On October 12 2012 03:55 Wrath 2.1 wrote: that's good. Sex life should be something private and not something that needs advertising or parades.
That's good? How in the hell is that good? Gay pride parades being cancelled because of threats of violence, people not being able to show affection to their loved one because of fear of persecution/prosecution, outlawing of homosexuality in media? Explain to me where in this there is any good? I'll be waiting.
Sex life may not need advertising or parades, but equality sure as shit does.
The problem is the misconception that all gays are like the annoying vocal minority that wants to shove their sexuality in your face and be seen as "special" for it. That minority is ruining it for the rest, the way I see it, which is awful...
I'm not sure that it has as much to do with that as it has to do with bigotry, I'm sorry. People have every right to want the freedom to express themselves, and if they do that by expressing their sexuality, then so be it. It's not like homosexuals are going door to door trying to convert people. And what's the problem with them wanting to be seen as special?
Well my point is more that it won't stop it from annoying some people, and these are the VOCAL minority. A lot of people think they speak for the entire group, but they don't.
I think we disagree on the other point though. I see sex as something special that you keep to yourself; something that lets you bond with someone you trust and who is important to you. It's nobody's business what happens in your sex life; nobody's but your own.
The problem with being seen as special for it is that it can (it won't always) lead to feelings of superiority. I don't think gays should get special treatment or attention or privileges at all...just treat them like anyone else.
TLDR - "I only care about someone's sexuality when I'm trying to have sex with that person!"
If you think sexuality should be private then surely you support a ban on all positive portrayals of heterosexual couples as well. I mean, ALL sex should be private right?
It should be private! Still I think banning kissing and holding hands (regardless) is going toooooo far. That's not sex, that's...well, kissing and holding hands. Hehe.
On October 12 2012 03:55 Wrath 2.1 wrote: that's good. Sex life should be something private and not something that needs advertising or parades.
That's good? How in the hell is that good? Gay pride parades being cancelled because of threats of violence, people not being able to show affection to their loved one because of fear of persecution/prosecution, outlawing of homosexuality in media? Explain to me where in this there is any good? I'll be waiting.
Sex life may not need advertising or parades, but equality sure as shit does.
The problem is the misconception that all gays are like the annoying vocal minority that wants to shove their sexuality in your face and be seen as "special" for it. That minority is ruining it for the rest, the way I see it, which is awful...
I'm not sure that it has as much to do with that as it has to do with bigotry, I'm sorry. People have every right to want the freedom to express themselves, and if they do that by expressing their sexuality, then so be it. It's not like homosexuals are going door to door trying to convert people. And what's the problem with them wanting to be seen as special?
Well my point is more that it won't stop it from annoying some people, and these are the VOCAL minority. A lot of people think they speak for the entire group, but they don't.
I think we disagree on the other point though. I see sex as something special that you keep to yourself; something that lets you bond with someone you trust and who is important to you. It's nobody's business what happens in your sex life; nobody's but your own.
The problem with being seen as special for it is that it can (it won't always) lead to feelings of superiority. I don't think gays should get special treatment or attention or privileges at all...just treat them like anyone else.
TLDR - "I only care about someone's sexuality when I'm trying to have sex with that person!"
If you think sexuality should be private then surely you support a ban on all positive portrayals of heterosexual couples as well. I mean, ALL sex should be private right?
I honestly wouldn't mind a flat ban on all sexuality related parades, be it gay or straight or w/e.
On topic though, I think banning on things like depiction in media and the rest IS too far.
On October 12 2012 03:55 Wrath 2.1 wrote: that's good. Sex life should be something private and not something that needs advertising or parades.
That's good? How in the hell is that good? Gay pride parades being cancelled because of threats of violence, people not being able to show affection to their loved one because of fear of persecution/prosecution, outlawing of homosexuality in media? Explain to me where in this there is any good? I'll be waiting.
Sex life may not need advertising or parades, but equality sure as shit does.
The problem is the misconception that all gays are like the annoying vocal minority that wants to shove their sexuality in your face and be seen as "special" for it. That minority is ruining it for the rest, the way I see it, which is awful...
I'm not sure that it has as much to do with that as it has to do with bigotry, I'm sorry. People have every right to want the freedom to express themselves, and if they do that by expressing their sexuality, then so be it. It's not like homosexuals are going door to door trying to convert people. And what's the problem with them wanting to be seen as special?
Well my point is more that it won't stop it from annoying some people, and these are the VOCAL minority. A lot of people think they speak for the entire group, but they don't.
I think we disagree on the other point though. I see sex as something special that you keep to yourself; something that lets you bond with someone you trust and who is important to you. It's nobody's business what happens in your sex life; nobody's but your own.
The problem with being seen as special for it is that it can (it won't always) lead to feelings of superiority. I don't think gays should get special treatment or attention or privileges at all...just treat them like anyone else.
TLDR - "I only care about someone's sexuality when I'm trying to have sex with that person!"
If you think sexuality should be private then surely you support a ban on all positive portrayals of heterosexual couples as well. I mean, ALL sex should be private right?
I honestly wouldn't mind a flat ban on all sexuality related parades, be it gay or straight or w/e.
On topic though, I think banning on things like depiction in media and the rest IS too far.
On October 12 2012 03:49 Klondikebar wrote: "He elaborates that the free speech of the gay minorities is a violation of other people's right to not to have to hear something offensive."
This is patently silly. Are gay people's rights violated because they have to hear the offensive line "being gay is a sin?" This really just harkens back to John Stewart when he said "you are confusing a war on religion with simply not getting your way anymore."
What sort of free speech positions does the Ukraine take? Are they as strong as they are in the US?
Edit: I also didn't realize their HIV rate was so high. If people are still stuck on the myth that homosexuality spreads HIV faster than heterosexuality then that could be the reason it's gaining such support.
The myth is rather tha HIV is much more common in homosexuals, particularly males, which is very true. That's not a myth when you look at percents. Homosexual males don't need to use a condom as a form of birth control and at the same time anal sex is significantly more likely to contract HIV due to the increased probability of minor cuts being exposed. Just like a heterosexual couple partaking in anal sex is more likely to contract HIV if one of the partners has HIV/AIDS than if they just had vaginal sex.
I am skeptical of those statistics (although I won't argue with them too hard). Homosexual men are also much more educated about HIV and are therefore more likely to be regularly tested and diagnosed. Heterosexuals are less educated and less likely to be diagnosed. The sample is very likely biased.
You are very correct that anal sex is more likely to transmit HIV though.
HIV is probably ACTUALLY more common in homosexual men in the developed world but not to the extent that they should be treated differently (aka banned from donating blood).
Uhh.... there isn't just one study. There's a ton. It's usually estimated that while homosexual men make up <8% of the male population, they generally consist of near 50% of the males infected with HIV. I know 4 different people with HIV/AIDS, unfortunately all are homosexual and all have their bachelors . Homosexuality spreads it significantly more faster given their population representation.
1/5 males estimated to have it? That's a definite high enough rate to at least double check the blood.
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 18, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has estimated that practicing homosexual men account for 61% of the new HIV infections in the United States while they only amount to about 2% of the country’s population.
Earlier this month, the CDC released estimates for HIV infections from 2006-2009 showing that new infections remained stable at around 50,000 for each of the four years.
Homosexual men (men who have sex with men) accounted for 29,300 of the estimated 48,100 new infections in 2009, and homosexual men aged 13 to 29 accounted for 27% of the new cases.
In 2005, over half of new HIV infections diagnosed in the US were among gay men, and up to one in five gay men living in cities is thought to be HIV positive. Yet two large population surveys showed that most gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners per year as straight men and women.
National HIV/AIDS Statistics By the end of 2007, cumulative AIDS diagnoses reached an estimated 1,051,875 including 37,041 in 2007.HIV transmission patterns have shifted over time. Most new HIV infections are among gay and bisexual men (53% in 2006), a smaller share than earlier in the epidemic but the only group for which new infections are on the rise. Heterosexual transmission has accounted for a growing share of new HIV infections over time, representing 31% in 2006, although they have been on the decline in recent years. New infections due to injection drug use have declined significantly over time – by approximately 80% – and accounted for 12% of new infections in 2006.
Those statistics only hold up in the US/Western Europe tho, where HIV/AIDS has never really spread beyond homosexuals and IV drug users. As an example, take any African country and the situation becomes entirely different when it spreads to the general population instead of specific subgroups that don't interact with the groups that are at risk.
If I recall correctly from what I read in newspapers, in the Ukraine the epidemic is largely due to a combination high levels of prostitution and large amounts of IV drug use by prostitutes, in which case it seems likely that most of the spread happens through heterosexual sex.
The transmission of HIV among homosexuals and bisexuals does not play as great a role in Ukraine as it does in Western Europe or North America. From 1987 to 2007, 157 cases have been officially recorded, one third of them in 2007 (48 new infections). Indeed it can be assumed that along with the increase in sexual transmission in general, the number of infections among homosexuals is rising as well.
By which I don't mean you're wrong or anything, just that different circumstances in different countries create different effects.
Makes sense, I was simply replying to the notion that it was a myth. I wouldn't be surprised though a large factor would be stigma. It's a lot harder to find a homosexual partner, I presume, when no one is open about being one. In the states, I mean, there are a ton of even hookup apps with tons of gay people on them where people just meet up for one night stands. Sure, they've tried the same on heterosexual couples, where the demand is high by males, but females don't haev that mentality, generally speaking, to just go online and be willing to screw random people they just met for fun. But when you get two males together.... there is no issue! Males are always down.
On a separate note, I've never understood people getting upset about people that are in fact "in your face." Who cares... I've had it happen to me, I think it's funny as hell. I mean, are you really getting offended by it? Or is it little more than a minor annoyance? It's making you uncomfortable? Oh boo hoo, stop fucking caring so much.... :S. Being uncomfortable about something shouldn't infringe on other people's rights.
In fact, not exaggerating or lying, I'm extremely uncomfortable around people that make anti-homosexual comments. I really dislike them. But in no way do I ever expect a law to be passed prohibiting people distaste for homosexuality. If I dislike it enough, I'll tell them to stop, or I'll just remove myself from the situation.
On October 12 2012 03:49 Klondikebar wrote: "He elaborates that the free speech of the gay minorities is a violation of other people's right to not to have to hear something offensive."
This is patently silly. Are gay people's rights violated because they have to hear the offensive line "being gay is a sin?" This really just harkens back to John Stewart when he said "you are confusing a war on religion with simply not getting your way anymore."
What sort of free speech positions does the Ukraine take? Are they as strong as they are in the US?
Edit: I also didn't realize their HIV rate was so high. If people are still stuck on the myth that homosexuality spreads HIV faster than heterosexuality then that could be the reason it's gaining such support.
The myth is rather tha HIV is much more common in homosexuals, particularly males, which is very true. That's not a myth when you look at percents. Homosexual males don't need to use a condom as a form of birth control and at the same time anal sex is significantly more likely to contract HIV due to the increased probability of minor cuts being exposed. Just like a heterosexual couple partaking in anal sex is more likely to contract HIV if one of the partners has HIV/AIDS than if they just had vaginal sex.
I am skeptical of those statistics (although I won't argue with them too hard). Homosexual men are also much more educated about HIV and are therefore more likely to be regularly tested and diagnosed. Heterosexuals are less educated and less likely to be diagnosed. The sample is very likely biased.
You are very correct that anal sex is more likely to transmit HIV though.
HIV is probably ACTUALLY more common in homosexual men in the developed world but not to the extent that they should be treated differently (aka banned from donating blood).
Uhh.... there isn't just one study. There's a ton. It's usually estimated that while homosexual men make up <8% of the male population, they generally consist of near 50% of the males infected with HIV. I know 4 different people with HIV/AIDS, unfortunately all are homosexual and all have their bachelors . Homosexuality spreads it significantly more faster given their population representation.
1/5 males estimated to have it? That's a definite high enough rate to at least double check the blood.
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 18, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has estimated that practicing homosexual men account for 61% of the new HIV infections in the United States while they only amount to about 2% of the country’s population.
Earlier this month, the CDC released estimates for HIV infections from 2006-2009 showing that new infections remained stable at around 50,000 for each of the four years.
Homosexual men (men who have sex with men) accounted for 29,300 of the estimated 48,100 new infections in 2009, and homosexual men aged 13 to 29 accounted for 27% of the new cases.
In 2005, over half of new HIV infections diagnosed in the US were among gay men, and up to one in five gay men living in cities is thought to be HIV positive. Yet two large population surveys showed that most gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners per year as straight men and women.
National HIV/AIDS Statistics By the end of 2007, cumulative AIDS diagnoses reached an estimated 1,051,875 including 37,041 in 2007.HIV transmission patterns have shifted over time. Most new HIV infections are among gay and bisexual men (53% in 2006), a smaller share than earlier in the epidemic but the only group for which new infections are on the rise. Heterosexual transmission has accounted for a growing share of new HIV infections over time, representing 31% in 2006, although they have been on the decline in recent years. New infections due to injection drug use have declined significantly over time – by approximately 80% – and accounted for 12% of new infections in 2006.
Those statistics only hold up in the US/Western Europe tho, where HIV/AIDS has never really spread beyond homosexuals and IV drug users. As an example, take any African country and the situation becomes entirely different when it spreads to the general population instead of specific subgroups that don't interact with the groups that are at risk.
If I recall correctly from what I read in newspapers, in the Ukraine the epidemic is largely due to a combination high levels of prostitution and large amounts of IV drug use by prostitutes, in which case it seems likely that most of the spread happens through heterosexual sex.
Looking up a quote on wikipedia quickly:
The transmission of HIV among homosexuals and bisexuals does not play as great a role in Ukraine as it does in Western Europe or North America. From 1987 to 2007, 157 cases have been officially recorded, one third of them in 2007 (48 new infections). Indeed it can be assumed that along with the increase in sexual transmission in general, the number of infections among homosexuals is rising as well.
By which I don't mean you're wrong or anything, just that different circumstances in different countries create different effects.
Makes sense, I was simply replying to the notion that it was a myth. I wouldn't be surprised though a large factor would be stigma. It's a lot harder to find a homosexual partner, I presume, when no one is open about being one. In the states, I mean, there are a ton of even hookup apps with tons of gay people on them where people just meet up for one night stands. Sure, they've tried the same on heterosexual couples, where the demand is high by males, but females don't haev that mentality, generally speaking, to just go online and be willing to screw random people they just met for fun. But when you get two males together.... there is no issue! Males are always down.
On October 12 2012 03:55 Wrath 2.1 wrote: that's good. Sex life should be something private and not something that needs advertising or parades.
That's good? How in the hell is that good? Gay pride parades being cancelled because of threats of violence, people not being able to show affection to their loved one because of fear of persecution/prosecution, outlawing of homosexuality in media? Explain to me where in this there is any good? I'll be waiting.
Sex life may not need advertising or parades, but equality sure as shit does.
The problem is the misconception that all gays are like the annoying vocal minority that wants to shove their sexuality in your face and be seen as "special" for it. That minority is ruining it for the rest, the way I see it, which is awful...
I'm not sure that it has as much to do with that as it has to do with bigotry, I'm sorry. People have every right to want the freedom to express themselves, and if they do that by expressing their sexuality, then so be it. It's not like homosexuals are going door to door trying to convert people. And what's the problem with them wanting to be seen as special?
Well my point is more that it won't stop it from annoying some people, and these are the VOCAL minority. A lot of people think they speak for the entire group, but they don't.
I think we disagree on the other point though. I see sex as something special that you keep to yourself; something that lets you bond with someone you trust and who is important to you. It's nobody's business what happens in your sex life; nobody's but your own.
The problem with being seen as special for it is that it can (it won't always) lead to feelings of superiority. I don't think gays should get special treatment or attention or privileges at all...just treat them like anyone else.
TLDR - "I only care about someone's sexuality when I'm trying to have sex with that person!"
Edit: What you said about how gays don't go door to door trying to convert people reminded me of this... (Warning: Language.)
And when positive portrayals of homosexuality are banned, don't you think it will lead to feelings of superiority amongst heterosexuals?
And as far as keeping sex to yourself, I'm all for that too, but that has nothing to do with banning positive portrayals of homosexuality in media. We aren't talking about some guy you work with who brags about all the dick he gets (which, mind you, is no different from the guy you work with brags about all the girls he gets), we're talking about movies depicting homosexuals positively being banned. That's just outright wrong and I don't see how you can defend that, as you have yet to do so other than to cop out with "oh, well, I don't like to hear about other people's sex lives'.
And you're just proving my point with your last statement, homosexuals should receive the same rights as everyone else. If we're allowed to portray heterosexual relationships in a positive light, then we should allow it for homosexuals as well. If heterosexuals are allowed to kiss in public, homosexuals should be as well. And to outlaw any sort of protest/pride marches is just totally outrageous. Like someone else said, if you support this concept, than it must go both ways, and that is totally medieval to me.
Just because you can't handle a display of sexuality doesn't mean other people have to save your feelings.
Oke, so you aren't comfortable with a gay parade. What part of the world is it where the government puts a gun in your neck and forces you to go there?
I don't like communists rallying, doesn't mean they should be denied the right to do so.
Where exactly do you get off making the leap from:
On October 12 2012 03:49 Klondikebar wrote: "He elaborates that the free speech of the gay minorities is a violation of other people's right to not to have to hear something offensive."
This is patently silly. Are gay people's rights violated because they have to hear the offensive line "being gay is a sin?" This really just harkens back to John Stewart when he said "you are confusing a war on religion with simply not getting your way anymore."
What sort of free speech positions does the Ukraine take? Are they as strong as they are in the US?
Edit: I also didn't realize their HIV rate was so high. If people are still stuck on the myth that homosexuality spreads HIV faster than heterosexuality then that could be the reason it's gaining such support.
The myth is rather tha HIV is much more common in homosexuals, particularly males, which is very true. That's not a myth when you look at percents. Homosexual males don't need to use a condom as a form of birth control and at the same time anal sex is significantly more likely to contract HIV due to the increased probability of minor cuts being exposed. Just like a heterosexual couple partaking in anal sex is more likely to contract HIV if one of the partners has HIV/AIDS than if they just had vaginal sex.
I am skeptical of those statistics (although I won't argue with them too hard). Homosexual men are also much more educated about HIV and are therefore more likely to be regularly tested and diagnosed. Heterosexuals are less educated and less likely to be diagnosed. The sample is very likely biased.
You are very correct that anal sex is more likely to transmit HIV though.
HIV is probably ACTUALLY more common in homosexual men in the developed world but not to the extent that they should be treated differently (aka banned from donating blood).
Uhh.... there isn't just one study. There's a ton. It's usually estimated that while homosexual men make up <8% of the male population, they generally consist of near 50% of the males infected with HIV. I know 4 different people with HIV/AIDS, unfortunately all are homosexual and all have their bachelors . Homosexuality spreads it significantly more faster given their population representation.
1/5 males estimated to have it? That's a definite high enough rate to at least double check the blood.
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 18, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has estimated that practicing homosexual men account for 61% of the new HIV infections in the United States while they only amount to about 2% of the country’s population.
Earlier this month, the CDC released estimates for HIV infections from 2006-2009 showing that new infections remained stable at around 50,000 for each of the four years.
Homosexual men (men who have sex with men) accounted for 29,300 of the estimated 48,100 new infections in 2009, and homosexual men aged 13 to 29 accounted for 27% of the new cases.
In 2005, over half of new HIV infections diagnosed in the US were among gay men, and up to one in five gay men living in cities is thought to be HIV positive. Yet two large population surveys showed that most gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners per year as straight men and women.
National HIV/AIDS Statistics By the end of 2007, cumulative AIDS diagnoses reached an estimated 1,051,875 including 37,041 in 2007.HIV transmission patterns have shifted over time. Most new HIV infections are among gay and bisexual men (53% in 2006), a smaller share than earlier in the epidemic but the only group for which new infections are on the rise. Heterosexual transmission has accounted for a growing share of new HIV infections over time, representing 31% in 2006, although they have been on the decline in recent years. New infections due to injection drug use have declined significantly over time – by approximately 80% – and accounted for 12% of new infections in 2006.
Those statistics only hold up in the US/Western Europe tho, where HIV/AIDS has never really spread beyond homosexuals and IV drug users. As an example, take any African country and the situation becomes entirely different when it spreads to the general population instead of specific subgroups that don't interact with the groups that are at risk.
If I recall correctly from what I read in newspapers, in the Ukraine the epidemic is largely due to a combination high levels of prostitution and large amounts of IV drug use by prostitutes, in which case it seems likely that most of the spread happens through heterosexual sex.
Looking up a quote on wikipedia quickly:
The transmission of HIV among homosexuals and bisexuals does not play as great a role in Ukraine as it does in Western Europe or North America. From 1987 to 2007, 157 cases have been officially recorded, one third of them in 2007 (48 new infections). Indeed it can be assumed that along with the increase in sexual transmission in general, the number of infections among homosexuals is rising as well.
By which I don't mean you're wrong or anything, just that different circumstances in different countries create different effects.
Makes sense, I was simply replying to the notion that it was a myth. I wouldn't be surprised though a large factor would be stigma. It's a lot harder to find a homosexual partner, I presume, when no one is open about being one. In the states, I mean, there are a ton of even hookup apps with tons of gay people on them where people just meet up for one night stands. Sure, they've tried the same on heterosexual couples, where the demand is high by males, but females don't haev that mentality, generally speaking, to just go online and be willing to screw random people they just met for fun. But when you get two males together.... there is no issue! Males are always down.
Uhhh STDs? Shouldn't that be a big deal here?
..... yes.... and HIV is infact an STD, hence it being so much more common in homosexual couples. Which is exactly the point my post was making on why it's spread so much more in homosexual couples. Because males are significantly more willing to have sex with random people it seems than females - so when you're in a situation where it's two males.... they're more likely to have sex more.
Its kinda amusing that the most 'liberal' [generally actually social democrats] members of our society are exactly the ones peddling this retarded notion that you have a right not to be offended, which such a notion is entirely abused by radical muslims, xenophobes etc-- basically illiberal types.
On October 12 2012 04:45 whatevername wrote: Its kinda amusing that the most 'liberal' [generally actually social democrats] members of our society are exactly the ones peddling this retarded notion that you have a right not to be offended, which such a notion is entirely abused by radical muslims, xenophobes etc-- basically illiberal types.
On October 12 2012 04:45 whatevername wrote: Its kinda amusing that the most 'liberal' [generally actually social democrats] members of our society are exactly the ones peddling this retarded notion that you have a right not to be offended, which such a notion is entirely abused by radical muslims, xenophobes etc-- basically illiberal types.
It's only abused because they dish it but they can't take it. It's fine if you try to convert me all the time, as long as I can call you on your bull shit. If you advocate freedom of speech when you spread the religion, then be offended when people speak out, then it's not freedom of speech that's being abused, it's a double standard.
On October 12 2012 04:45 whatevername wrote: Its kinda amusing that the most 'liberal' [generally actually social democrats] members of our society are exactly the ones peddling this retarded notion that you have a right not to be offended, which such a notion is entirely abused by radical muslims, xenophobes etc-- basically illiberal types.
I don't know where you are from but thats literally the opposite of the truth in the case of canda and usa.
On October 12 2012 04:45 zalz wrote: Just because you can't handle a display of sexuality doesn't mean other people have to save your feelings.
Oke, so you aren't comfortable with a gay parade. What part of the world is it where the government puts a gun in your neck and forces you to go there?
I don't like communists rallying, doesn't mean they should be denied the right to do so.
Where exactly do you get off making the leap from:
"I am uncomfortable with sex"
too
"Other people must live life the way I dictate"
When was the last time you saw a straight pride parade? No? Because straight people never felt the need to feel special.
If LGBTs want to be treated like everyone else they should start doing so themselves. There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays with the internet and all.
On October 12 2012 04:45 whatevername wrote: Its kinda amusing that the most 'liberal' [generally actually social democrats] members of our society are exactly the ones peddling this retarded notion that you have a right not to be offended, which such a notion is entirely abused by radical muslims, xenophobes etc-- basically illiberal types.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
He's saying that liberals have the idea that people have a right to not be subject to things they might find offensive, while non-liberals are the ones actually carrying out that idea in legislature.
On October 12 2012 03:55 Wrath 2.1 wrote: that's good. Sex life should be something private and not something that needs advertising or parades.
That's good? How in the hell is that good? Gay pride parades being cancelled because of threats of violence, people not being able to show affection to their loved one because of fear of persecution/prosecution, outlawing of homosexuality in media? Explain to me where in this there is any good? I'll be waiting.
Sex life may not need advertising or parades, but equality sure as shit does.
The problem is the misconception that all gays are like the annoying vocal minority that wants to shove their sexuality in your face and be seen as "special" for it. That minority is ruining it for the rest, the way I see it, which is awful...
I'm not sure that it has as much to do with that as it has to do with bigotry, I'm sorry. People have every right to want the freedom to express themselves, and if they do that by expressing their sexuality, then so be it. It's not like homosexuals are going door to door trying to convert people. And what's the problem with them wanting to be seen as special?
Well my point is more that it won't stop it from annoying some people, and these are the VOCAL minority. A lot of people think they speak for the entire group, but they don't.
I think we disagree on the other point though. I see sex as something special that you keep to yourself; something that lets you bond with someone you trust and who is important to you. It's nobody's business what happens in your sex life; nobody's but your own.
The problem with being seen as special for it is that it can (it won't always) lead to feelings of superiority. I don't think gays should get special treatment or attention or privileges at all...just treat them like anyone else.
TLDR - "I only care about someone's sexuality when I'm trying to have sex with that person!"
Edit: What you said about how gays don't go door to door trying to convert people reminded me of this... (Warning: Language.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ANrvQC4wIk
And when positive portrayals of homosexuality are banned, don't you think it will lead to feelings of superiority amongst heterosexuals?
And as far as keeping sex to yourself, I'm all for that too, but that has nothing to do with banning positive portrayals of homosexuality in media. We aren't talking about some guy you work with who brags about all the dick he gets (which, mind you, is no different from the guy you work with brags about all the girls he gets), we're talking about movies depicting homosexuals positively being banned. That's just outright wrong and I don't see how you can defend that, as you have yet to do so other than to cop out with "oh, well, I don't like to hear about other people's sex lives'.
And you're just proving my point with your last statement, homosexuals should receive the same rights as everyone else. If we're allowed to portray heterosexual relationships in a positive light, then we should allow it for homosexuals as well. If heterosexuals are allowed to kiss in public, homosexuals should be as well. And to outlaw any sort of protest/pride marches is just totally outrageous. Like someone else said, if you support this concept, than it must go both ways, and that is totally medieval to me.
I think you missed my point. It does go both ways, but kissing or holding hands isn't sex...so why would I care? Answer: I don't. I don't care about what happens in movies or books because someone can choose not to watch a movie or not to read a book...the only part where we disagree is the pride marches. (I mean imagine what would ensue if someone organized a straight pride march - talk about double standard, and that's just one problem!)
But little things like kissing...no. Those shouldn't be banned. I never said they should, nor will I ever.
On October 12 2012 04:45 zalz wrote: Just because you can't handle a display of sexuality doesn't mean other people have to save your feelings.
Oke, so you aren't comfortable with a gay parade. What part of the world is it where the government puts a gun in your neck and forces you to go there?
I don't like communists rallying, doesn't mean they should be denied the right to do so.
Where exactly do you get off making the leap from:
"I am uncomfortable with sex"
too
"Other people must live life the way I dictate"
When was the last time you saw a straight pride parade? No? Because straight people never felt the need to feel special.
If LGBTs want to be treated like everyone else they should start doing so themselves. There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays with the internet and all.
You don't see straight pride parades because people aren't assaulted and murdered for being straight, and they don't have to fight for more rights to openly express their heterosexuality. I'm sorry, but that's a stupid argument.
On October 12 2012 04:45 whatevername wrote: Its kinda amusing that the most 'liberal' [generally actually social democrats] members of our society are exactly the ones peddling this retarded notion that you have a right not to be offended, which such a notion is entirely abused by radical muslims, xenophobes etc-- basically illiberal types.
Hm... I don't think I've noticed this trend at all. Any specific scenarios you can think of?
I have mixed views at the same time. For example, I think there should be limitations on what the Westboro Baptist church can do with their protests. I do not think they should be denied the opportunity to protest, but I do think that there should possibly be a limitation on where they can protest (aka they must remove themselves at least half a mile from the vicinity of the funeral itself if they wish to partake in a protest).
Although I guess it would depend if the funeral is on public grounds or not. Same thing with the facebook trolls who specifically go out to sites honoring a recently diseased, posting trollish comments about how they revel in the fact the victim died and would commit certain explicit necrophilic acts on the corpses or what not. Do you have a right to do so? I question it. Just because it was posted on a public forum, such as facebook, I'm not sure I think it warrants the right to say whatever... I do not think absolute free speech is a good or positive thing for society.
On October 12 2012 04:45 zalz wrote: Just because you can't handle a display of sexuality doesn't mean other people have to save your feelings.
Oke, so you aren't comfortable with a gay parade. What part of the world is it where the government puts a gun in your neck and forces you to go there?
I don't like communists rallying, doesn't mean they should be denied the right to do so.
Where exactly do you get off making the leap from:
"I am uncomfortable with sex"
too
"Other people must live life the way I dictate"
When was the last time you saw a straight pride parade? No? Because straight people never felt the need to feel special.
If LGBTs want to be treated like everyone else they should start doing so themselves. There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays with the internet and all.
Really? I see straight pride parades all the time. Every chick flick, frat party, valentine's day, wedding ceremony, club, sitcom, and advertisement is a celebration of heteronormativity (i.e. a straight pride parade).
On October 12 2012 03:55 Wrath 2.1 wrote: that's good. Sex life should be something private and not something that needs advertising or parades.
That's good? How in the hell is that good? Gay pride parades being cancelled because of threats of violence, people not being able to show affection to their loved one because of fear of persecution/prosecution, outlawing of homosexuality in media? Explain to me where in this there is any good? I'll be waiting.
Sex life may not need advertising or parades, but equality sure as shit does.
The problem is the misconception that all gays are like the annoying vocal minority that wants to shove their sexuality in your face and be seen as "special" for it. That minority is ruining it for the rest, the way I see it, which is awful...
I'm not sure that it has as much to do with that as it has to do with bigotry, I'm sorry. People have every right to want the freedom to express themselves, and if they do that by expressing their sexuality, then so be it. It's not like homosexuals are going door to door trying to convert people. And what's the problem with them wanting to be seen as special?
Well my point is more that it won't stop it from annoying some people, and these are the VOCAL minority. A lot of people think they speak for the entire group, but they don't.
I think we disagree on the other point though. I see sex as something special that you keep to yourself; something that lets you bond with someone you trust and who is important to you. It's nobody's business what happens in your sex life; nobody's but your own.
The problem with being seen as special for it is that it can (it won't always) lead to feelings of superiority. I don't think gays should get special treatment or attention or privileges at all...just treat them like anyone else.
TLDR - "I only care about someone's sexuality when I'm trying to have sex with that person!"
Edit: What you said about how gays don't go door to door trying to convert people reminded me of this... (Warning: Language.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ANrvQC4wIk
And when positive portrayals of homosexuality are banned, don't you think it will lead to feelings of superiority amongst heterosexuals?
And as far as keeping sex to yourself, I'm all for that too, but that has nothing to do with banning positive portrayals of homosexuality in media. We aren't talking about some guy you work with who brags about all the dick he gets (which, mind you, is no different from the guy you work with brags about all the girls he gets), we're talking about movies depicting homosexuals positively being banned. That's just outright wrong and I don't see how you can defend that, as you have yet to do so other than to cop out with "oh, well, I don't like to hear about other people's sex lives'.
And you're just proving my point with your last statement, homosexuals should receive the same rights as everyone else. If we're allowed to portray heterosexual relationships in a positive light, then we should allow it for homosexuals as well. If heterosexuals are allowed to kiss in public, homosexuals should be as well. And to outlaw any sort of protest/pride marches is just totally outrageous. Like someone else said, if you support this concept, than it must go both ways, and that is totally medieval to me.
I think you missed my point. It does go both ways, but kissing or holding hands isn't sex...so why would I care? Answer: I don't. I don't care about what happens in movies or books because someone can choose not to watch a movie or not to read a book...the only part where we disagree is the pride marches. (I mean imagine what would ensue if someone organized a straight pride march - talk about double standard, and that's just one problem!)
But little things like kissing...no. Those shouldn't be banned. I never said they should, nor will I ever.
People have every right to a straight pride parade. The fact is, most homosexuals have to endure the fear of being alienated from their family, being verbally and physically assaulted, and many other things that heterosexuals don't have to go through based on their sexuality. For some, the pride marches are to show that they aren't alone and that together they can stand up to inequality.
And as far as your stance on everything else, sorry if I missed you saying that you are against the banning of media, etc.
On October 12 2012 04:45 whatevername wrote: Its kinda amusing that the most 'liberal' [generally actually social democrats] members of our society are exactly the ones peddling this retarded notion that you have a right not to be offended, which such a notion is entirely abused by radical muslims, xenophobes etc-- basically illiberal types.
I don't know where you are from but thats literally the opposite of the truth in the case of canda and usa.
Yeah except no. Liberals in Canada advocate human rights councils, literally have banned people from publishing articles because they said something 'hateful' i.e offensive. Democrats in America are constantly bitching that we should be respectful and tolerant. Sure, they arent arguing for legal restrictions but they are culturally enshrining the notion that we shouldnt offend anyone.
EPT
. Homosexuality spreads it significantly more faster given their population representation. 
(Warning: Language.)
