bush comments, I think you’ll find that I’m not your typical Republican. You see, I’m very fiscally conservative, strongly believing in Reagan economics and rather appalled and Bush’s “budget.” But that’s not what this thread’s about…it’s about social issues.

Socially, I’m far more center of the road, if not even liberal leaning. Anyone who knows me knows that I’m hardly against pre-marital sex, and I’m cool with a woman president as long as it’s not Hilary. As for the ever-present “Gay” issue…it gets a little more grey…

I’m not religious, so any opinion I make is purely my own. I haven’t quite accepted that being homosexual is some sort of gene, or something that you’re born with. Sure there are studies that “prove” it is, but there are also studies that “prove” the opposite, as well as studies that “prove” smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Generally, studies reflect those who give them funding, so until I see proof, I see it as a choice.

That being said, I think it’s a “choice” that people should have the right to make. What right does the government have to be in our bedrooms telling us how or who to fuck? Simply put, it has none.

My problem with homosexuality arises with, for lack of a better term, the “flamers” or “queens” of the group. Now before you jump down my throat with flames and the like, hear me out. In my eyes, these people who purposefully act ridiculously over the top in public and expect to be accepted are no better than people with two teeth and overalls saying “I hate faggots” in southern accents. Extremes on either end are rather ridiculous, and acceptance is far different than going out of your way to put up with nonsense.

So…I’m not really looking for a debate or anything here, I’m just wondering if anyone else shares my “be gay, just don’t expect to be treated differently” point of view. I find that so many people either outright hate homosexuality or blindly support it and lash out against any opponents. As I said, my views are a bit more “middle of the road.”

maybe being a "flamer" or a "queen" can be as respectable as being a "normal" gay ; people should respect other people, no matter what their lifestyle, as long as it's not hateful towards others... (hope I'm making myself clear :confused: )

maybe being a "flamer" or a "queen" can be as respectable as being a "normal" gay ; people should respect other people, no matter what their lifestyle, as long as it's not hateful towards others... (hope I'm making myself clear :confused: )

But is "hateful" or not the only factor?

If I walk around flaunting how straight I am (however the hell I'd do that lol) do you not suppose that would get annoying to a good number of people?

But is "hateful" or not the only factor?

If I walk around flaunting how straight I am (however the hell I'd do that lol) do you not suppose that would get annoying to a good number of people?

Yes, yes, it does get tired and annoying. Very quickly. Especially at strip bars when my girlfriends drag me to them.

You were saying?

Yes, yes, it does get tired and annoying. Very quickly. Especially at strip bars when my girlfriends drag me to them.

You were saying?

Then why is the opposite any different?

Personally, I think too much is given to "accepting people for who they are." There's a difference between being an accepting person and bending over backwards to embrace any amount of ridiculousness.

But while you may very well be "being yourself," I find it hard to believe that so many gay people who fall into that subcatagory are.

It's no different in my mind than scene kids dressing like they do to be "different," while actually dressing like every other scene kid.

but if you find even only one of those who in your view "exagerate", to be just himself while doing so, then this is an acceptable lifestyle ; so why not just accept them anyway? those who do it for the shock value would get bored, and stop.

Then why is the opposite any different?

Personally, I think too much is given to "accepting people for who they are." There's a difference between being an accepting person and bending over backwards to embrace any amount of ridiculousness.

That's the thing - the opposite is no different. I dislike both equally (the people who get up on floats in gold bikinis, and the people who enjoy watching female strippers just a little too much), but I treat both with respect until I or another are treated with blatant disrespect.

Ridiculousness is in the eye of the beholder. After all, it's 'ridiculous' for a woman who is working to expect a man to take care of the children, clean and have a hot meal on the table for her when she gets home... isn't it?

Fair enough, Lydania. I suppose you're just a bit more accepting than me haha. We seem to be in agreement on principle.

Fair enough, Lydania. I suppose you're just a bit more accepting than me haha. We seem to be in agreement on principle.

I take pride in the fact that my Christian friends have told me that they would consider me a perfect Christian, if it wasn't for that pesky not-believing-in-Jesus-or-God thing.

But is "hateful" or not the only factor?

If I walk around flaunting how straight I am (however the hell I'd do that lol) do you not suppose that would get annoying to a good number of people?

how do you feel about people who wear big crosses around their necks? or nuns? or jews wearing their kippas? if they want to show one of the categories they belong to, fine. besides, I was also talking about people who dress like that because that's what they like to do, and not to send any particular message, so
that point does not apply to them, except if you want gay people to have rights, but to hide that they're gay.

how do you feel about people who wear big crosses around their necks? or nuns? or jews wearing their kippas? if they want to show one of the categories they belong to, fine. besides, I was also talking about people who dress like that because that's what they like to do, and not to send any particular message, so
that point does not apply to them, except if you want gay people to have rights, but to hide that they're gay.

A better example would be:

The Hebrew, Jewish man wearing a yarmulka, or other traditional Jewish garb, with a large nose, and talking with a combination Hebrew/New York accent while haggling with someone. Oy vey.

That's about as realistic and as often-occuring (outside the media) as the flamboyantly gay flamer who either sounds like a stereotypical 'ghetto' black woman, or lisps so much that it's harder to understand him than a drunken Scot.

I take pride in the fact that my Christian friends have told me that they would consider me a perfect Christian, if it wasn't for that pesky not-believing-in-Jesus-or-God thing.

Haha...I wouldn't go that far with me and my christian friends

except if you want gay people to have rights, but to hide that they're gay.

Funny...I always thought that being sexually attracted to your same gender was the definition of homosexuality...not being overly flamboyant in public...

That's about as realistic and as often-occuring (outside the media) as the flamboyantly gay flamer who either sounds like a black woman, or lisps so much that it's harder to understand him than a drunken Scot.

Perhaps I just see it/notice it far more than you do...

Perhaps I just see it/notice it far more than you do...

Well, we can't prove it one way or another; we can't even prove what percentage of the homosexual population we'd each consider 'flamers'. However, I can tell you with some certainty that I believe my requirement for being 'flamingly gay' is somewhat narrower than yours is.

OP <snip>Meh, you seem pretty rational and a productive member of society.

The only problem is you seem to think that 'queens' only exist within the gay community. No siree. These people just generally flamboyant, hedonistic, narcissistic, annoying people. Whether they be gay or straight, male or female, whatever or whichever.

edit: It's like the difference between a stud and a slut - one's male and the other's female.

They're people who just hate flamboyantly dressed people in general. Their being gay just gives them another reason.

And if you wanna see flamboyant dressing without being gay, talk to some of my friends. One of them wore a fedora, a faux fur coat, and acted like a pimp for an entire day. Not to mention some of the occasionally dress up in suits or vests and speak with british accents the entire day. And start responding to names such as "nigel" and "simon"

That's flamboyant, in my opinion.

OBLIGATORY: Man, this thread is so fuckin' gay!

OBLIGATORY: Man, this thread is so fuckin' gay!

IAWTC

*starts painting the walls a vibrant shade of red, and buys cute beige pillow-chairs*

Well, we can't prove it one way or another; we can't even prove what percentage of the homosexual population we'd each consider 'flamers'. However, I can tell you with some certainty that I believe my requirement for being 'flamingly gay' is somewhat narrower than yours is.

Probably a fair assumption to make...

As for the two people who brought up "non-gay flamers" I'd agree that they aren't much better off than the flamers who are gay. The problem with those who are gay, however, as I pointed out to jesusslavesyou, is that they try to excuse their actions by saying that they are "being gay," when it, in fact, has little relation.

But is "hateful" or not the only factor?

If I walk around flaunting how straight I am (however the hell I'd do that lol) do you not suppose that would get annoying to a good number of people?

Easy you walk(as opposed to mince) around not wearing pink!

Haha...well I applaud you for your honesty at least.I wasn't joking, but I wasn't trying to be malicious either. Just trying to make you realise that holding people to your standards for what's acceptable behaviour is a hopelessly inane idea. Everyone has their own & radically different standards.

Though you might wish it, you're not the center of the universe, so your best bet is simply to accept you have a limited amount of common ground with your fellow human beings & act accordingly. There's either room for the lot of us, or room for none of us. Choose.

IAWTC



I looked this up on urban dictionary.

Are you using it to mean "I agree with this comment"

Because if you're not, I'm frightened.

Probably a fair assumption to make...

As for the two people who brought up "non-gay flamers" I'd agree that they aren't much better off than the flamers who are gay. The problem with those who are gay, however, as I pointed out to jesusslavesyou, is that they try to excuse their actions by saying that they are "being gay," when it, in fact, has little relation.

Well, some gay people believe that the people who don't act flamboyantly are 'traitors to the cause'. I don't go to gay pride parades specifically because I don't like what I hear about them from people who have gone. How is 'I'm gay' any less an excuse for behavior than 'I'm a man'? I've heard straight males use it, and for some pretty damn reprehensible sexist behaviour.

I looked this up on urban dictionary.

Are you using it to mean "I agree with this comment"

Because if you're not, I'm frightened.

I hate UrbanDictionary. *loathes it*

But yes, you're right. I didn't even know that the other definition existed, and I bet it's a fake one put in there by asshats.

Well, some gay people believe that the people who don't act flamboyantly are 'traitors to the cause'. I don't go to gay pride parades specifically because I don't like what I hear about them from people who have gone.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491

Though you might wish it, you're not the center of the universe, so your best bet is simply to accept you have a limited amount of common ground with your fellow human beings & act accordingly. There's either room for the lot of us, or room for none of us. Choose.

There are some things that even I will never accept ;)

Honestly though I was just wondering who out here shares the same ideas on the subject as I do...I wasn't trying to preach or lay down blanket assumptions that my opinions are somehow "correct." Obviously you don't agree with me in the least. Fine by me.

I hate UrbanDictionary. *loathes it*

But yes, you're right. I didn't even know that the other definition existed, and I bet it's a fake one put in there by asshats.

It shows up several times.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491

I love The Onion, and I love you. <3

It shows up several times.

The more something shows up, the more likely it's fake. The real ones will simply get more votes. Good rule of thumb for UrbanDictionary.

I'm much of the opinion that if it involves any number of consenting adults behind closed doors, then they should be allowed to do it as long as no one without a choice is in danger.

Gays are gays, and gays can be gays. Who cares?

They can do whatever they like, as long as they don't start using these on unsuspecting people:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c279/norgeboy/weiss_poser.jpg

Gays are gays, and gays can be gays. Who cares?

They can do whatever they like, as long as they don't start using these on unsuspecting people:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c279/norgeboy/weiss_poser.jpg

Yeah, we should leave that to EMTs and military medics, who are actually applying tourniquets.

Well, some gay people believe that the people who don't act flamboyantly are 'traitors to the cause'. I don't go to gay pride parades specifically because I don't like what I hear about them from people who have gone. How is 'I'm gay' any less an excuse for behavior than 'I'm a man'? I've heard straight males use it, and for some pretty damn reprehensible sexist behaviour.

Perhaps I should have broadened my assault on these types of people then, instead of just these types of people within the gay subculture. Point is, there shouldn't be a "cause" either way. What exactly would the "gay cause" lead to? Certainly not equality...because they're still labeling themselves as "gay" instead of just people.

Just like african americans who claim they want equality yet really want reperations (affirmative action) and special treatment. It's really unfortunate that this is what "equality" has become, but since I'm white...I can't talk about this without someone calling me a racist.

Our society is disgusting...all about putting people down then feeling guilty about it years later when the people who feel guilty largely have nothing to personally feel guilty about. Political correctness is a stain.

Gays are gays, and gays can be gays. Who cares?

They can do whatever they like, as long as they don't start using these on unsuspecting people:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c279/norgeboy/weiss_poser.jpg

I used to wonder about what type of poster you are, because I see your posts and am sometimes mystified by them.

Now I know for sure.

Evil

Perhaps I should have broadened my assault on these types of people then, instead of just these types of people within the gay subculture. Point is, there shouldn't be a "cause" either way. What exactly would the "gay cause" lead to? Certainly not equality...because they're still labeling themselves as "gay" instead of just people.

Just like african americans who claim they want equality yet really want reperations (affirmative action) and special treatment. It's really unfortunate that this is what "equality" has become, but since I'm white...I can't talk about this without someone calling me a racist.

Our society is disgusting...all about putting people down then feeling guilty about it years later when the people who feel guilty largely have nothing to personally feel guilty about. Political correctness is a stain.


Maybe you should lighten up.

In any group, there are those who speak loudly because they are actually oppressed, and some who speak loudly because they are just whiners.

I can't be bothered to try to sort them out, so let them speak loudly (or whine) as the case may be - it's free speech.

People can call you racist, or homophobic, or whatever - it doesn't mean you are.

It's not a matter of political correctness - these people are just frustrated and are trying to make themselves heard.

Think about it - if you were outnumbered 10 to 1 in society, you would have to make a lot of noise to get some attention.

Political correctness is a stain.

Political correctness largely exists because if it didn't, certain people would actually get away with holding horrendous attitudes that, as a society and species, we should be enlightened enough to not have to suffer through.

The louder the Right in the USA has decried political correctness, the more socially acceptable it has been seen to take frustrations out on people who are Muslim, or people who are Arabic. Conversely, Canada keeps a nice tight lid on the PC jar, and I'm pretty sure than our per-capita attacks on the Muslim and/or Arab population are lower.

Political correctness largely exists because if it didn't, certain people would actually get away with holding horrendous attitudes that, as a society and species, we should be enlightened enough to not have to suffer through.

And those attitudes don't still exist regardless of political correctness? No...they still do...except now we just have the added annoyance of the PC world to deal with as well.

And those attitudes don't still exist regardless of political correctness? No...they still do...except now we just have the added annoyance of the PC world to deal with as well.

PC is society's way for correcting for failures of the parents.

Fail to teach your children to not be racist bastards? Your kids will suffer societally.
Fail to teach your children to not be gay-hating idiots? Your kids will suffer societally.
Fail to teach your children to not be theology-based facists? Your kids will suffer societally.

Personally, I'm happier for it. Simply because we have free speech (although Canada's is 'constitutionally' less free than that of the USA) doesn't mean we have the right to use our words in a way that's harmful to our equals in society.

Personally, I'm happier for it. Simply because we have free speech (although Canada's is 'constitutionally' less free than that of the USA) doesn't mean we have the right to use our words in a way that's harmful to our equals in society.

"I may not agree with that which you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -Rough quote by some important American founding father

That may be one of the differences between our two countries. I apologize for not being as familiar with Canadian government as perhaps I should (blame the school system) but American law allows even the KKK to spread their words of hate, simply because the right to free speach is paramount in American government and society. Personally I don't think that the KKK should be allowed to preach against black people, and I don't think Americans should be allowed to burn American flags...but if you take things like that away...where does it stop?

A better example would be:

The Hebrew, Jewish man wearing a yarmulka, or other traditional Jewish garb, with a large nose, and talking with a combination Hebrew/New York accent while haggling with someone. Oy vey.

That's about as realistic and as often-occuring (outside the media) as the flamboyantly gay flamer who either sounds like a stereotypical 'ghetto' black woman, or lisps so much that it's harder to understand him than a drunken Scot.

what do the large nose and accent have to do with it? you can't help how you are. besides, I think no one (well except anti-semit people) would get offended at such persons.

Probably a fair assumption to make...

As for the two people who brought up "non-gay flamers" I'd agree that they aren't much better off than the flamers who are gay. The problem with those who are gay, however, as I pointed out to jesusslavesyou, is that they try to excuse their actions by saying that they are "being gay," when it, in fact, has little relation.

well, they're being themselves. let 'em.

Political correctness is a stain.Yes it is. Any social standard aimed at forcing people to think a certain way, is a fucking stain. Just like trying to gain popular support for the view that some harmless lifestyles are less appropriate than others is a fucking stain on humanity.

Sweet irony.

"I may not agree with that which you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -Rough quote by some important American founding father

That may be one of the differences between our two countries. I apologize for not being as familiar with Canadian government as perhaps I should (blame the school system) but American law allows even the KKK to spread their words of hate, simply because the right to free speach is paramount in American government and society. Personally I don't think that the KKK should be allowed to preach against black people, and I don't think Americans should be allowed to burn American flags...but if you take things like that away...where does it stop?

In Canada, if you preach a prejudiced message and a crime associated with such prejudice is commited by anyone who can be proven to be at the event you were preaching at, you can be held equally accountable as instigating the crime. 'Hate crime' laws.

Past that, the government can pass any legislation they want interdicting free speech by citing the 'notwithstanding' clause of our Charter (analogous to your Constitution, but much more difficult to amend, and easier for judges to read things into), but the legislation needs to be 'renewed' every five years, and any government that's ever used the Notwithstanding Clause has gotten voted out at the end of their term.

They could potentially use Article One of the Charter, which roughly states that the government is the body that rights come from, and they can give or take them away, under certain sets of conditions (if I'm not mistaken).

Yes it is. Any social standard aimed at forcing people to think a certain way, is a fucking stain.

Absolutely. Lets outlaw education, because forcing people to come to terms with things like 'facts' which can be found in 'books' is inappropriate. Lets simply go with the 'truthiness' you can feel in your gut, eh?

Yes it is. Any social standard aimed at forcing people to think a certain way, is a fucking stain. Just like trying to gain popular support for the view that some harmless lifestyles are less appropriate than others is a fucking stain on humanity.

Sweet irony.

Harmless? But them gays are spreading AIDS!!!!111

lol...kidding...

Still, it is not the lifestyle that I am attacking. Flamboyant people of any orientation are digusting. They don't have to be gay...it's just a bit more common and it happened to be the original topic of this thread.

I think my views can be summed up in one easy quote:

"Your right to be gay stops at my butthole."

You're oversimplifying this. This would be like saying the racial tensions between black people and white people are caused by rap music and doorags.

maybe being a "flamer" or a "queen" can be as respectable as being a "normal" gay ; people should respect other people, no matter what their lifestyle, as long as it's not hateful towards others... (hope I'm making myself clear :confused: )
Loud, abrassive, flamboyant people annoy me in general. I will respect people if they give me reason to. Gritting on my nerves is not a way of achieving this. The fact that most flamers share my sexual orientation will not do much to change this either.

I think my views can be summed up in one easy quote:

"Your right to be gay stops at my butthole."

Presumeably, it stops within your personal bubble. After all, being homosexual isn't solely about OmGLoLsEckS. For example, displays of affection. I certainly wouldn't think it justified if a person came up and hugged me, and, when I got angry about the violation of my personal space, exclaimed, 'But I'm gay!'

But maybe that's just me. (Although I doubt it.)

You're oversimplifying this. This would be like saying the racial tensions between black people and white people are caused by rap music and doorags.

Or pictures of white guys or gals on money, and country music.

I think my views can be summed up in one easy quote:

"Your right to be gay stops at my butthole."

...I'm pretty sure no one's arguing for the right of gays to rape people.

I know at least one flaming gay guy (not a drag queen however), and the dude's funny. Can kick someone's ass too (broke a cop's arm or something). Although I've also known other gay guys who annoyed me with their flameyness.

depends on the person, really, and personally doesnt really affect me too much anyhow.

On the "gay gene": it doesn't exist. Homosexuality is likely a result of genetic (and probably not just one gene) and environmental factors all put together.

On the "gay gene": it doesn't exist. Homosexuality is likely a result of genetic (and probably not just one gene) and environmental factors all put together.

Sexuality is more complex than skin colour and/or eye colour, and there's a half-dozen genes which code for skin colour. I would not be the least bit surprised to find out that it was coded for by a large number of genes, and affected (in a nod to the recent 'making gay rams straight' thread) in part by the hormone balance of the mother during pregnancy.

I know at least one flaming gay guy (not a drag queen however), and the dude's funny. Can kick someone's ass too (broke a cop's arm or something). Although I've also known other gay guys who annoyed me with their flameyness.


"Just because I like cock doesn't mean I'm a pussy"
-Jhim, Something Positive

I do really think we're oversimplifying this.

"I may not agree with that which you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -Rough quote by some important American founding father

That may be one of the differences between our two countries. I apologize for not being as familiar with Canadian government as perhaps I should (blame the school system) but American law allows even the KKK to spread their words of hate, simply because the right to free speach is paramount in American government and society. Personally I don't think that the KKK should be allowed to preach against black people, and I don't think Americans should be allowed to burn American flags...but if you take things like that away...where does it stop?

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

* Though these words are regularly attributed to Voltaire, they were first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), as a summation of Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression.
* Another possible source for the quote was proposed by Norbert Guterman, editor of "A Book of French Quotations," who noted a letter to M. le Riche (February 6, 1770) in which Voltaire is quoted as saying: "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" ("Monsieur l'abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire"). This remark, however, does not appear in the letter.

that doesn't look like a founding father...

that doesn't look like a founding father...

Eh...Voltaire...Ben Franklin...same deal ;)

I'm actually impressed that I got that much of the quote word for word, lol.

"Just because I like cock doesn't mean I'm a pussy"
-Jhim, Something Positive

I do really think we're oversimplifying this.

Well I havent met any gay guys in real life who weren't just a little fruity. I know there are people like that on these boards, but I'm just saying from personal experience.

on the other hand, I haven't really known any real stereotypical butch lesbians.

and like I said, the person I know is fruity, but definitely not a pussy. he can kick someone's ass if he was pissed the hell off.

Well I havent met any gay guys in real life who weren't just a little fruity. I know there are people like that on these boards, but I'm just saying from personal experience.

on the other hand, I haven't really known any real stereotypical butch lesbians.

and like I said, the person I know is fruity, but definitely not a pussy. he can kick someone's ass if he was pissed the hell off.

Well I havent met any straight guys in real life who weren't just a little breedery. I know there are people like that on these boards, but I'm just saying from personal experience.

on the other hand, I haven't really known any real stereotypically feminine women.

and like I said, the person I know is breedery, but definitely not fashion-impaired. he can distinguish mauve from chartreuse if he is focusing on what he is doing.

Loud, abrassive, flamboyant people annoy me in general. I will respect people if they give me reason to. Gritting on my nerves is not a way of achieving this. The fact that most flamers share my sexual orientation will not do much to change this either.

well, whatever you do, you're going to annoy people, so why take it in account? as long as you don't try to hurt people, be who you want.

"I may not agree with that which you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -Rough quote by some important American founding father

Right to say it? Yes, legally. Ostracized by civilized people? I certainly hope so.

well, whatever you do, you're going to annoy people, so why take it in account? as long as you don't try to hurt people, be who you want.

Exactly. I mock people because they lack common sense, and they mock me because of what I choose to wear. It's all good.

Right to say it? Yes, legally. Ostracized by civilized people? I certainly hope so.

Depends on the country, and I certainly hope so as well.

Right to say it? Yes, legally. Ostracized by civilized people? I certainly hope so.

who gets to say what "civilized people" means? 'cos depending on the definition, I may not be one...

who gets to say what "civilized people" means? 'cos depending on the definition, I may not be one...

My personal definition is something along the lines of:

Fair-minded people who believe in the right of the populace to do, think, and believe what they wish, provided that it does not impair other citizens; people who believe in not tolerating only the preaching of intolerance or hate.

But like I said, that's my own definition. And if someone wants to call me on that last bit, I'll happily bite the bullet on the failing of logic, although I personally don't feel that it's inconsistent.

Still, it is not the lifestyle that I am attacking. Flamboyant people of any orientation are digusting. They don't have to be gay...it's just a bit more common and it happened to be the original topic of this thread.It is the lifestyle you're attacking. A sexual orientation isn't a lifestyle. Your way of life, the sort of individual you are, is.

Anyway, if you think you can somehow justify why your criteria for an acceptable lifestyle should apply to anyone but you, then go right ahead. If you can't, I suggest you get the fuck over it & realise that you don't have any special right not to be as offended by conduct of others, as others are by yours.

Well I havent met any straight guys in real life who weren't just a little breedery. I know there are people like that on these boards, but I'm just saying from personal experience.

on the other hand, I haven't really known any real stereotypically feminine women.

and like I said, the person I know is breedery, but definitely not fashion-impaired. he can distinguish mauve from chartreuse if he is focusing on what he is doing.

and I don't have a problem with that stereotype. why should a gay guy have a problem with his?:p

But like I said, that's my own definition.That's more to do with autonomy, doesn't it? - The belief that all people have a natural right to autonomy, up until the point it infringes on the autonomy of others.

and I don't have a problem with that stereotype. why should a gay guy have a problem with his?:p

I've been called a "breeder" more than once, and it was always said with a sneer.

I'm actually rather happy to breed. And I'm ok with people saying I'm a "breeder" even if they mean it in some negative hateful way.

People are too thin skinned.

and I don't have a problem with that stereotype. why should a gay guy have a problem with his?:p

I was switching words in your post, in an attempt to show you that it's slightly ridiculous. It's not true, either. One of the guys that I've fallen in love with is one of my best friends. He's heterosexual, but he's quite effeminate. Most girls assume he's gay. I did, as well. Still love him to death, and I know he cares about me immensely, but he definitely not the beer-swilling, fashion-impaired caricature of a man that some people, including a large number of men, think that men in general, and straight men in particular, should be.

I don't have to accept stereotypes any more than the next person. If they help you put a person into a nice little mental box, fine. However, come people like to take people as they are.

That's more to do with autonomy, doesn't it? - The belief that all people have a natural right to autonomy, up until the point it infringes on the autonomy of others.

Of course. Civilized people believe in personal autonomy, insofar as their autonomy doesn't harm others. That's the only real criteria I have.

So just for the hell of it, I just want to see how many people there are out there who take somewhat of a “middle road” on this issue, sharing some of my viewpoints.

To start off, I’m a registered Republican living in the United States, but before you start laughing and making anti-Bush comments, I think you’ll find that I’m not your typical Republican. You see, I’m very fiscally conservative, strongly believing in Reagan economics and rather appalled and Bush’s “budget.” But that’s not what this thread’s about…it’s about social issues.

Socially, I’m far more center of the road, if not even liberal leaning. Anyone who knows me knows that I’m hardly against pre-marital sex, and I’m cool with a woman president as long as it’s not Hilary. As for the ever-present “Gay” issue…it gets a little more grey…

I’m not religious, so any opinion I make is purely my own. I haven’t quite accepted that being homosexual is some sort of gene, or something that you’re born with. Sure there are studies that “prove” it is, but there are also studies that “prove” the opposite, as well as studies that “prove” smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Generally, studies reflect those who give them funding, so until I see proof, I see it as a choice.

That being said, I think it’s a “choice” that people should have the right to make. What right does the government have to be in our bedrooms telling us how or who to fuck? Simply put, it has none.

My problem with homosexuality arises with, for lack of a better term, the “flamers” or “queens” of the group. Now before you jump down my throat with flames and the like, hear me out. In my eyes, these people who purposefully act ridiculously over the top in public and expect to be accepted are no better than people with two teeth and overalls saying “I hate faggots” in southern accents. Extremes on either end are rather ridiculous, and acceptance is far different than going out of your way to put up with nonsense.

So…I’m not really looking for a debate or anything here, I’m just wondering if anyone else shares my “be gay, just don’t expect to be treated differently” point of view. I find that so many people either outright hate homosexuality or blindly support it and lash out against any opponents. As I said, my views are a bit more “middle of the road.”

no offense but it seems to me that you are ok with gays...just as long as you don't have to confront the fact that they are...you know, gay.

"I may not agree with that which you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -Rough quote by some important American founding father

It was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." It's a quote I am very fond of, as well. :D


That may be one of the differences between our two countries. I apologize for not being as familiar with Canadian government as perhaps I should (blame the school system) but American law allows even the KKK to spread their words of hate, simply because the right to free speach is paramount in American government and society. Personally I don't think that the KKK should be allowed to preach against black people, and I don't think Americans should be allowed to burn American flags...but if you take things like that away...where does it stop?
I completely agree with you on this. I support the right of the KKK to march and speak their views in public, even though I personally think they're annoying as all hell and duller than a bag of spoons.

Similarly, I support people's right to be "flamboyant" in public, even though I might personally find it annoying as hell. I believe people should choose to be polite and respectful in shared spaces, but I also believe that public spaces belong to everybody and therefore I don't get to enforce my personal comfort level on all the other people around me. There are some legal limits on public conduct that we all agree to abide by, but beyond that it's up to us as individuals.

Now, keep in mind that this doesn't mean that everybody gets to act however they like without any consequences! If you act like a bloody jackass in public, odds are there will be somebody like me who will be more than happy to inform you that you're a bloody jackass.

For me, that's what "political correctness" is all about. Yes, you are free to say that black people are animals, women is all bitchez, and fags are scum...and everybody else is free to regard you as the jackass that you are! "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean "freedom to say and do whatever I want without anybody being allowed to say anything back to me."

If a homophobe wants to get all upset over some nasty fags in public, then I'm not violating anybody's rights when I call that homophobe a pathetic loser. I'm not oppressing him. I'm not stopping him from enjoying the same rights as everybody else. You don't have any legal right to be protected from being called a jackass.

My personal definition is something along the lines of:

Fair-minded people who believe in the right of the populace to do, think, and believe what they wish, provided that it does not impair other citizens; people who believe in not tolerating only the preaching of intolerance or hate.

But like I said, that's my own definition. And if someone wants to call me on that last bit, I'll happily bite the bullet on the failing of logic, although I personally don't feel that it's inconsistent.

except for the fair-minded part wich I believe to be at best redundant, it's pretty close to my definition too. so everyone should have the right to live their own lives the way they want...

I'm actually rather happy to breed. And I'm ok with people saying I'm a "breeder" even if they mean it in some negative hateful way.

As I've already stated, I intend to be a parent; I don't really consider it a gay-breeder dichotomy. To me, a 'breeder' is someone who has spawned but does not parent (properly). Letting their children run around supermarkets, screaming, for example.

For me, that's what "political correctness" is all about. Yes, you are free to say that black people are animals, women is all bitchez, and fags are scum...and everybody else is free to regard you as the jackass that you are! "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean "freedom to say and do whatever I want without anybody being allowed to say anything back to me."

If a homophobe wants to get all upset over some nasty fags in public, then I'm not violating anybody's rights when I call that homophobe a pathetic loser. I'm not oppressing him. I'm not stopping him from enjoying the same rights as everybody else. You don't have any legal right to be protected from being called a jackass.

I love you. <333

Perhaps I should have broadened my assault on these types of people then, instead of just these types of people within the gay subculture. Point is, there shouldn't be a "cause" either way. What exactly would the "gay cause" lead to? Certainly not equality...because they're still labeling themselves as "gay" instead of just people.

Just like african americans who claim they want equality yet really want reperations (affirmative action) and special treatment. It's really unfortunate that this is what "equality" has become, but since I'm white...I can't talk about this without someone calling me a racist.

I wouldn't say you're a racist, just that you're a hetero white boy who is a bit clueless when it comes to racism, sexism, and homophobia. A whole lot of hetero honkies are like that. I'm friends with some. I've dated some. Cluelessness doesn't make you a bad person necessarily.

What is important is for you to accept the limits of your own experience and understanding. As a heterosexual white male, you enjoy many perks in society (whether or not you ask for any of them!) and one of the biggest perks is that you have the luxury of not having to see most discrimination.

You aren't going to be the target of any of the most prevalent forms of discrimination in our society, which means you may never actually see any of them in person. That's terrific for you, and I am absolutely not saying that things would be better if you WERE the target of discrimination. I think it's just important for you to understand that you have a very privaledged perspective, relatively speaking, and thus your opinions on this subject are somewhat less informed than people who actually are the targets of these forms of discrimination. You also need to appreciate that people are going to take your opinions with a very large grain of salt, seeing as how you are in pretty much the only demographic that isn't targeted by "un-PC" language.


Political correctness is a stain.
Political correctness is only a bother for people who want to say racist, sexist, or homophobic things in public without having to listen to anybody else's objections. For those of us who aren't interested in being assholes, political correctness is simply referred to as "manners."

As I've already stated, I intend to be a parent; I don't really consider it a gay-breeder dichotomy. To me, a 'breeder' is someone who has spawned but does not parent (properly). Letting their children run around supermarkets, screaming, for example.

I don't see a dichotomy either. After all, it's not like the biological equipment is missing on homosexuals - they can breed if they wish to.

I was mostly called a "breeder" when I was single and not breeding. Go figure.

I've been called a "breeder" more than once, and it was always said with a sneer.

I'm actually rather happy to breed. And I'm ok with people saying I'm a "breeder" even if they mean it in some negative hateful way.

People are too thin skinned.I've been called a breeder (though I have no intention of doing so) and frequently refered to by a couple of my male gay friends as "Miss Fish." As far as I'm concerned, intention matters most.

Jolt seem amazingly slow today, folks?

I don't see a dichotomy either. After all, it's not like the biological equipment is missing on homosexuals - they can breed if they wish to.

I was mostly called a "breeder" when I was single and not breeding. Go figure.

Even if I didn't have a penis, I could technically still breed. However, I'm not going to bother to do it naturally. Less wierdness for all involved. I love science.

Political correctness is only a bother for people who want to say racist, sexist, or homophobic things in public without having to listen to anybody else's objections. For those of us who aren't interested in being assholes, political correctness is simply referred to as "manners."

I'd really, really like to print this out and tack it up on my corkboard, and possibly show some friends. Do I have permission? :o *worship*

Jolt seem amazingly slow today, folks?

At times. It's making the baby Jesus weep, for certain.

I'd really, really like to print this out and tack it up on my corkboard, and possibly show some friends. Do I have permission? :o *worship*
Hey, anything I post on this public forum is fair game. I'm delighted when people find my posts coherent...everything else is gravy. :D

At times. It's making the baby Jesus weep, for certain.Where the hell have you been for the last two years? I kinda like ya. Never seen ya before, though.

I've been called a "breeder" more than once, and it was always said with a sneer.

You know, it's kind of odd that I've never been called a breeder before, considering the amount of time I've spent hanging out at "gay" clubs and events and so forth. I've done so in the company of heterosexual dates before, too, yet I've never been hit with the "breeder" slur.

Maybe it's because my hatred of small children is so palpable that everybody can pick up on it from a great distance...


People are too thin skinned.
True dat. I've lived in big cities my whole life, so I'm used to being surrounded by a whole lot of strangers who are busy, tired, and hate you just for being ahead of them in line. I'm used to people tossing insults around like confetti. Normally I just give my most lovely smile and say, "And good morning to you, too!" Not because I'm cheerful or friendly, mind you, but because nothing else seems to piss off people quite as consistently as being cheerful and polite. :D

You know, it's kind of odd that I've never been called a breeder before, considering the amount of time I've spent hanging out at "gay" clubs and events and so forth. I've done so in the company of heterosexual dates before, too, yet I've never been hit with the "breeder" slur.

Oh, it's only occurred when they were outnumbered by heterosexuals and alcohol was involved.

I got the impression that someone previously had handed them the "fag" slur (or some variant thereof), and this caused them to retaliate against the heteros in the room.

I figure if some common slur is the best insult that someone can come up with, they aren't really trying very hard.

Where the hell have you been for the last two years? I kinda like ya. Never seen ya before, though.

I've got a nation that's nearing the seven billion mark, if that's what you're asking.

Heh. I just randomly post here every now and again because the forums are a little less sedate than what I'm used to. You know, toss up a few strawmen, burn 'em down, a good time's been had by all.

You know, it's kind of odd that I've never been called a breeder before, considering the amount of time I've spent hanging out at "gay" clubs and events and so forth. I've done so in the company of heterosexual dates before, too, yet I've never been hit with the "breeder" slur.

Maybe it's because my hatred of small children is so palpable that everybody can pick up on it from a great distance...


Never did me any good. Everyone who knows me knows if you ask me to babysit I will puke on you.

I figure if some common slur is the best insult that someone can come up with, they aren't really trying very hard.

Personalization is the important thing, and the thing that most people forget.

Never did me any good. Everyone who knows me knows if you ask me to babysit I will puke on you.

I love children, and the women that hate them. It means that if I actually manage to convince one to have my child, they won't ever want anything to do with it again. This pleases me.

Political correctness is only a bother for people who want to say racist, sexist, or homophobic things in public without having to listen to anybody else's objections. For those of us who aren't interested in being assholes, political correctness is simply referred to as "manners."Basically I agree with you.. As always.. Wish I was anywhere near as eloquent :(

But we'll have to disagree on this. The PC culture - at least in bits of northern Europe - goes far beyond manners. It's become a political tool & a straightjacket, liberally employed to force through hopeless idiocy that by the above definition would be the antithesis of PC. Though I'm not on the recieving end of it, it really isn't significantly different from the Moral Majority crap in the US of a few years ago. The targets are just different. It might be different where you are, I really wouldn't know.

Thing is though, I'm a firm believer in our right to our own lives, and I don't appreciate oppressive wank, regardless of who it's aimed at. When you can have pictures of your kids on the table, but not a penholder shaped like a certain animal, it's gone beyond manners & become something unjustifiable.

Basically I agree with you.. As always.. Wish I was anywhere near as eloquent :(

But we'll have to disagree on this. The PC culture - at least in bits of northern Europe - goes far beyond manners. It's become a political tool & a straightjacket, liberally employed to force through hopeless idiocy that by the above definition would be the antithesis of PC. Though I'm not on the recieving end of it, it really isn't significantly different from the Moral Majority crap in the US of a few years ago. The targets are just different. It might be different where you are, I really wouldn't know.

It's entirely possible that we experience different kinds of "political correctness." Where I live, there are some people who try to exploit "PC" for their individual agendas, but most people don't.

Indeed, the people most likely to exploit political correctness are the ones who don't show any of it themselves. Racists, xenophobes, sexists, and homophobes luuuuuuv to whine about how their rights are supposedly violated by the "PC police" and so forth. "Political correctness" is even used as kind of a code-phrase for "liberal ideology" in some circles. Personally, I think that good manners and respect are just as compatible with conservative ideology as they are with liberal ideology, but some people don't seem to see it that way.


Thing is though, I'm a firm believer in our right to our own lives, and I don't appreciate oppressive wank, regardless of who it's aimed at. When you can have pictures of your kids on the table, but not a penholder shaped like a certain animal, it's gone beyond manners & become something unjustifiable.
Agreed. What really irks me is the people who just have to ruin it for everybody else. Some people can't seem to understand that you don't have to do everything that you are legally allowed to do. Yes, you are legally allowed to be a jerk in public, but that doesn't mean you have to be one. :P

Basically I agree with you.. As always.. Wish I was anywhere near as eloquent :(

But we'll have to disagree on this. The PC culture - at least in bits of northern Europe - goes far beyond manners. It's become a political tool & a straightjacket, liberally employed to force through hopeless idiocy that by the above definition would be the antithesis of PC. Though I'm not on the recieving end of it, it really isn't significantly different from the Moral Majority crap in the US of a few years ago. The targets are just different. It might be different where you are, I really wouldn't know.

In the united states I've noticed that the people who talk about the "PC police" are mainly conservatives. PC as a term doesn't exist in reality as much as it does as a boogeyman for the right wing. It's a politically loaded tool used to instill an attitude of "us against them" that the conservative base loves to throw out, sorta like "activist judges" and "gay agenda". Frankly it appears that the majority of folks who bemoan the "PC movement" are those who wish for a return of the days where they could call people ****** in polite conversation.

In the united states I've noticed that the people who talk about the "PC agenda" are mainly conservatives. PC as a term doesn't exist in reality as much as it does as a boogeyman for the right wing. Frankly it appears that the majority of folks who bemoan the "PC movement" are those who wish for a return of the days where they could call people ****** in polite conversation.Exactly! That's what I was talking about.

Most people where I live, be they conservative or liberal, are "politically correct" simply because it's considered rude to use racial or sexist slurs in public. It's like how it's considered impolite to call somebody ugly.

My mother would cut my tongue out for saying either ****** or fag. Though all of my grandparents were bigots, her father was the scariest. He beat the crap out of her for hanging out with a "****** girl" at school. Fortunately, times change.

Exactly! That's what I was talking about.

Most people where I live, be they conservative or liberal, are "politically correct" simply because it's considered rude to use racial or sexist slurs in public. It's like how it's considered impolite to call somebody ugly.

well frankly the fundamental ideology of "politically correct" can be summed up as "don't be a fucking jackass". The whole "oh, you're not short, it's PC so you're vertically challenged" nonsense was used as extreme hyperboli to discredit the idea because some folk don't really like it that they started being looked down on for being openly hostile to all them blacks, gays, and women folk.

no better than people with two teeth and overalls

What's your problem with people with two teeth?

well frankly the fundamental ideology of "politically correct" can be summed up as "don't be a fucking jackass". The whole "oh, you're not short, it's PC so you're vertically challenged" nonsense was used as extreme hyperboli to discredit the idea because some folk don't really like it that they started being looked down on for being openly hostile to all them blacks, gays, and women folk.
I have to admit, though, some of the "PC" language that did become mainstream bothers me.

For instance, I don't like "African-American" when it is used to refer to a native-born American who has dark skin. They're AMERICANS. No qualifier is needed. I'm not a "European-American," I'm an American. I've got a pale-skinned friend who was born and raised in South Africa, but imagine what would happen if she tried to identify herself as "African-American." It's just silliness.

I have to admit, though, some of the "PC" language that did become mainstream bothers me.

For instance, I don't like "African-American" when it is used to refer to a native-born American who has dark skin. They're AMERICANS. No qualifier is needed. I'm not a "European-American," I'm an American. I've got a pale-skinned friend who was born and raised in South Africa, but imagine what would happen if she tried to identify herself as "African-American." It's just silliness.

I have to admit I dislike it to. I prefer "black" if I must refer to someone's color, or american if their nationality.

I do remember one bothersome conversation, and this is actually true. I was talking to a group of friends and mentioned another friend, one asked who I was talking about and said something like 'oh you know james, tall guy, bout 6 foot 4, black.." and I got cut off by some woman who I was an aquaintance with going "well it's not polite to call people black".

"well, he's black"

"shouldn't you call him african american"

"no"

"well that's polite"

"I think james would take a lot of offense being called african american"

"well how do you know that?"

"he's british"

As a gay, I realize, and hope, that I wont be treated different than anyone else. I believe that that is actually what we all hope for in the end. These 'stereotypes' or 'flaming queens' that want nothing else but to make a scene and have sex do not represent the gay community as we want it to be represented. We ARE looking for social equality, that is why the entire gay marriage issue has been brought into light; therefore, we do not want to be treated any different than you. Sure, you might hear someone say that they would like to be treated like they were god, but that is one person, and does not represent the gay community as a whole. We believe that 'All men are created equal' even gays and its time the rest of the country realizes this also. As for the choice thing, it isn't a choice. I did not choose to be gay. I did not wake up one morning and decide I wanted to have a difficult life full of represion and non-understanding people. Whether it was nature(genes), or nurture, the chocie I made wasnt to BE gay, my choice was to accept myself.

:fluffle:

"he's british"

Yeah... the term 'African-Canadian' doesn't really exist in Canada, and it doesn't really have that same ring to it as 'African-American'. However, we do have 'Japanese-Canadian', 'Chinese-Canadian', and 'Indo-Canadian'. At least, on my coast.

I have to admit I dislike it to. I prefer "black" if I must refer to someone's color, or american if their nationality.

I do remember one bothersome conversation, and this is actually true. I was talking to a group of friends and mentioned another friend, one asked who I was talking about and said something like 'oh you know james, tall guy, bout 6 foot 4, black.." and I got cut off by some woman who I was an aquaintance with going "well it's not polite to call people black".

"well, he's black"

"shouldn't you call him african american"

"no"

"well that's polite"

"I think james would take a lot of offense being called african american"

"well how do you know that?"

"he's british"
I lol'ed. :D

your sexuality doesn't give you a free pass to be rude or over-the-top in public.

No... but I don't see how what you describe is either "rude" or "over-the-top."

I’m not religious, so any opinion I make is purely my own. I haven’t quite accepted that being homosexual is some sort of gene, or something that you’re born with. Sure there are studies that “prove” it is, but there are also studies that “prove” the opposite, as well as studies that “prove” smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Generally, studies reflect those who give them funding, so until I see proof, I see it as a choice.

I take issue with the "generally, studies reflect those who give them funding...." comment. First of all, most research funding comes from pretty neutral sources - especially neutral on social issues. I'll be the first to be skeptical of a study funded by a politically active group, but there simply aren't many of them out there (except in the case of industry - ie. tobacco companies trying to "prove" that cigarrettes don't hurt anyone).

Second of all, the "choice" stance has always interested me. At what point were you equally attracted (or not at all attracted) to both men and women, and made an actual choice to be attracted solely to one or the other? If it is a choice to be made, surely we all make it, so when did you? What criteria did you use to make that choice? Could you, right now, choose to be attracted to the other?

That being said, I think it’s a “choice” that people should have the right to make. What right does the government have to be in our bedrooms telling us how or who to fuck? Simply put, it has none.

Indeed.

So…I’m not really looking for a debate or anything here, I’m just wondering if anyone else shares my “be gay, just don’t expect to be treated differently” point of view. I find that so many people either outright hate homosexuality or blindly support it and lash out against any opponents. As I said, my views are a bit more “middle of the road.”

Those who are gay or who are supportive of people of all sexual orientations generally don't want you to treat them "differently." In fact, that is the exact opposite of what they want. People, as a general rule, want to be treated with respect and as human beings. If certain mannerisms annoy you, then they do, and you will be likely to dislike anyone with said mannerisms. Whether or not the person with said mannerisms is gay is irrelevant.

I take the middle road on this too. While I don't think gay marriage should be allowed, and I hate pride parades, at the same time I don't think we should kill them or round them up or anything. So basically, If someone wants to choose to be gay, fine. Just don't push it down my throat or encourage it in the media or public.

Perhaps I should have broadened my assault on these types of people then, instead of just these types of people within the gay subculture. Point is, there shouldn't be a "cause" either way. What exactly would the "gay cause" lead to? Certainly not equality...because they're still labeling themselves as "gay" instead of just people.

As long as gays are NOT treated as "just people," then pointing out that, as gays, they are not treated as "just people" is perfectly legitimate.

The fact that you are offended by people mentioning that there is a problem is not their fault.

Just like african americans who claim they want equality yet really want reperations (affirmative action) and special treatment.

Reparations and affirmative action are part and parcel of equality.

I take the middle road on this too. While I don't think gay marriage should be allowed, and I hate pride parades, at the same time I don't think we should kill them or round them up or anything. So basically, If someone wants to choose to be gay, fine. Just don't push it down my throat or encourage it in the media or public.

And just how do they "push it down your throat"?

What's wrong with a parade? Don't you believe in the First Amendment?

I take the middle road on this too. While I don't think gay marriage should be allowed, and I hate pride parades, at the same time I don't think we should kill them or round them up or anything. So basically, If someone wants to choose to be gay, fine. Just don't push it down my throat or encourage it in the media or public.

could I argue the same and prevent you from praying in public as I don't want your religion encouraged in public?

I take the middle road on this too. While I don't think gay marriage should be allowed, and I hate pride parades, at the same time I don't think we should kill them or round them up or anything. So basically, If someone wants to choose to be gay, fine. Just don't push it down my throat or encourage it in the media or public.
"Middle ground"? In what century is that the "middle ground"?

Is somebody taking the "middle ground" when they assert that they are anti-lynching, even though they also think blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites and blacks shouldn't be allowed to have parades?

Forgive me, but you're not in the "middle" of anything. You've absolutely got the right to believe what you like, but don't try to fool anybody (or yourself) with this "middle ground" BS. You're firmly at the homophobic end of the spectrum.

Just don't push it down my throat

"Keep it quiet and conform to your conception of who we should be?" Sorry, no.

or encourage it in the media or public.

What do you mean by "encourage"?

"Middle ground"? In what century is that the "middle ground"?

Is somebody taking the "middle ground" when they assert that they are anti-lynching, even though they also think blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites and blacks shouldn't be allowed to have parades?

Forgive me, but you're not in the "middle" of anything. You've absolutely got the right to believe what you like, but don't try to fool anybody (or yourself) with this "middle ground" BS. You're firmly at the homophobic end of the spectrum.

I think he has the idea that "middle" = "we don't kill you right now"

You know, it's kind of odd that I've never been called a breeder before, considering the amount of time I've spent hanging out at "gay" clubs and events and so forth. I've done so in the company of heterosexual dates before, too, yet I've never been hit with the "breeder" slur.

Maybe it's because my hatred of small children is so palpable that everybody can pick up on it from a great distance...

I've never heard anyone use the term seriously. It's been thrown out there once or twice when my friends and I were all joking around and being pseudo-insulting, but I've never heard anyone say it with actual derision.

I think the latest time I heard it was when a friend of mine was wearing a shirt that says, in big letters, "Does this shirt make me look gay?" My response was, "No, darling, it isn't the shirt. It's the fact that you are gay." That ended up devolving into a lot of sexuality-related jokes and "breeder" got thrown in there somewhere. =)

Then again, I may have a strange group of friends. No represented group is safe from jokes - and it's usually a member of the group making jokes. I'll make sexist jokes, my Muslim friends will joke about all Muslims being terrorists, Jewish friends joke about being stingy, etc. And many of our conversations involve the phrase, "You're making the baby Jesus cry!" If you're "part of the crowd", we're a very un-PC crowd.

I think he has the idea that "middle" = "we don't kill you right now"
Isn't it cute how some people will proudly share their homophobic beliefs, yet they desperately cling to the image of being "moderate" or "centrist"?

"Middle ground"? In what century is that the "middle ground"?

Is somebody taking the "middle ground" when they assert that they are anti-lynching, even though they also think blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites and blacks shouldn't be allowed to have parades?

Forgive me, but you're not in the "middle" of anything. You've absolutely got the right to believe what you like, but don't try to fool anybody (or yourself) with this "middle ground" BS. You're firmly at the homophobic end of the spectrum.

I wonder if I could say that Islam shouldn't be encouraged in public or the media, and not expect a response from Soviestan. We shouldn't kill them just yet. Give it a few years, when they start getting rowdy about not having the right to marriage because it's a good, Christian institution.

And just how do they "push it down your throat"?

Yeah, seriously. Wouldn't that actually be sexual assault?

What's wrong with a parade? Don't you believe in the First Amendment?

Some people don't want anyone to have any fun. I like parades!

Isn't it cute how some people will proudly share their homophobic beliefs, yet they desperately cling to the image of being "moderate" or "centrist"?

The part I don't understand from him is the idea that somehow, gays are "pushing" it on him.

What, are gays propositioning him in the street?

Is he really that good looking?

any "middle ground" that does not encourage or allow a group to exercise their constitutional rights is no middle ground at all. It's barely above full out repression.

Then again, I may have a strange group of friends. No represented group is safe from jokes - and it's usually a member of the group making jokes. I'll make sexist jokes, my Muslim friends will joke about all Muslims being terrorists, Jewish friends joke about being stingy, etc. And many of our conversations involve the phrase, "You're making the baby Jesus cry!" If you're "part of the crowd", we're a very un-PC crowd.
Oh, I've got quite a collection of "un-PC jokes," and I certainly will bust them out with my friends.

But hanging out with your friends is different from being in a mixed company of acquaintances or strangers or casual coworkers. With my friends, we know each other and feel comfortable with each other, and we all know that nobody is uncomfortable with such jokes. Other settings are different.

For instance, if one of my personal friends told a sexist joke, I would know they were using it in a sly, subversive kind of way, and I would be able to enjoy the humor with them. If somebody I didn't know told the same joke, I wouldn't know whether they were telling it because they are a sexist jerk, because they are socially inept, or because they are also a sly, subversive person like my friends and I. It would make me uncomfortable, to say the least. That's why I choose not to tell such jokes in mixed company; I don't enjoy making other people uncomfortable or unhappy out of the blue.

I take the middle road on this too. While I don't think gay marriage should be allowed, and I hate pride parades, at the same time I don't think we should kill them or round them up or anything. So basically, If someone wants to choose to be gay, fine. Just don't push it down my throat or encourage it in the media or public.IMO that's not really middle of the road, but that's just me. I don't consider it middle of the road to deny someone tha same rights everyone else has. There are parades for Puerto Ricans and Irish, why not gays? If you don't like them, don't go. Homosexuality is not pushed on people. Heterosexuality is much more so. It's all over the media and public. Don't like homosexuality in media or the public? It's a free country. You can refuse to read about it or turn the other way when you see it. But in the US we don't have the right to not be offended. If we did I'd insist we outlaw the Christian right and ship Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps to Iran, where thay enjoy theocracy in all it's glory.

any "middle ground" that does not encourage or allow a group to exercise their constitutional rights is no middle ground at all. It's barely above full out repression.

What do you mean by "encourage"?

shows like "will and grace" and "queer eye" make it seem as if it is cool or ok to be gay. There are impressionable children who see this and could pick up on this leading to problems down the road

Reparations and affirmative action are part and parcel of equality.

Ah yes...reverse racism at its finest. Giving people "bonus points" for what race they are. Color-blind for sure...

shows like "will and grace" and "queer eye" make it seem as if it is cool or ok to be gay. There are impressionable children who see this and could pick up on this leading to problems down the road

It is perfectly OK to be gay.

What, do you think children catch "teh ghey" by watching TV shows?

shows like "will and grace" and "queer eye" make it seem as if it is cool or ok to be gay.

So, you have issues with a television show portraying homosexuals as regular people? You don't think it's acceptable to promote the idea that it's ok to be gay?

That doesn't sound very middle ground. I'll ask again, would it be alright for me to ban representations of normal, regular, sane muslims on television because that might promote the idea that it's ok to be muslim?

shows like "will and grace" and "queer eye" make it seem as if it is cool or ok to be gay. There are impressionable children who see this and could pick up on this leading to problems down the road

You mean they might figure out that it's ok to be who you are? To be attracted to whomever you are attracted to? They might be less likely to treat people of other sexual orientations like shit or to be afraid to recognize their own?

I'm still trying to find the problem....

Ah yes...reverse racism at its finest. Giving people "bonus points" for what race they are. Color-blind for sure...

are 1 and 0 equal?

shows like "will and grace" and "queer eye" make it seem as if it is cool or ok to be gay.

It will never be any 'cooler' to be gay than it is 'cool' to be straight, especially not while there's people like you in this world.

That having been said, so long as there are people like me in this world, there will be positive role models for gay teens. And, well, as long as you're in this world, there will be role models for wanna-be theocrats.

well, whatever you do, you're going to annoy people, so why take it in account? as long as you don't try to hurt people, be who you want.
My point is that it's no way to gain favour with me. As long as people stay out of my way, they may do as they please. I am tolerant in general, but it does not mean that I have to like certain people as well.


Political correctness is only a bother for people who want to say racist, sexist, or homophobic things in public without having to listen to anybody else's objections. For those of us who aren't interested in being assholes, political correctness is simply referred to as "manners."
Pay a visit to Britain if you think that is all PC is. Whilst I agree that manners are a necessary element of social conduct, I will say that if one does not have the right to not be offended it should work both ways - both for the flamers and the homophobes, and what not.

I have to admit, though, some of the "PC" language that did become mainstream bothers me.

For instance, I don't like "African-American" when it is used to refer to a native-born American who has dark skin. They're AMERICANS. No qualifier is needed. I'm not a "European-American," I'm an American. I've got a pale-skinned friend who was born and raised in South Africa, but imagine what would happen if she tried to identify herself as "African-American." It's just silliness.
Euro-Afro-American? :D It becomes silly after a while. I agree with what you say though.

shows like "will and grace" and "queer eye" make it seem as if it is cool or ok to be gay. There are impressionable children who see this and could pick up on this leading to problems down the road
Problems, such as? Their choosing to be gay? Reality check, but this does not happen. And as for "Will & Grace", with the notable exception of Jack, I fail to see in what way the show puts out a negative image of any sort - to the contrary, as far as I am concerned it achieves the opposite.


That having been said, so long as there are people like me in this world, there will be positive role models for gay teens.
What do you mean?

And just how do they "push it down your throat"?


a number of ways.
1. pushing the cause of gay marriage
2. other political lobbying
3. trying to change sex education in the schools for a more pro-gay stance
4. silencing social conservatives and religious people on more than one occasion.
5. shows like "queer eye"
among other things.

What's wrong with a parade? Don't you believe in the First Amendment?

why do they need every year? it crosses the line from pride to pushing an agenda. you don't see straight prides do you?

Problems, such as? Their choosing to be gay? Reality check, but this does not happen. And as for "Will & Grace", with the notable exception of Jack, I fail to see in what way the show puts out a negative image of any sort - to the contrary, as far as I am concerned it achieves the opposite.

I've always wanted to track down the people who wrote for that character and break their kneecaps. Goddamn.

I've always wanted to track down the people who wrote for that character and break their kneecaps. Goddamn.
The sad thing is I know people like him. And they aren't even necessarily gay. Just plain irritating.

could I argue the same and prevent you from praying in public as I don't want your religion encouraged in public?

your strawman fails because we have a right to religious freedom in this country.

a number of ways.
1. pushing the cause of gay marriage
2. other political lobbying
3. trying to change sex education in the schools for a more pro-gay stance
4. silencing social conservatives and religious people on more than one occasion.
5. shows like "queer eye"
among other things.

why do they need every year? it crosses the line from pride to pushing an agenda. you don't see straight prides do you?

I guess you miss all those hetero beauty queens in local parades every year.

Number 1 is legal under the First Amendment, and besides, it doesn't affect you - they can get married all they want - it's not like they're going to come to your house and force you to marry a gay man.
Number 2 is legal under the First Amendment. How about we silence CAIR then?
Number 3 is hooey - telling kids that gay people exist, that gay people are as human as the rest of us, is not somehow making your kid gay. If you kid is gay, it's because they were BORN that way.
Number 4 is bullshit - how are they silencing them?
Number 5 - hey, evidently we can watch whatever we want on TV - are you afraid that somehow your kids will catch "teh ghey" from watching queer eye?

a number of ways.
1. pushing the cause of gay marriage
Of what consequence would it be for gay individuals to engage in civil unions, for whatever reasons?

5. shows like "queer eye"
among other things
And you propose what? For private television networks to be censored? By the same logic, Christians could ask for Muslim television shows to be censored. It's a matter for the network itself to decide what it puts on or not, not for some random pressure group-driven governmental agency.

1. pushing the cause of gay marriage
Already done in Canada.
2. other political lobbying
Already over in Canada.
3. trying to change sex education in the schools for a more pro-gay stance
Already done in Canada.
4. silencing social conservatives and religious people on more than one occasion.
Mobilizing enough people to get well-known people silenced works both ways.
5. shows like "queer eye"
I hate Queer Eye.

why do they need every year? it crosses the line from pride to pushing an agenda. you don't see straight prides do you?
Every day is a Straight Pride day, just like every day is a White Pride day. You don't see too many white people complaining about how black people get a 'Black History' month, though. I guess it's because people would call them on being racist fucks.

shows like "will and grace" and "queer eye" make it seem as if it is cool or ok to be gay. There are impressionable children who see this and could pick up on this leading to problems down the roadI really did laugh out loud when I read this. Yep, Will and Grace will cause your nice macho kid into a flaming homo.

I really did laugh out loud when I read this. Yep, Will and Grace will cause your nice macho kid into a flaming homo.
Especially considering what a real flamer Will is, right? :) Kind of undermines his argument.

So, you have issues with a television show portraying homosexuals as regular people? You don't think it's acceptable to promote the idea that it's ok to be gay?
no I dont. Especially through the media.

I'll ask again, would it be alright for me to ban representations of normal, regular, sane muslims on television because that might promote the idea that it's ok to be muslim?

WTF!? no, because it IS ok to be Muslim.

Already done in Canada.

Already over in Canada.

Already done in Canada.

Yeah, and now all Canadians are homos. *sarcasm*

I really did laugh out loud when I read this. Yep, Will and Grace will cause your nice macho kid into a flaming homo.

I think that when he finds his firstborn son sucking off the football team, he's got a little bit more to worry about than what television shows his kid's been watching.

WTF!? no, because it IS ok to be Muslim.

Says you. But it takes someone sick and twisted to be a Muslim, and I don't want my children exposed to that kind of nonsense. They might think that it's right and good, and run into problems later on in life.

no I dont. Especially through the media.
Even if it is privately owned?

WTF!? no, because it IS ok to be Muslim.
Why?

WTF!? no, because it IS ok to be Muslim.Not according to some people.


WTF!? no, because it IS ok to be Gay.

your strawman fails because we have a right to religious freedom in this country.

as we do the right to be gay. Now answer the question.

Says you. But it takes someone sick and twisted to be a Muslim, and I don't want my children exposed to that kind of nonsense. They might think that it's right and good, and run into problems later on in life.

Yeah, your daughter might insist that you mutilate her genitalia until she doesn't have a clitoris anymore.

no I dont. Especially through the media.

And what if I do?


WTF!? no, because it IS ok to be Muslim.

And what if I don't think so?

a number of ways.
1. pushing the cause of gay marriage
2. other political lobbying

Oh noes! Equality is bad!

Was the black population shoving "being black" down everyone's throats when they lobbyied for equal protection under the law?

3. trying to change sex education in the schools for a more pro-gay stance

You mean changing sex education to include all topics, instead of just, "DON'T HAVE TEH SEX, MMMM'KAY!" ?? Sexuality should be discussed in a sex-ed class. It is part and parcel of what the students need to learn about.

No one is pushing to have sex ed classes teach, "ZOMG! It's so awesome being gay. Everyone be gay with us!" They are simply pushing for honesty in education. What you really mean is that they are changing to a less anti-gay stance, not that they are, in any way, pro-gay.

4. silencing social conservatives and religious people on more than one occasion.

LOL, who has been silenced?

5. shows like "queer eye"

Are you tied to a chair and forced to watch it? If not, it is hardly forced upon you. There are plenty of shows on TV that I don't like. You know what I do? I simply don't watch them. Problem solved.

why do they need every year? it crosses the line from pride to pushing an agenda. you don't see straight prides do you?

You don't see straight people being derided, discriminated against, and/or physically accosted for being straight, do you? If homosexuals were treated as human beings, there'd be no need for pride parades. As it is, someone has to make it clear that hiding because of fear is not necessary.

your strawman fails because we have a right to religious freedom in this country.

We have a right to freely assemble as well, but you seem to have a problem with that. Children have a right to a good education, but you seem to have a problem with that. We have the right to equal protection under the law, but you seem to have a problem with that. We have freedom of speech, but you seem to have a problem with that.

So, basically, you want rights, but only for you. Everyone else can just shove off, eh?

a number of ways.
1. pushing the cause of gay marriage

You mean that whole free speech thing?

2. other political lobbying

You mean that whole free speech thing?

3. trying to change sex education in the schools for a more pro-gay stance

You mean that whole teaching tolerance thing?

4. silencing social conservatives and religious people on more than one occasion.

Yet you argue silencing them on religious grounds. Are the conservative religious groups the only ones who should be doing the silencing?

5. shows like "queer eye"

You've named two shows where the main characters are gay. Want me to name 500 where the main characters are straight?

among other things.

I hope you have better ones cause these reasons suck.


why do they need every year?

Because they can.

it crosses the line from pride to pushing an agenda.

Even if that were true, surely they have that right.

you don't see straight prides do you?

Walking down the street is a straight pride parade.

So, basically, you want rights, but only for you. Everyone else can just shove off, eh?

He's one of the zombies that the religious figures of the Abrahamic faiths resurrected. Lacks higher brain functions. You're surprised?

no I dont. Especially through the media.

Oh noes! Freedom of speech is bad!

WTF!? no, because it IS ok to be Muslim.

Is it? Personally, I think your brand of Islam is very harmful. I think bigotry is bad. While it certainly is ok to be a Muslim, I don't think it is "ok" to be a Muslim like you. You're certainly entitled to it, but I don't think it's "ok".

Oh noes! Equality is bad!

Was the black population shoving "being black" down everyone's throats when they lobbyied for equal protection under the law?


ewww yes!

and the way they didnt just be black but they had to ACT BLACK too!

Even if it is privately owned?

yes
Why?

why isn't it? whats wrong with being Muslim?

whats wrong with being Muslim?

you.

Yeah... the term 'African-Canadian' doesn't really exist in Canada, and it doesn't really have that same ring to it as 'African-American'. However, we do have 'Japanese-Canadian', 'Chinese-Canadian', and 'Indo-Canadian'. At least, on my coast.

Well I'm in landlocked Alberta, and I never hear hyphenations. People are described in various ways, with the implicit understanding that otherwise stated, they are Canadians. So...Joe is Korean. Etc. When it comes to blacks, it's generally...West Indian...Somalian. I rarely, if EVER hear "African". We are an immigrant country...everyone is from somewhere else (except my people :P), and it's no shame to say it. Those that don't have a specific background...no descriptor is given except quite possibly 'mutt' :D

why isn't it? whats wrong with being Muslim?

But, you're Muslim! That's icky. People choose to be Muslim, with all its perversions.

Does anyone else think Muslims shouldn't be allowed to adopt? After all, they're likely to be teased and harassed in school because their parents are Muslim.

as we do the right to be gay.
very debately

Now answer the question.

no I would not be ok with that at all. Its unamerican

yes
On what grounds? That it offends the sensibilities of some? Well, my answer is to change the channel if you don't like it. You have no business telling businesses what they may put on broadcast.

why isn't it? whats wrong with being Muslim?
What is wrong with being gay? At least it is genetic, so one cannot do otherwise. Being Muslim is a matter of choice.

no I would not be ok with that at all. Its unamerican
Are you some troll? Because I could well argue that being Muslim is "unamerican". Violating the property rights of television companies most certainly is unamerican.

Yeah, your daughter might insist that you mutilate her genitalia until she doesn't have a clitoris anymore.

gential mutilation is NOT an Islamic practice.

very debately

Lawrence v. Texas would disagree with you.


no I would not be ok with that at all. Its unamerican

Unamerican? How?

Well I'm in landlocked Alberta, and I never hear hyphenations. People are described in various ways, with the implicit understanding that otherwise stated, they are Canadians. So...Joe is Korean. Etc. When it comes to blacks, it's generally...West Indian...Somalian. I rarely, if EVER hear "African". We are an immigrant country...everyone is from somewhere else (except my people :P), and it's no shame to say it. Those that don't have a specific background...no descriptor is given except quite possibly 'mutt' :D

The capitol of Newfoundland is Fort McMurray.

why isn't it? whats wrong with being Muslim?

Are you breathing air? Because there's nothing wrong with gay people.

So far, I haven't heard of any gay terrorism, have you? That seems to put them on better behavior than most political groups, and that includes Muslims.

Wow - no airliners hijacked by gay men and flown into buildings. No abortion clinics blown up by gay men. No car bombs set off by gay men. No hostages taken for a gay political cause.

Just wow.

Well I'm in landlocked Alberta, and I never hear hyphenations. People are described in various ways, with the implicit understanding that otherwise stated, they are Canadians. So...Joe is Korean. Etc. When it comes to blacks, it's generally...West Indian...Somalian. I rarely, if EVER hear "African". We are an immigrant country...everyone is from somewhere else (except my people :P), and it's no shame to say it. Those that don't have a specific background...no descriptor is given except quite possibly 'mutt' :D

LOL. I had a friend who described himself as a "mutt" and some random lady nearby got offended - about his description of himself!

/end completely offtopic comment.


very debately

Really? Where is the debate? You think we should start hauling people off to jail for being attracted to someone else?

no I would not be ok with that at all. Its unamerican

No more or less than denying "teh gays" equal protection under the law and talking about how being attracted to others is "very debately[sic]" a right.

no I would not be ok with that at all. Its unamerican

Our Founding Fathers were Christian! They created the USA as a Christian nation! Being Muslim in the USA is unamerican!

Our Founding Fathers were Christian! They created the USA as a Christian nation! Being Muslim in the USA is unamerican!

forgive the irony of this statement but...jesus christ I hope you're kidding.

forgive the irony of this statement but...jesus christ I hope you're kidding.

I live in Canada, you dolt. We don't have Founding Fathers. <3

Haven't you noticed me trolling him for the past three pages or so?

gential mutilation is NOT an Islamic practice.

Bullshit. It's not in the Quran, but it sure is in the Hadith.

It's widely practiced by many Muslims for ostensibly Islamic reasons - because Muhammed said so.

Just because it's not explicitly in the Quran doesn't mean it's not Islamic. Look to see how many millions practice it, and ask them why they do it.

Our Founding Fathers were Christian! They created the USA as a Christian nation! Being Muslim in the USA is unamerican!

Actually, most were Deists, not specifically Christians.

Actually, most were Deists, not specifically Christians.

Aware of that, thanks. Quit ruining my fun.

I live in Canada, you dolt. We don't have Founding Fathers. <3

Haven't you noticed me trolling him for the past three pages or so?

I don't really pay attention to names much, I didn't recognize yours in the statement so I didn't really have a history of you to judge the sincerity of your comment.

gential mutilation is NOT an Islamic practice.

Some people say it is.

Many people would say that being a bigot is not an Islamic practice either, but you blame all of your bigotry on Allah.

I don't really pay attention to names much, I didn't recognize yours in the statement so I didn't really have a history of you to judge the sincerity of your comment.

o_o So you didn't read any of the recent threads, or even this one, prior to posting in it? I mean, come on. Bitchkitten, Kyronea and Bottle know who I am. >_>

Oh noes! Equality is bad!

Was the black population shoving "being black" down everyone's throats when they lobbyied for equal protection under the law?
thats different


You mean changing sex education to include all topics, instead of just, "DON'T HAVE TEH SEX, MMMM'KAY!" ?? Sexuality should be discussed in a sex-ed class. It is part and parcel of what the students need to learn about.

No one is pushing to have sex ed classes teach, "ZOMG! It's so awesome being gay. Everyone be gay with us!" They are simply pushing for honesty in education. What you really mean is that they are changing to a less anti-gay stance, not that they are, in any way, pro-gay.
teaching kids its ok to be gay or to have sex outside of marriage is a pro-gay stance. It undermines parents abilities to parent as they see fit. If a parent teaches their children to adhere to certain religious practices and then the child goes to school and gets the opposite info from teachers, problems can arise.


Are you tied to a chair and forced to watch it? If not, it is hardly forced upon you. There are plenty of shows on TV that I don't like. You know what I do? I simply don't watch them. Problem solved.

no,the problem is not solved because the problem is not adults making the choice to watch or not, its the children seeing this stuff.

You don't see straight people being derided, discriminated against, and/or physically accosted for being straight, do you? If homosexuals were treated as human beings, there'd be no need for pride parades. As it is, someone has to make it clear that hiding because of fear is not necessary.

well obviously if they still have parades and they are still treated the same. their agenda failed and they should stop this nonsense.

So, basically, you want rights, but only for you. Everyone else can just shove off, eh?
thats not what I'm saying

teaching kids its ok to be gay or to have sex outside of marriage is a pro-gay stance. It undermines parents abilities to parent as they see fit. If a parent teaches their children to adhere to certain religious practices and then the child goes to school and gets the opposite info from teachers, problems can arise.
Yeah, the kid might get taken out of the public school system and get mentally raped by the parents.

no,the problem is not solved because the problem is not adults making the choice to watch or not, its the children seeing this stuff.
Don't let your television babysit your children, then, and quit being a failure as a parent.

well obviously if they still have parades and they are still treated the same. their agenda failed and they should stop this nonsense.
The Gay Agenda:
1) Pick up the children from school after work
2) Make dinner
3) Have a peaceful sleep, and repeat

thats not what I'm saying
Then actually say what you're saying; quit telling us what you're not saying.

Actually, most were Deists, not specifically Christians.

exactly! In fact I would say being Muslim is actually more along the lines of the American ideal our founding father intended than being an atheist, certianly more along the lines than being gay.

Ah yes...reverse racism at its finest. Giving people "bonus points" for what race they are. Color-blind for sure...
Personal pet peeve: "reverse racism" would be the reverse of racism, which would be non-racism. If you believe that white people are discriminated against because they are white, then you are talking about. It's not "reverse" anything.

thats different

thats not what I'm saying
That's exactly what you're saying.

thats different

How?


teaching kids its ok to be gay or to have sex outside of marriage is a pro-gay stance. It undermines parents abilities to parent as they see fit. If a parent teaches their children to adhere to certain religious practices and then the child goes to school and gets the opposite info from teachers, problems can arise.

Thankfully public school is not required to give a damn what a parent's religious belief is. Teaching evolution is contrary to some religious belief, yet a public school is bound to not consider religious reasons for making its curriculum.




no,the problem is not solved because the problem is not adults making the choice to watch or not, its the children seeing this stuff.

And you have yet to say why this is wrong.



well obviously if they still have parades and they are still treated the same. their agenda failed and they should stop this nonsense.

Can gays get married? No? Then I guess they're not treated the same are they.

On the same token, italians, irish, and many others are treated "the same" and yet they still have their parades.


thats not what I'm saying

No, that's pretty much exactly what you are saying.

exactly! In fact I would say being Muslim is actually more along the lines of the American ideal our founding father intended than being an atheist, certianly more along the lines than being gay.

Nope. Deists are hardly Muslims. And some of them were atheists.

So, because the Founding Fathers were all men, you believe that women should get no political rights then?

exactly! In fact I would say being Muslim is actually more along the lines of the American ideal our founding father intended than being an atheist, certianly more along the lines than being gay.

Call me back when Elton John blows up two huge skyscrapers, okay, islamofascist?

Some people say it is.

Many people would say that being a bigot is not an Islamic practice either, but you blame all of your bigotry on Allah.

I am not bigot. though many on here brand any religious person as being a bigot.

thats different

How so? Is it because your personal religious beliefs don't say there is something wrong with being black? Should our government care if your personal religious beliefs say that gays are "teh icky"? After all, some religious beliefs say that you're going to hell - should we treat you differently because of that?

teaching kids its ok to be gay or to have sex outside of marriage is a pro-gay stance.

What does sex outside of marriage have to do with homosexuality?

Meanwhile, no it isn't. A pro-gay stance would be, "Being gay is awesome. It's good. Do it." This is a neutral stance - "Some people are exclusively or almost exclusively attracted to members of the same sex. The term for this is homosexual. Something like 10% of the world population is homosexual......."

No one is planning on teaching kids to be gay or trying to make them gay. However, teaching about sexuality, and making sure that the homosexual students in the class recognize their own sexual orientation, is a good thing.

It undermines parents abilities to parent as they see fit. If a parent teaches their children to adhere to certain religious practices and then the child goes to school and gets the opposite info from teachers, problems can arise.

Teachers aren't telling students not to adhere to religious practice. Try again.

no,the problem is not solved because the problem is not adults making the choice to watch or not, its the children seeing this stuff.

You don't think parents can and should regulate their childrens' TV exposure? I thought you were talking about parents who actually want to parent, instead of asking the networks/government/etc. to do it for them?

well obviously if they still have parades and they are still treated the same. their agenda failed and they should stop this nonsense.

Just like the blacks should have stopped trying when they got beat up at parades, eh?

:rolleyes:

You don't stop working towards equality just because there are idiots out there who would stand in your way.

thats not what I'm saying

Yes, it's EXACTLY what you are saying. At least I might give you a little respect if you'd admit it, rather than trying to portray yourself as some bastion of human rights while trying to trample them.

Personal pet peeve: "reverse racism" would be the reverse of racism, which would be non-racism. If you believe that white people are discriminated against because they are white, then you are talking about. It's not "reverse" anything.

Yeah, but the point is one of from whom (or from which groups) the racism is flowing. If for years the norm is black people are discriminated against, then one day when whites are discriminated against it seems like a "reverse" of that norm.

I understand what you mean though.

So, because the Founding Fathers were all men, you believe that women should get no political rights then?

That's the Muslim way, man. Don't be shocked, it does no good.

exactly! In fact I would say being Muslim is actually more along the lines of the American ideal our founding father intended than being an atheist, certianly more along the lines than being gay.

treaty

of

tripoli

That's the Muslim way, man. Don't be shocked, it does no good.

I just want him to step in it, that's all...

If Soviestan had any sense he'd bow his head and quietly slink out of this thread.
But there is an obvious answer to that.

I am not bigot.

Yes you are.

though many on here brand any religious person as being a bigot.

Your religion making you a bigot? No. How you practice it? Yes.

If Soviestan had any sense he'd bow his head and quietly slink out of this thread.
But there is an obvious answer to that.

Had the pleasure of enjoying any of my recent silliness?

Call me back when Elton John blows up two huge skyscrapers

Well, he is already flaming.....

teaching kids its ok to be gay or to have sex outside of marriage is a pro-gay stance.

No, it's a pro-fact stance.

It is a fact that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. It is a fact that homosexuality is legal. Teaching kids that homosexuality is natural and legal would therefore constituted factual information.

As for it being "okay" to have sex outside of marriage or to be in a homosexual relationship, it is true that those are both legal in our society. Why should schools teach untrue information?


It undermines parents abilities to parent as they see fit. If a parent teaches their children to adhere to certain religious practices and then the child goes to school and gets the opposite info from teachers, problems can arise.

No public school curriculum is teaching kids to have gay sex or telling them they should go out and have some gay sex after class. Teaching kids that homosexuality exists, is natural, and is legal in our country all fit within the normal scope of sex education.

If a parent wishes to teach their child that homosexuality is morally wrong, they are free to do so, just like parents are free to teach their children that black people are morally inferior. Yet schools still teach kids that black people exist, that black skin is as natural as white, and that it's legal for black people to vote, etc. This is because these are facts, and school is where children are introduced to facts about the world around them.

As another example, my school taught me that there are multiple political parties in our country. There are Democrats, Republicans, Greens, etc. The fact that I was informed that these parties exist and that it is legal to belong to a political party did not mean that school was telling me to become a Democrat or a Republican or whatever. Learning that Republicans exist, and that it is legal to be a member of the Republican party, do not in any way force me to be Republican or to embrace Republican values.

If you think your children are so stupid and spineless that they will turn into something just because they are taught it exists, then you have bigger things to worry about that homosexuality. Just wait until the little angels hit 3rd grade and they turn into the multiplication tables.

Well, he is already flaming.....

I ARE SHOCKED AT THIS.

<3

I ARE SHOCKED AT THIS.

<3I'm sure you are.

Yeah, the kid might get taken out of the public school system and get mentally raped by the parents.

Or potentially get mentally raped by its teachers if this doesn't realise.

So just for the hell of it, I just want to see how many people there are out there who take somewhat of a “middle road” on this issue, sharing some of my viewpoints.

To start off, I’m a registered Republican living in the United States, but before you start laughing and making anti-Bush comments, I think you’ll find that I’m not your typical Republican. You see, I’m very fiscally conservative, strongly believing in Reagan economics and rather appalled and Bush’s “budget.” But that’s not what this thread’s about…it’s about social issues.

Socially, I’m far more center of the road, if not even liberal leaning. Anyone who knows me knows that I’m hardly against pre-marital sex, and I’m cool with a woman president as long as it’s not Hilary. As for the ever-present “Gay” issue…it gets a little more grey…

I’m not religious, so any opinion I make is purely my own. I haven’t quite accepted that being homosexual is some sort of gene, or something that you’re born with. Sure there are studies that “prove” it is, but there are also studies that “prove” the opposite, as well as studies that “prove” smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Generally, studies reflect those who give them funding, so until I see proof, I see it as a choice.

That being said, I think it’s a “choice” that people should have the right to make. What right does the government have to be in our bedrooms telling us how or who to fuck? Simply put, it has none.

My problem with homosexuality arises with, for lack of a better term, the “flamers” or “queens” of the group. Now before you jump down my throat with flames and the like, hear me out. In my eyes, these people who purposefully act ridiculously over the top in public and expect to be accepted are no better than people with two teeth and overalls saying “I hate faggots” in southern accents. Extremes on either end are rather ridiculous, and acceptance is far different than going out of your way to put up with nonsense.

So…I’m not really looking for a debate or anything here, I’m just wondering if anyone else shares my “be gay, just don’t expect to be treated differently” point of view. I find that so many people either outright hate homosexuality or blindly support it and lash out against any opponents. As I said, my views are a bit more “middle of the road.”

I'm pretty damn liberal, and I agree. Gay guys who act all funny and flamboyant are kinda annoying. But overall, I support homosexuality.

I'm pretty damn liberal, and I agree. Gay guys who act all funny and flamboyant are kinda annoying. But overall, I support homosexuality.I also support homosexuality. This planet already has way too many humans.

thats different


teaching kids its ok to be gay or to have sex outside of marriage is a pro-gay stance. It undermines parents abilities to parent as they see fit. If a parent teaches their children to adhere to certain religious practices and then the child goes to school and gets the opposite info from teachers, problems can arise.




no,the problem is not solved because the problem is not adults making the choice to watch or not, its the children seeing this stuff.



well obviously if they still have parades and they are still treated the same. their agenda failed and they should stop this nonsense.


thats not what I'm saying

Soviestan, I think I speak for most of NS General when I say this.

Go back under your rock and stay there, goddamnit!

I am not bigot.

You meet the definition pretty much perfectly.

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

In this case, the group in question is not racial, but is a matter of sexual orientation. You have no better reason to treat them as you do than you would the members of any ethnic group, however.

though many on here brand any religious person as being a bigot.

Funny, I haven't seen that at all. I've seen them brand the bigotted religious persons as being bigots.

How?


because being black isnt a choice

Thankfully public school is not required to give a damn what a parent's religious belief is. Teaching evolution is contrary to some religious belief, yet a public school is bound to not consider religious reasons for making its curriculum.

I'm not saying thats right either



Can gays get married? No? Then I guess they're not treated the same are they.

pedophiles can't marry children, beastaphiles can't marry animals yet no one complains about that. but yet for some reason people are up in arms homosexuals can't marry. its hypocricy at its finest.

because being black isnt a choice



I'm not saying thats right either





pedophiles can't marry children, beastaphiles can't marry animals yet no one complains about that. but yet for some reason people are up in arms homosexuals can't marry. its hypocricy at its finest.

Children and beasts often make knowledgeable remarks of consent. I don't see why they cannot marry pedophiles and beastaphiles. It is a mystery for the ages.

because being black isnt a choice

Neither is being gay.

I'm not saying thats right either

Then you're wrong. Whole first amendment thing.


pedophiles can't marry children, beastaphiles can't marry animals yet no one complains about that. but yet for some reason people are up in arms homosexuals can't marry. its hypocricy at its finest.

Because most people recognize that homosexuality involves consenting adults, pedophilia does not. It's only hypocricy if you willfully remain ignorant of the difference.

because being black isnt a choice
Do you know that homosexuality is, in fact, a choice? And if so, please, prove it.

pedophiles can't marry children, beastaphiles can't marry animals yet no one complains about that. but yet for some reason people are up in arms homosexuals can't marry. its hypocricy at its finest.

Children and animals can't legally consent. However, adults can.

because being black isnt a choice.

Being a muslim is. And it's pretty much agreed that homosexuality isn't a choice.






pedophiles can't marry children, beastaphiles can't marry animals yet no one complains about that. but yet for some reason people are up in arms homosexuals can't marry. its hypocricy at its finest.

If both homosexuals are consenting adults, no problem. Animals and children cannot give informed consent.

Bigotry at it's finest.

How so? Is it because your personal religious beliefs don't say there is something wrong with being black? Should our government care if your personal religious beliefs say that gays are "teh icky"? After all, some religious beliefs say that you're going to hell - should we treat you differently because of that?


being black is not a choice


Meanwhile, no it isn't. A pro-gay stance would be, "Being gay is awesome. It's good. Do it." This is a neutral stance - "Some people are exclusively or almost exclusively attracted to members of the same sex. The term for this is homosexual. Something like 10% of the world population is homosexual......."
its not neutral. thats baised. the bolded statement makes it seem as if they don't have a choice in the matter and that 10% will be gay no matter what.

No one is planning on teaching kids to be gay or trying to make them gay. However, teaching about sexuality, and making sure that the homosexual students in the class recognize their own sexual orientation, is a good thing.
bullshit. What you mean is that teachers will fill confused, impressional kids heads with nonsense about "figuring yourself out" or not being ashamed to be gay or something. How is that not a cut and dry gay agenda?

.



You don't think parents can and should regulate their childrens' TV exposure? I thought you were talking about parents who actually want to parent, instead of asking the networks/government/etc. to do it for them?

its very diffucult to monitor all that your kids watch

See, NSG's finest minds all agree. :D

because being black isnt a choice

Neither is sexual orientation, what's your point?

Or are you one of those people who think, even though they never made any such choice, it somehow is a choice to be attracted either to men or women (or both), (or neither).

I'm not saying thats right either

So schools should enforce your personal religious beliefs, eh?

pedophiles can't marry children, beastaphiles can't marry animals yet no one complains about that. but yet for some reason people are up in arms homosexuals can't marry. its hypocricy at its finest.

Children can't consent. They can't enter into legally enforceable contracts. Neither can animals.

It isn't hypocrisy to confine such decisions to consenting adults. :rolleyes:

bullshit. What you mean is that teachers will fill confused, impressional kids heads with nonsense about "figuring yourself out" or not being ashamed to be gay or something. How is that not a cut and dry gay agenda?


What is in bold is the worst thing imaginable to teach our kids. Imagine "figuring yourself out"! What? Without an ancient text? Phhh. Laughable.

Okay, so, ssh.

Soviestan, before this thread progresses any further, I think we'd all like to see your obviously extensive, factual evidence (and by factual, I mean not based on religious documents that also stipulate the presence of the Abrahamic sky fairy, regardless of the name) that sexuality, in no way, is determined by genetics.

I will keep quoting this until Soviestan addresses it.

being black is not a choice

its not neutral. thats baised. the bolded statement makes it seem as if they don't have a choice in the matter and that 10% will be gay no matter what.

bullshit. What you mean is that teachers will fill confused, impressional kids heads with nonsense about "figuring yourself out" or not being ashamed to be gay or something. How is that not a cut and dry gay agenda?


its very diffucult to monitor all that your kids watch


Okay. Let's try this again. It's generally accepted by all reputable science that homosexuality is not a choice. So, no, they don't have a choice in the matter. However many the percentage is, they will be gay no matter what.

Perhaps religious freedom saying it's okay to be Muslim is a Muslim agenda? Telling someone it's okay to be yourself is not any agenda unless you consider it a tolerance agenda.

being black is not a choice

Neither is being gay.


its not neutral. thats baised. the bolded statement makes it seem as if they don't have a choice in the matter and that 10% will be gay no matter what.

That would be what we call a "fact". I know you hate them.


bullshit. What you mean is that teachers will fill confused, impressional kids heads with nonsense about "figuring yourself out" or not being ashamed to be gay or something. How is that not a cut and dry gay agenda?

You mean for people to learn that being gay isn't something to be ashamed of? Yeah, that's pretty much the idea.

its very diffucult to monitor all that your kids watch

Then you shouldn't have kids until you learn how. It is nobody's responsibility other than your own to ensure that your children view only what you wish them to view.

being black is not a choice

Neither is being gay/straight/bi/asexual. What's your point?

its not neutral. thats baised. the bolded statement makes it seem as if they don't have a choice in the matter and that 10% will be gay no matter what.

That's pretty much the way it seems if you actually look at, you know, reality. Should we lie to our children and tell them that the sexuality fairy is going to visit them all and give them a choice of who they will be attracted to and that they should all mark the little box that says, "Straight"?

bullshit. What you mean is that teachers will fill confused, impressional kids heads with nonsense about "figuring yourself out" or not being ashamed to be gay or something. How is that not a cut and dry gay agenda?

Is mental health a gay agenda?

Let me teach you a little bit about the birds and the bees. When a person goes through puberty, they begin to feel sexual attraction towards other people. Most people feel at least some attraction towards members of the opposite sex. Some people feel attraction towards members of both sexes. Some people feel the most attraction towards members of the same sex. This is simply a biological fact. It happens. Ignoring it and saying, "ZOMG, DON'T BE GAY!" is ignoring the health of those who are.

its very diffucult to monitor all that your kids watch

Yes, it's very difficult to be a parent. What's your point?

They can't enter into contracts.

Well, actually they can, but such contracts are voidable, so that really doesn't change much.

:rolleyes:

I like living a life of futility. That can be the only reason I'm still trying to instill common sense into Soviesatan.

I like living a life of futility. That can be the only reason I'm still trying to instill common sense into Soviesatan.

I'm happy I have a life past this forum, because the knowledge that someone like him existed in the outside world and wasn't actually a laughingstock of their social circle would make me go headsplodey.

being black is not a choice

I shall quote Real World:

Black guy - "I think it's wrong that you're gay."
Gay guy - "I think it's wrong that you're black."

Neither is a choice.

forgive me for just butting into the conversation like this, but I would just like to say that it is nice to actually hear possitive things being said for once about the gay community. I live a sheltered life :P Y'all made my day

forgive me for just butting into the conversation like this, but I would just like to say that it is nice to actually hear possitive things being said for once about the gay community. I live a sheltered life :P Y'all made my day

Aww, a newbie!

*huggles it*

Nice first post. :)

forgive me for just butting into the conversation like this, but I would just like to say that it is nice to actually hear possitive things being said for once about the gay community. I live a sheltered life :P Y'all made my dayYou're supposed to butt in. It's kinda the whole idea.

forgive me for just butting into the conversation like this, but I would just like to say that it is nice to actually hear possitive things being said for once about the gay community. I live a sheltered life :P Y'all made my day

hrm. first post. No gun smilies, generally pretty good grammar and spelling, Cognitive rationale, on topic discussion.

OK, you can stay.

Okay, so, ssh.

Soviestan, before this thread progresses any further, I think we'd all like to see your obviously extensive, factual evidence (and by factual, I mean not based on religious documents that also stipulate the presence of the Abrahamic sky fairy, regardless of the name) that sexuality, in no way, is determined by genetics.

I will keep quoting this until Soviestan addresses it.

Sorry, but I am going to quote the Qur'an as it is the word of the one who created us all and has laid down his laws.

"And lot, (and recall) when he said to his people, 'Do you commit such abomination (of sodomy) as is unprecedant and unsurpassed in the whole world? 'You indeed approach men rather than (your) women to satisfy your lust. The fact is that are a people who trangress all limits.' " (7:80-81)

Sorry, but I am going to quote the Qur'an as it is the word of the one who created us all and has laid down his laws.

"And lot, (and recall) when he said to his people, 'Do you commit such abomination (of sodomy) as is unprecedant and unsurpassed in the whole world? 'You indeed approach men rather than (your) women to satisfy your lust. The fact is that are a people who trangress all limits.' " (7:80-81)

Your sky fairy a) doesn't exist and b) doesn't dictate what a secular government does.

FAIL

Sorry, but I am going to quote the Qur'an

You fail at reading comprehension.

I can find quotes too.

God's enemies are more honest than his friends -Sam Harris

Sorry, but I am going to quote the Qur'an as it is the word of the one who created us all and has laid down his laws.

Two problems with that sentence.


Your imaginary friend doesn't exist.
Even if he did, he didn't write that book, so shut the fuck up.

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/index.htm
Have fun Sovie.

Soviestan, before this thread progresses any further, I think we'd all like to see your obviously extensive, factual evidence (and by factual, I mean not based on religious documents that also stipulate the presence of the Abrahamic sky fairy, regardless of the name) that sexuality, in no way, is determined by genetics.

I will keep quoting this until Soviestan addresses it.
So.