Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[marioguy]

I always interpreted the argument to mean that we allow people to marry and divorce at the drop of a hat, but ignore those who genuinely love their partner. Look at the whole Kim Kardashian thing as an example - we let her have a big lavish ceremony so she can get married only to divorce the guy like five minutes later in what was almost certainly just a publicity stunt, but when two people who happen to have the same genitalia genuinely love each other and want to be together, all of a sudden that's just going too far.
If we accept your premise that divorce ruins the sanctity of an individual's marriage (and I personally do, it's a lot more reasonable than saying all marriage is worthless because of the divorce rate), then we now have to ask why allowing gays to get married would destroy the sanctity of marriage as a whole, or even how it would destroy the sanctity of your individual marriage. I could also preemptively get into the fact that the Bible condemns divorce just as much if not moreso than homosexuality, but I'd really rather not talk about the Bible unless/until someone else brings it up.

Did you guys know that divorce is a really big sin in the Bible? It's right there along with murder and homosexuality. If we're not going to let gay people get married, let's stone Kim Kardashian too.

[Grei]

For me, it's the same as most others. I don't care if they're gay, let them do what they want, why should I care? But... stop sticking it in my face and in the media! Like, if you don't want to be bullied for being gay, stop running around with "Gay Pride!" or "Gay 4 Life!" signs stapled on you. Like, do what you want but stop bugging me about it, I don't care what you do.

You've offended me, honestly. Only because I'm not sure why homosexuals don't have the right to be present in the media. It's because of this cold shoulder the media gives homosexuals that homosexuality is so unaccepted. I've grown up with the media telling me that the only "correct" kind of relationship is the one between a man and a woman. To this day I'm having trouble imagining myself--or feeling comfortable--in a relationship with another man. While the media certainly isn't the only cause for it, it is also certainly a big cause for it.

So, shunning homosexuals from media attention is not the way to go. I agree that Gay Pride parades are often not the best way for homosexuals to gain attention, but the other side of the spectrum--making homosexuals completely absent in the media--is, in my opinion, the exact wrong way to go.

I believe that homosexuality should be as abundant in the media as heterosexuality. TV shows should depict homosexual relationships alongside heterosexual relationships. Commercial ads should cater to both homosexuals and heterosexuals (given the product they're trying to sell isn't inherently exclusive). Doing this would push for societal acceptance, because suddenly the media--the subconscious-or-not governor of what is "normal" in our culture--would be telling people that it's OK for two men or two women to love one another romantically. We already take so much from the media and apply it to our ideas of what is "supposed to be," so I don't see the problem in throwing homosexuality into the mix, since it is also something that's "supposed to be."

Conversely, I don't believe it's right to just say "leave me alone, gay people. Do what you want, but leave me out of it." Because that's teaching tolerance, not acceptance, and that's giving the message that it's OK to just ignore the things you don't like. Again, tolerating or ignoring stuff is not the way to go--accepting them is. I applaud you for at least not saying "gays suck," but in my eyes, ignoring them (us) is not much better.

I'm just going to watch this turn into pointlessness again.

Aw, have some more faith in Sunny. ^_^ Also, you should read the Debate Forum clean-up plan in the OP, and refrain from posting like this again.

[Valoo.]

I'm not talking about their parades, I'm talking about all the news about "coming out" and all that. If someone went on the news and said "I'm straight!" they'd probably get a lawsuit for "offense to gays" or something, but if someone went on the news and said "I'm gay! I've come out of the closet!" they'd be worshipped for "revealing something so precious...", I was never comfortable with the idea of gays, not because of my religion, but I just didn't think it looked right, but now I can accept it, I just don't want to hear about it every time I turn on the TV.

But it's not there every time you turn on the TV. If being gay wasn't turned into such a big thing by a lack of tolerance, nobody would have to come out. People can't go around and not tell people; there's no way to avoid coming out. Nobody is worshipped for coming out, people just respect them for it because of the tolerance level in a lot of places. It takes a lot of courage to come out.

Nobody would get a lawsuit for saying they're straight, don't be ridiculous. Nobody says they're straight on the news because everybody is assumed to be straight, unless stated otherwise. Gay people are a minority.

For me, it's the same as most others. I don't care if they're gay, let them do what they want, why should I care? But... stop sticking it in my face and in the media! Like, if you don't want to be bullied for being gay, stop running around with "Gay Pride!" or "Gay 4 Life!" signs stapled on you. Like, do what you want but stop bugging me about it, I don't care what you do.

What? You're saying people are bullied solely for wearing t-shirts like that. That's ridiculous. Gay people are bullied because of homophobia, and a low tolerance level, not because of a t-shirt.

Nobody is bugging you about it. If there was full acceptance and equality, there would be no need for the parades and media attention.

[marioguy]

Don't you just hate people who use "gay" as an insult, but don't know why that's wrong? Isn't it odd how the media implies that only homosexual people have anal sex?

[mattj]

What on earth are you talking about. There's plenty of straight butt sex on TV. Why do you even post here?

[marioguy]

What on earth are you talking about. There's plenty of straight butt sex on TV. Why do you even post here?

Not on shows on public networks, such as the Simpsons, the Big Bang Theory, and Heroes.

[mattj]

None of those shows have gay anal sex. I don't understand you.

[marioguy]

None of those shows have gay anal sex. I don't understand you.

I wasn't talking about gay anal sex. I was talking about straight anal sex, and it's lack on television.

[Profesco]

I don't mean to butt in (), but can't the general absence of anal sex on television - whether straight, gay, or otherwise - be explained by the fact that it's anal sex?

[Jb]

Don't you just hate people who use "gay" as an insult, but don't know why that's wrong?

There is nothing wrong with using gay as an insult. After all if gay people can change a meaning of a word to describe themselves, why can't I do it to insult people?

[marioguy]

I don't mean to butt in (), but can't the general absence of anal sex on television - whether straight, gay, or otherwise - be explained by the fact that it's anal sex?

That smiley... Anyway, gay characters talk about anal sex every so often, but straight people never do.

There is nothing wrong with using gay as an insult. After all if gay people can change a meaning of a word to describe themselves, why can't I do it to insult people?

Can I redefine the meaning of the word "brony" to mean child predator? (I chose borny based on your csutom title.)

[CSolarstorm]

There is nothing wrong with using gay as an insult. After all if gay people can change a meaning of a word to describe themselves, why can't I do it to insult people?

You're saying that if they can use a word that means happy to describe themselves, that you using that same word to insult someone is an equal action. It's not. It's one thing to take a word and use it to describe yourself, but it has an insulting effect when you take a word people use to describe themselves and use it to mean 'stupid'.

Although I hate to tell you guys, but the word 'gay' has meant someone who is sexually loose and indulges in too many pleasures, much longer than it was used as a label for homosexuals. Just calling yourself gay carries the historical assumption that people attracted to the same sex are sexually immoral in the same vein as prostitutes or adulterers. We're trying to remove a meaning that was already ascribed to the word, and it was used in a derogatory manner long before homosexuals (probably called gay because the assumption was if they enjoyed being with the same sex it was extra sexual, and thus 'gay') took the term and made it into something they could own.

[ChedWick]

I don't mean to butt in (), but can't the general absence of anal sex on television - whether straight, gay, or otherwise - be explained by the fact that it's anal sex?

I giggled.


I'm really trying hard to keep pointless commentaries out of this thread but I honestly am not seeing the lack of anal sex on television. One show in particular implies it quite regularly, or did before it went to crap; Two and a half men. I'm sure I'm exposed to other references on a daily basis too. I guess homosexual anal sex is pretty non-existent in my experiences but considering where we are in the movement for homosexual acceptance, thats not too surprising.

I think its pretty unfair to keep to the negative stigma surrounding anal sex. Homosexuals are not the only couples who partake in the act and it's been documented in heterosexual interactions for centuries. Want a source (since last time I brought up that point about 2 years ago ppl freaked out) just Google any combination of time period names, art, anal sex and I'm sure you'll find the source you desire. At least I can say that the only time I have the pleasure of hearing some rant about homosexuals, anal sex, and the devil its usually coming form some ill-informed extremest. I suppose that's not really saying much considering most those against either are usually the same type of people.

[Jb]

Can I redefine the meaning of the word "brony" to mean child predator? (I chose borny based on your csutom title.)

Depends, if you can get enough people on board. But there is already a popular term for that so i'm not too sure.

You're saying that if they can use a word that means happy to describe themselves, that you using that same word to insult someone is an equal action. It's not. It's one thing to take a word and use it to describe yourself, but it has an insulting effect when you take a word people use to describe themselves and use it to mean 'stupid'.

Valid points, but to be honest I still don't see the harm. When people use 'gay' as an insult, it's usually for an object, or event. If the majority of people used it to actually insult homosexuals, then that is when I think it's over the line. I'm not saying people don't use it like that, I'm pretty sure when people do, they don't mean any harm to gay people.

[CSolarstorm]

Valid points, but to be honest I still don't see the harm. When people use 'gay' as an insult, it's usually for an object, or event. If the majority of people used it to actually insult homosexuals, then that is when I think it's over the line. I'm not saying people don't use it like that, I'm pretty sure when people do, they don't mean any harm to gay people.

It's used to describe people as stupid more often than just sometimes. Remember that guy that came into one of the threads and didn't like gay people because some bully called him gay, and as he reminded us, he wasn't gay? Whether or not they mean any harm to gay people or not, that isn't related to whether or not it does cause harm. Meaning or intent doesn't change result. After all, it is reinforcing this association of gay people = laughable, lame. It's action that causes result.

Imagine you just walked in from the rain and your shoes were all muddy and you walked on a floor that was just cleaned and got it all muddy. You didn't mean to mess up the clean floor, but as long as you decided you didn't want to take your shoes off and walked in anyway, just cause you didn't mean to doesn't mean the floor didn't get messed up because you kept walking.

[Razor Xtreme]

People are too politically correct nowadays, and no one knows how to accept anyone else's opinions nowadays, I can tolerate gays, but that's not enough for some people, they expect me to bow to them or something. F no. I'll be tolerant, and they should be happy with that.
Don't like it? Oh well, it's my opinion, not yours.

[marioguy]

People are too politically correct nowadays, and no one knows how to accept anyone else's opinions nowadays, I can tolerate gays, but that's not enough for some people, they expect me to bow to them or something. F no. I'll be tolerant, and they should be happy with that.
Don't like it? Oh well, it's my opinion, not yours.

We can see how "tolerant" you are of other based on your last post. Oh wait. That was deleted. I wonder why..,

You're may be trying to be tolerant of gays, but you're really not. It was pretty obvious when you said that gay people coming out somehow offends you. You just want gays to disappear from your vision so you don't have to deal with them.

[Gergovia]

People are too politically correct nowadays, and no one knows how to accept anyone else's opinions nowadays, I can tolerate gays, but that's not enough for some people, they expect me to bow to them or something. F no. I'll be tolerant, and they should be happy with that.
Don't like it? Oh well, it's my opinion, not yours.

It's not being politically correct, it's just that your claim of "I dont have any problems with gay people" was challenged and scrutinized because of other things said in your post. The fact of the matter is, if you were truly comfortable with gay people, why would people admitting that they're gay on TV bother you? There's plenty of other things to be bothered about in regards to the media, but of all of them, gay people do? So what? Who cares? So you see a bunch of fruit cakes parading the streets with rainbows and glitter? The fact that you not only do care, and that such trivial things actually bother you, and the on top of that you suggest there's some sort double standard or inequality towards straight people "If someone said they were straight they'd get a lawsuit." highly suggests, and raises due suspicion that you really aren't as okay with gay people as you project yourself to be.

If it upsets you so much that others challenge your statements, then don't incriminate yourself.

[marioguy]

It's not being politically correct, it's just that your claim of "I dont have any problems with gay people" was challenged and scrutinized because of other things said in your post. The fact of the matter is, if you were truly comfortable with gay people, why would people admitting that they're gay on TV bother you? There's plenty of other things to be bothered about in regards to the media, but of all of them, gay people do? So what? Who cares? So you see a bunch of fruit cakes parading the streets with rainbows and glitter? The fact that you not only do care, and that such trivial things actually bother you, and the on top of that you suggest there's some sort double standard or inequality towards straight people "If someone said they were straight they'd get a lawsuit." highly suggests, and raises due suspicion that you really aren't as okay with gay people as you project yourself to be.

If it upsets you so much that others challenge your statements, then don't incriminate yourself.

It's sad when homophobes think that they're not homophobes, but then get called out on their homophobia.

The quote in your sig does not exist anymore.

[Double A]

People are too politically correct nowadays, and no one knows how to accept anyone else's opinions nowadays, I can tolerate gays, but that's not enough for some people, they expect me to bow to them or something. F no. I'll be tolerant, and they should be happy with that.
Don't like it? Oh well, it's my opinion, not yours.

"Get out of my face" is not tolerance. I'm almost certain you wouldn't show similar contempt towards someone who made a different statement about themselves (e.g. "I'm adopted").

You would be analogous to someone who is xenophobic (wants foreigners to piss off) but not actively racist. While the latter is a more serious kind of intolerance, the former is still intolerance.

Letting you exercise bigotry goes beyond merely "respecting your idea", it becomes "giving your ideas credibility in modern society". If you're allowed to ask gay people to piss off, what's to stop racists asking blacks to piss off and Christian extremists asking Muslims to piss off?

[Swordsman of Kairnestar]

Let me try to get this all structured here:

> polygamy
I'm actually all for that, as long as they kept it small (as in the number of people married), because records do have to be kept.

> gay pride parades
I have no issue with these, either. I think it's a beautiful expression of sexuality in a world where many are trying to sweep said sexuality under the carpet because if they can't see it, they think it'll go away. And I think Pride is still serving a purpose: it shows people that we as a culture will not bow to the pressure of the right, and that we will use the rights we haven't been denied in an effort to obtain the ones we have been denied.

> Biblical arguments
As I have always said, you need to look not just at Christianity, or Abrahamic even religion as a whole, but at all sides of religious and spiritual beliefs. Marriage is not merely a Christian tradition, nor is sex/sexuality, and should not be treated as such.

> "gay" as insult
I don't like this, but I'm not passionate about it either way. My common reaction to "you're gay" would be "yes, thank you for noticing". I have a tendency to intentionally take what people say literal to the word, especially if they're using explicit language. The three-letter f word is a smoke, the four-letter one is a beautiful sexual experience, the three-letter a one is of course, a butt. And lame is not something to poke fun at, as I am somewhat lame in that I have a horrible limp and can never walk without pain. So, a "big (f)ing pen" is a large pen that is used for sexual reasons. A "lame-(a) car" is a car that, for whatever reason, not only has a butt, but a butt that hinders its walking ability. After awhile, people tend to use expletives more correctly around me, or just plain less.

> "straight discrimination" (contains copious irony)
Oh, no, Razor, you've figured out our Master Plan. Truth is, we gay people have been reproducing with the assistance of laboratories to start to spread a gene throughout our kind, making us immune to a disease we will later covertly unleash on the unsuspecting public. It will make all breeders our slaves so we will forever rule Midgard Earth. This is all so we can summon our lords Loki and Pan to forever seal our control on the planet and all its people. But the worst is still to come, as we will do something so heinous, just thinking of it will make you unable to sleep at night. We will... make everyone eat only gourmet food for eternity! That's right, no more McDonald's or Taco Hell. It's Filet Mignon and a nice Burgundy for you! And tomorrow, an Italian Pesto dish![/sarcasm]

Obviously, nothing in that one reply should be taken seriously.


Also, Gergovia's avatar is a quite fitting response to how Razor has been to him.

[Razor Xtreme]

We can see how "tolerant" you are of other based on your last post. Oh wait. That was deleted. I wonder why..,

You're may be trying to be tolerant of gays, but you're really not. It was pretty obvious when you said that gay people coming out somehow offends you. You just want gays to disappear from your vision so you don't have to deal with them.

Really? Is that why my one of my best friends is a lesbian? Is that why I have three good friends that are all gay?
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said gay people coming out offends me, either you read it wrong or you just didn't read it after something offended you.
It's funny how some of you people judge, call me a homophobe, etc. when you don't know anything about me. You read what you wanted to read, you saw what you wanted to see. All I said was that I hate it being in the media all the time, I don't mind gays in the media, I don't want to hear ABOUT gays in the media. Like "Old announcer reveals he's gay!" good for him, "Man comes out on national TV!" good for him, what are you doing with this? You are simply putting them in the target for bigots to bash and bash. Let's say there are two guys that work for a TV company and their getting married, I have no problem with them announcing it on TV, they would do the same for straight people getting married. What I have a problem with is turning on the TV and hearing about it all the time. I'd do the same if it had something to do with OWS, immigration reform, anti-racism parades, etc. I support all of those, but I'd be completely sick of hearing about them every second.
But apparently that isn't fair to you, you don't want me to be tolerant, you want me to basically support their cause, whether it kills you inside or not, it's not my job to do that. I believe they should be allowed to get married, but why should they get their 15 minutes of fame simply for being gay? Don't they want to be treated the same? That's exactly how I feel when a Hispanic says they're better than a white person, and I'm half Hispanic, so don't try to call me a racist, it's like "We're fighting for equality aren't we? So why do you expect a better treatment?"
I don't get it, you want me to be tolerant, I am, but now you want me to actually support the cause? How is that my job? If you choose to help them fight for their cause, good for you, god bless your heart, but don't get mad at me cause I don't choose to.
I didn't want to have to go into detail or waste 10 minutes of my life typing this, but you called me a homophobe, and that's offensive to me.

Also, George - whateveryournameis - Stop acting like a victim, you attacked me first, I have a right to defend myself, don't I?
Either don't flame, or expect to be flamed. I flamed you and I expected to be flamed, thus why I choose to ignore half of these posts.

[Ne0n-H!tch'd]

You guys thought you had this debate pegged right? You thought "Oh they BORN that way" or "Oh, Some traumatic event happened that Made em THAT way"....

Think again!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1..._lnk3%7C110998

What do you think now huh?

[CSolarstorm]

Razor Xtreme, you ask why gay people should get to go on TV just because they're coming out of the closet, which in your defense, I've seen, there's the airman and the newscaster I remember in recent history - but the fact is people view 'coming out' as a courageous thing to do, and that's why the get to be featured on TV. Aside from that, why shouldn't they? Is there a reason to keep people from getting more than they deserve? If some gay people get more publicity than they should from coming out of the closet, why exactly is that bad?

And please do not take this thread or what anybody says in it personally. Unless you get physically sick whenever someone criticizes you, you don't need to flame anybody who is impolite to you. It even says that at the beginning of my thread, "Repay insensitivity with politeness."

[Ne0n-H!tch'd]

Gay is here to stay, Like, why is it important to know "WHY GAY?"
Yeah some gays are a bit obnoxious but there are str8 obnoxious people too...
I don't see what makes a "In your face" gay any different from a "In your face" str8 person..