Ukraine will vote next week (mid-October 2012) on the national bill on "homosexual propaganda". The bill aims to outlaw any "positive depiction" of gay people, including joining in gay parade marches, same-sex displays of affection (kissing, holding hands), and even watching "gay films" like Brokeback Mountain.
Ukraine has traditionally been a tolerant society, decriminalizing homosexuality as early as 1991. But surprisingly, the legislation is getting massive support in the country. A representative of one of the supporters of the bill frames the argument against homosexuality stating that one's individual freedom "are limited by the freedom of someone else." 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. He goes on to accuse a worldwide conspiracy of Masons, New-Agers, postmodernists and financiers of various nationalities, of imposing ideas that are not "characteristic for Ukraine" on the nation's children. He continues that gay propaganda could could damage efforts to stem Ukraine's already stratospheric HIV rate, if, for example, some anti-Aids information were to be prohibited.
The universal support to this anti-homosexual bill is reflected in recent events in Ukraine, as the first Gay Pride march in Kiev was cancelled after violent threats from opposing groups. There have also been an increase in the incidents of attacks on gay activists in the country.
POSSIBLE TALKING POINTS - Ukraine's stance on homosexuality versus the more liberal and tolerant stance by the rest of the modern world - Particular cultural factors in Ukraine that may have influenced this issue - Possible venues to explore by both parties to come up with a rational and mutually-beneficial solution to everyone concerned
The Ukrainian parliament could give final approval next week to a bill that aims to outlaw "pro-homosexual propaganda" - any "positive depiction" of gay people, gay pride marches, or even the screening of a film like Brokeback Mountain.
Critics have described the legislation, which imposes indeterminate fines and up to five years in prison for repeat offenders, as a throwback to the Middle Ages, although it is only a couple of decades since homosexuality was a criminal offence here and in the rest of the USSR.
In some ways, Ukraine is an open and tolerant society. It was the first former Soviet republic to decriminalise homosexuality, in 1991. It has sprouted its own gay rights movement, and gay night clubs operate freely in central Kiev.
But despite this, the bill - which sailed through its first reading last week - enjoys wide backing. All major political parties are united in support, and polls indicate that many Ukrainians support some restrictions on the rights of sexual minorities.
One of the legislation's incubators is the Christian Hope evangelical church in Kiev. Located in a nondescript five-story structure outside the city centre, Christian Hope provides a wide array of educational and charity services, and has established a network of some 150 churches throughout Ukraine. It has also helped collect thousands of signatures in support of three anti-gay bills put forward in parliament this year.
After a rousing service in the church's warehouse-like auditorium focusing on the agonies of sin and bliss of salvation, I meet the chief pastor, Valery Reshetinsky. For him, the fight against homosexuality is a matter of "national security" upon which the survival of the nation depends.
"Here's the issue," says Pastor Reshetinsky, a large-boned man with a slight moustache, tells me. "In a real democracy, my freedom and rights are limited by the freedom of someone else."
In his opinion, freedom of speech for sexual minorities is a violation of what he considers his inalienable right not to have to hear something he finds offensive.
"You can't do everything that you want to do, because there are people who have the exact same rights as you do," he insists.
The pastor goes on to accuse a worldwide conspiracy of Masons, New-Agers, postmodernists and financiers of various nationalities, of imposing ideas that are not "characteristic for Ukraine" on the nation's children.
The first reading of the bill last week unleashed a deluge of condemnation from human rights organisations, both inside and outside Ukraine, who have christened it a "gay gag law". The ban would be a gross violation of European and international conventions, they say, leading to further marginalisation of Ukraine's LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community.
It could also damage efforts to stem Ukraine's already stratospheric HIV rate, if, for example, some anti-Aids information were to be prohibited.
It may be no coincidence that a number of gay activists have been attacked in recent months.
The first ever Gay Pride march planned in Kiev was called off at the last minute in May after threats of violence from far-right groups.
Immediately after a news conference announcing the decision, masked assailants kicked and jumped on Svyatoslav Sheremet, head of Gay Forum of Ukraine.
"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.
Ukraine has traditionally been a tolerant society, decriminalizing homosexuality as early as 1991.
In other words they maintained the Soviet policy that had preceded it. Relatively speaking how do the rest of the former satellite states compare?
I don't mean to lump the region into a neat little package, but from my studies I know that other minority groups (specifically Romani) still have large social hurdles to overcome in Eastern Europe as a region in general. I am curious if a stigma in Ukraine could be likened to that of the one against Romani.
On October 12 2012 03:49 Klondikebar wrote: 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."
Quoted, simply because I don't think anything has ever made MORE sense to me in my entire life. Sadly, this is true of the entire social conservative agenda.
I hope this is merely a flash in the pan sort of political event, but hate can sometimes surprise even me with how powerful and swaying it can be on a national level. Let's hope equality wins in the end.
On October 12 2012 03:53 ThomasjServo wrote: I don't mean to lump the region into a neat little package, but from my studies I know that other minority groups (specifically Romani) still have large social hurdles to overcome in Eastern Europe as a region in general.
The trick is, they don't even try. Romani are known for being thieves and frauds, supported by statistics.
I would really ask you to stop judging the country without knowing anything about it.
On October 12 2012 03:56 Navi wrote: "gay propaganda = anti-aids information?"
T_T seems like misinformation as a society
The Church used to, I say that only in that I don't know they continue to, spread disinformation about the effectiveness of condoms in third world countries. A sad world we live in sometimes.
Game of Thrones is going to take a hit in Ukraine sales along with Spartacus and any other realistic depiction of life... They have men kissing. Oh god and... public displays of affection by homosexuals being outlawed? Well at least it's not in North America this time where all the shit is happening.
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.
Sex should be public.
I say so, now you must all submit to what I say, because my feelings are so damn important that I cannot tolerate even the notion that some might disagree, or feel different.
If you disagree, you have offended me to my core, and you must stand trial for that grave sin against humanity.
It's interesting how the Slavic nations that were the pioneers of social freedoms and human equality are now becoming rather conservative and contradicting their policies of the 20th century.
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.
On October 12 2012 03:53 ThomasjServo wrote: I don't mean to lump the region into a neat little package, but from my studies I know that other minority groups (specifically Romani) still have large social hurdles to overcome in Eastern Europe as a region in general.
The trick is, they don't even try. Romani are known for being thieves and frauds, supported by statistics.
I would really ask you to stop judging the country without knowing anything about it.
There was no judgement implied, apologies if it came off that way, every country has a group which is statistically supported to disproportionately represented with respect to crime statistics. That group was simply the first to come to mind.
I only hoped to liken it so much as both are minority groups which are being assigned negative stereotypes at some level, though ostensibly the Romani earned the reputation per your response.
On October 12 2012 03:49 Klondikebar wrote: 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."
Quoted, simply because I don't think anything has ever made MORE sense to me in my entire life. Sadly, this is true of the entire social conservative agenda.
Agreed for the most part. I do like that Stewart quote, and although I don't particularly enjoy endorsing generalizations, much of the "anti-gay" crap going around really can be attributed to social conservatism. The way I see it, people with religious backgrounds (for the most part) were getting uncomfortable about the idea that they may be slightly personally inconvenienced in order to vastly improve how society understands and accepts homosexuality. Since religion and various political regimes have condemned homosexuality for so many years (to varying extents), these people didn't like how they were outside of their comfort zone, and are fighting to bring back bigotry.
Silly. It's all so silly. Can't we just love one another and get along? :/
On October 12 2012 03:56 Navi wrote: "gay propaganda = anti-aids information?"
T_T seems like misinformation as a society
Funnily enough, spreading misinformation is one of the primary effects of propaganda.
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.
Isn't the main purpose of a gay pride parade to get people to understand and accept homosexuality? People wouldn't be holding gay pride parades if homosexuals weren't discriminated against the way they are.
On October 12 2012 03:53 ThomasjServo wrote: I don't mean to lump the region into a neat little package, but from my studies I know that other minority groups (specifically Romani) still have large social hurdles to overcome in Eastern Europe as a region in general.
The trick is, they don't even try. Romani are known for being thieves and frauds, supported by statistics.
I would really ask you to stop judging the country without knowing anything about it.
I admit, I'm not privy to the experience of living in a country with Romani as a significant demographic, but I've noticed that whenever the subject of Romani comes up, people from those countries tend to launch vehement verbal attacks on them. Statistics and facts are well and good, but surely you must realize that it's a little unfair to judge all of a minority based on the actions of >all. Again, I'm not as informed as I'd like to be, but is this sort of sentiment (that all Romani are thieves, frauds, and criminals) generally supported by the general populace in Ukraine and related nations? Do the actions of a (relative) few really justify the hate that every Romani gets? How and why is this stigma so prevalent?
On October 12 2012 03:53 ThomasjServo wrote: I don't mean to lump the region into a neat little package, but from my studies I know that other minority groups (specifically Romani) still have large social hurdles to overcome in Eastern Europe as a region in general.
The trick is, they don't even try. Romani are known for being thieves and frauds, supported by statistics.
I would really ask you to stop judging the country without knowing anything about it.
That's because they've been treated worse than scum for thousands of years, and often have been sterilized by force by the local government as a standard practice. Romani as a whole have a higher criminality rate, but it hardly means all of them are criminal, or even a big portion. The treatment of Romani in eastern and southern Europe is a disgrace.
total bullshit bill... If the ukrainian people would have a say in that, I wouldn't care, as they can do what they want in their country. If a representative government thinks it is a pressing issue to decide whether there will be gay parades in the future or not, well, I would call it basically useless. Trying to regulate sexual orientations of the population, how ridicilous
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).
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 bill aims to outlaw any "positive depiction" of gay people, including joining in gay parade marches, same-sex displays of affection (kissing, holding hands), and even watching "gay films" like Brokeback Mountain.
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.
So you agree that the bill should be extended to outlawing positive depictions of straight people, kissing and holding hands between straight people in public, and watching "straight films" like Bridget Jones' Diary?
Or no, wait, this is still about homophobia and nothing to do with privacy.
Do these people believe that one day everyone is going to turn homosexual? They must themselves find the same sex attractive if they are even considering this; they must ban it before they let their gay feelings overwhelm them! Hetero's shouldn't be thinking about homosexuality at all unless they are struggling with their own closet feelings.
Why can't people just stay the hell out of other people's lives? First rule of earth should be don't fucking tell anyone what to do unless it directly impacts your life in a harmful way.
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.
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...
With ongoing parliaments election campaign in Ukraine you can't take any of this news too seriously, really... too much speculations, mass manipulations, propaganda etc. in fight for votes. Hopefully with end of elections everything will fall into place.
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 .
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.
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 .
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.
Don't bet to much on this parliament, guys. They just want to lool like nice to the world but they're doing a lot of shit inside the country. They want to do things in european way, but the most part of ukrainians won't change their minds that way. This parliament and this president look like a joke, but it's not funny at all in here.
"No positive depiction of gay people", according to the article... holy crap, so much for saying homosexuality is the problem- it's apparently the fact that gay people are just bad people. lol wow. That's just plain insensitive and ignorant -.-'
What's the main driving force for such hostility against homosexuality in the Ukraine? Is it a strongly religious or conservative country or something? Did they recently get taken over by a country with a gay leader? What's their deal?
And with all this HIV talk... Showing a statistic that non-straight couples are more likely to spread HIV, you'd have a huge slippery slope on your hands there, considering it's surely the case that a specific race or other groups are people are more likely to spread HIV as well (clearly, far more Africans spread it than non-Africans: http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm should Africans not be allowed to marry or even have relationships?). Also, isn't the spread of HIV much more prevalent in dirty needles and lack of contraception use and lack of STD check-ups, rather than "oh my gosh you're gay, therefore you're more likely to spread HIV"?
TL;DR- White-Ra needs to teach his country that two men performing special tactics on one another is not an abomination.
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?
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.)
On October 12 2012 04:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: TL;DR- White-Ra needs to teach his country that two men performing special tactics on one another is not an abomination.
Unfortunately, in order to do that, he first needs to fight his way through an army of Zealots.
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?
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.
On October 12 2012 03:44 journaIist wrote: After a rousing service in the church's warehouse-like auditorium focusing on the agonies of sin and bliss of salvation, I meet the chief pastor, Valery Reshetinsky. For him, the fight against homosexuality is a matter of "national security" upon which the survival of the nation depends.
"Here's the issue," says Pastor Reshetinsky, a large-boned man with a slight moustache, tells me. "In a real democracy, my freedom and rights are limited by the freedom of someone else."
In his opinion, freedom of speech for sexual minorities is a violation of what he considers his inalienable right not to have to hear something he finds offensive.
"You can't do everything that you want to do, because there are people who have the exact same rights as you do," he insists.
The pastor goes on to accuse a worldwide conspiracy of Masons, New-Agers, postmodernists and financiers of various nationalities, of imposing ideas that are not "characteristic for Ukraine" on the nation's children.
How about the freedom of Ukrainians to not to have to be subjected to terribly offensive ideas like his?
This brings to mind a mini documentary I watched during EURO2012 where they showed some of the political situation in Ukraine. It seems quite bleak to me, with corruption and lack of a future and such, so I can't really imagine people being dumb enough to fall for such divisive language, but I don't know. I guess every time on TL when there is gay bashing it is from Eastern Europeans, so maybe it actually has majority support there. *shudder*
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.) 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.
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.
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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
SOME displays of sexuality should in general not happen in (too) public areas. I don't want to see random people fucking on the streets, and i think most people agree with that. It does not matter if they are gay or not. However, this is not what this is about. If we talk about holding hands or kissing, i don't see a problem.
And why would one outlaw gay pride parades? That sounds ridiculous. What is so much worse about gay people parading that they like to be gay when compared to for example techno guys parading around playing insanely loud techno? The latter is probably more annoying if you live close to it. And if it is more of a political demonstration, don't people have a right to demonstrate about basically anything? If Nazis are allowed to demonstrate, outlawing gay demonstrations is just plain wrong.
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.
Your argument has little to do with what we're talking about here. If you want to talk about oversensitivity in America, that's fine, but we're talking about what's going on in the Ukraine.
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.
That's okay, and I'm glad you think that way, but I know for sure other people would twist a "straight pride parade" into an "anti-gay parade"...and I hate double standards. This is why we can't have nice things. D:
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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
And what the fuck is up with everyone saying "they want to be/feel special". This is just bigotry, flat out. People are fighting for the same rights as everyone else. That's like saying that African Americans in the 60's just wanted to eat in the same restaurants as whites so they could "feel special". Give me a fucking break.
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).
Chick flick, sitcoms and ads - in my previous post I said banning gayness in films and media goes too far
Valentine's day - When was this a only heterosexual thing? Thanks corporate America
Weddings and clubs - Personally I'm pro-gay marriage, but the difference between these and parades is that club events don't block my fucking road.
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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
And what the fuck is up with everyone saying "they want to be/feel special". This is just bigotry, flat out. People are fighting for the same rights as everyone else. That's like saying that African Americans in the 60's just wanted to eat in the same restaurants as whites so they could "feel special". Give me a fucking break.
Think we'll just agree to disagree here.
To clarify more on my personal stance, I find pretty much most demonstrations / parades fucking annoying. No bigotry intended.
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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
And what the fuck is up with everyone saying "they want to be/feel special". This is just bigotry, flat out. People are fighting for the same rights as everyone else. That's like saying that African Americans in the 60's just wanted to eat in the same restaurants as whites so they could "feel special". Give me a fucking break.
Think we'll just agree to disagree here.
To clarify more on my personal stance, I find pretty much most demonstrations / parades fucking annoying. No bigotry intended.
I understand your point about parades and demonstrations being annoying, and that they can mess up your routine. But it's not like they're spur of the moment things. They are planned months in advance and if a road is going to be shut down, then there will be signs letting you know beforehand. If you don't plan around it that's on you. And I'm not saying it's bigotry to be against those sorts of demonstrations (although I really, really, really disagree with you), I'm saying it's bigotry to disregard pride marches and other demonstrations as homosexuals "wanting to feel special".
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).
Chick flick, sitcoms and ads - in my previous post I said banning gayness in films and media goes too far
Valentine's day - When was this a only heterosexual thing? Thanks corporate America
Weddings and clubs - Personally I'm pro-gay marriage, but the difference between these and parades is that club events don't block my fucking road.
My point is that there are no straight pride parades because you don't need them. When have you ever been ashamed of being straight? Heterosexuality is the default. Society caters to it. You don't need to publicly identify your orientation because everyone just assumes it. Gay pride is really about identifying to other gay people that they aren't alone and they don't need to be ashamed of not being the default orientation.
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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
True. However, there have been times where things get out of control sexually and I am vividly reminded of those street fairs which really, REALLY should take place inside. Maybe I'm biased because I find it offensive on a personal level that to some people sex isn't sacred, but it's not like I have the right to change their minds on that...just please keep it where other people who might not want to see it won't see it? I don't think it's really too much to ask but of course whenever I bring this up to anyone, I get slammed as being "anti-gay" or...something.
Edit: To address your edit, yes, some people in the LGBT crowd do think they're "special" like that (being one of that crowd, I know some personally) but it's a vocal minority that gives the whole group a bad image, and that is not fair to anyone.
So the article doesn't say. . .does this have any shot of actually going through? That would be ridiculous.
As something of a side point, I always find the "Hurr durr they're shoving their sexuality in our face!!" nonsense amusing when it comes to homosexuality. Turn on your TV and watch some adverts and tell me heterosexuality isn't being "shoved down your throat" to a far greater degree, and that's just the start of it.
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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
True. However, there have been times where things get out of control sexually and I am vividly reminded of those street fairs which really, REALLY should take place inside. Maybe I'm biased because I find it offensive on a personal level that to some people sex isn't sacred, but it's not like I have the right to change their minds on that...just please keep it where other people who might not want to see it won't see it? I don't think it's really too much to ask but of course whenever I bring this up to anyone, I get slammed as being "anti-gay" or...something.
I'm offended that people believe in gods and what not. I think religious conventions be forced to be indoors only. See where I'm going?
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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
True. However, there have been times where things get out of control sexually and I am vividly reminded of those street fairs which really, REALLY should take place inside. Maybe I'm biased because I find it offensive on a personal level that to some people sex isn't sacred, but it's not like I have the right to change their minds on that...just please keep it where other people who might not want to see it won't see it? I don't think it's really too much to ask but of course whenever I bring this up to anyone, I get slammed as being "anti-gay" or...something.
I'm offended that people believe in gods and what not. I think religious conventions be forced to be indoors only. See where I'm going?
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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
True. However, there have been times where things get out of control sexually and I am vividly reminded of those street fairs which really, REALLY should take place inside. Maybe I'm biased because I find it offensive on a personal level that to some people sex isn't sacred, but it's not like I have the right to change their minds on that...just please keep it where other people who might not want to see it won't see it? I don't think it's really too much to ask but of course whenever I bring this up to anyone, I get slammed as being "anti-gay" or...something.
I'm offended that people believe in gods and what not. I think religious conventions be forced to be indoors only. See where I'm going?
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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
True. However, there have been times where things get out of control sexually and I am vividly reminded of those street fairs which really, REALLY should take place inside. Maybe I'm biased because I find it offensive on a personal level that to some people sex isn't sacred, but it's not like I have the right to change their minds on that...just please keep it where other people who might not want to see it won't see it? I don't think it's really too much to ask but of course whenever I bring this up to anyone, I get slammed as being "anti-gay" or...something.
I'm offended that people believe in gods and what not. I think religious conventions be forced to be indoors only. See where I'm going?
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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
True. However, there have been times where things get out of control sexually and I am vividly reminded of those street fairs which really, REALLY should take place inside. Maybe I'm biased because I find it offensive on a personal level that to some people sex isn't sacred, but it's not like I have the right to change their minds on that...just please keep it where other people who might not want to see it won't see it? I don't think it's really too much to ask but of course whenever I bring this up to anyone, I get slammed as being "anti-gay" or...something.
I'm offended that people believe in gods and what not. I think religious conventions be forced to be indoors only. See where I'm going?
No, because a lot of them already are indoors...
Pretty sure most sex is too so the analogy holds just fine.
Do you think all religion should be forced to only be indoors?
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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
True. However, there have been times where things get out of control sexually and I am vividly reminded of those street fairs which really, REALLY should take place inside. Maybe I'm biased because I find it offensive on a personal level that to some people sex isn't sacred, but it's not like I have the right to change their minds on that...just please keep it where other people who might not want to see it won't see it? I don't think it's really too much to ask but of course whenever I bring this up to anyone, I get slammed as being "anti-gay" or...something.
Edit: To address your edit, yes, some people in the LGBT crowd do think they're "special" like that (being one of that crowd, I know some personally) but it's a vocal minority that gives the whole group a bad image, and that is not fair to anyone.
Public indecency laws already apply to everyone, I'm not sure what additional measures you'd like to see implemented.
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.
Bolded part 100% nullifies your argument. It is not relevant even in the most remote of details that they are "constantly bitching."
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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
True. However, there have been times where things get out of control sexually and I am vividly reminded of those street fairs which really, REALLY should take place inside. Maybe I'm biased because I find it offensive on a personal level that to some people sex isn't sacred, but it's not like I have the right to change their minds on that...just please keep it where other people who might not want to see it won't see it? I don't think it's really too much to ask but of course whenever I bring this up to anyone, I get slammed as being "anti-gay" or...something.
I'm offended that people believe in gods and what not. I think religious conventions be forced to be indoors only. See where I'm going?
No, because a lot of them already are indoors...
Pretty sure most sex is too so the analogy holds just fine.
Do you think all religion should be forced to only be indoors?
Maybe you guys didn't get what I was specifically referring to. I wasn't sure it was so good to bring it up here...
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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
True. However, there have been times where things get out of control sexually and I am vividly reminded of those street fairs which really, REALLY should take place inside. Maybe I'm biased because I find it offensive on a personal level that to some people sex isn't sacred, but it's not like I have the right to change their minds on that...just please keep it where other people who might not want to see it won't see it? I don't think it's really too much to ask but of course whenever I bring this up to anyone, I get slammed as being "anti-gay" or...something.
Edit: To address your edit, yes, some people in the LGBT crowd do think they're "special" like that (being one of that crowd, I know some personally) but it's a vocal minority that gives the whole group a bad image, and that is not fair to anyone.
Public indecency laws already apply to everyone, I'm not sure what additional measures you'd like to see implemented.
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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
True. However, there have been times where things get out of control sexually and I am vividly reminded of those street fairs which really, REALLY should take place inside. Maybe I'm biased because I find it offensive on a personal level that to some people sex isn't sacred, but it's not like I have the right to change their minds on that...just please keep it where other people who might not want to see it won't see it? I don't think it's really too much to ask but of course whenever I bring this up to anyone, I get slammed as being "anti-gay" or...something.
I'm offended that people believe in gods and what not. I think religious conventions be forced to be indoors only. See where I'm going?
No, because a lot of them already are indoors...
Pretty sure most sex is too so the analogy holds just fine.
Do you think all religion should be forced to only be indoors?
At least they should be forced to stop ringing fucking bells. But this is derailing the topic. Whoever thinks it is a good idea to ring a bell for fucking 15 minutes at 8 am on a Sunday is insane.
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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
True. However, there have been times where things get out of control sexually and I am vividly reminded of those street fairs which really, REALLY should take place inside. Maybe I'm biased because I find it offensive on a personal level that to some people sex isn't sacred, but it's not like I have the right to change their minds on that...just please keep it where other people who might not want to see it won't see it? I don't think it's really too much to ask but of course whenever I bring this up to anyone, I get slammed as being "anti-gay" or...something.
I'm offended that people believe in gods and what not. I think religious conventions be forced to be indoors only. See where I'm going?
No, because a lot of them already are indoors...
Pretty sure most sex is too so the analogy holds just fine.
Do you think all religion should be forced to only be indoors?
Maybe you guys didn't get what I was specifically referring to. I wasn't sure it was so good to bring it up here...
Yeah, I wasn't quite sure, and it sounded as though you were referring to people having sex in public places, which is definitely illegal and shouldn't have been happening if it did lol. Could you clarify?
On October 12 2012 04:49 S_SienZ wrote: [quote] 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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
True. However, there have been times where things get out of control sexually and I am vividly reminded of those street fairs which really, REALLY should take place inside. Maybe I'm biased because I find it offensive on a personal level that to some people sex isn't sacred, but it's not like I have the right to change their minds on that...just please keep it where other people who might not want to see it won't see it? I don't think it's really too much to ask but of course whenever I bring this up to anyone, I get slammed as being "anti-gay" or...something.
I'm offended that people believe in gods and what not. I think religious conventions be forced to be indoors only. See where I'm going?
No, because a lot of them already are indoors...
Pretty sure most sex is too so the analogy holds just fine.
Do you think all religion should be forced to only be indoors?
Maybe you guys didn't get what I was specifically referring to. I wasn't sure it was so good to bring it up here...
Yeah, I wasn't quite sure, and it sounded as though you were referring to people having sex in public places, which is definitely illegal and shouldn't have been happening if it did lol. Could you clarify?
Um, basically yes. And there's a minority in the LGBT group that claims that stopping that is anti-gay. (There are crazies in every group...) Trouble is people are seeing EVERY member of the LGBT group that way which is just ridiculous.
On October 12 2012 04:49 S_SienZ wrote: [quote] 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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
True. However, there have been times where things get out of control sexually and I am vividly reminded of those street fairs which really, REALLY should take place inside. Maybe I'm biased because I find it offensive on a personal level that to some people sex isn't sacred, but it's not like I have the right to change their minds on that...just please keep it where other people who might not want to see it won't see it? I don't think it's really too much to ask but of course whenever I bring this up to anyone, I get slammed as being "anti-gay" or...something.
I'm offended that people believe in gods and what not. I think religious conventions be forced to be indoors only. See where I'm going?
No, because a lot of them already are indoors...
Pretty sure most sex is too so the analogy holds just fine.
Do you think all religion should be forced to only be indoors?
Maybe you guys didn't get what I was specifically referring to. I wasn't sure it was so good to bring it up here...
Yeah, I wasn't quite sure, and it sounded as though you were referring to people having sex in public places, which is definitely illegal and shouldn't have been happening if it did lol. Could you clarify?
at first i thought about that but then i thought clearly no one is ridiculous enough to think that has anything to do with the current subject since those people would promptly be arrested as per current indecency laws which apply to everyone.
Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
On October 12 2012 04:50 armada[sb] wrote: [quote]
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.
There are far better ways to raise awareness nowadays
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
True. However, there have been times where things get out of control sexually and I am vividly reminded of those street fairs which really, REALLY should take place inside. Maybe I'm biased because I find it offensive on a personal level that to some people sex isn't sacred, but it's not like I have the right to change their minds on that...just please keep it where other people who might not want to see it won't see it? I don't think it's really too much to ask but of course whenever I bring this up to anyone, I get slammed as being "anti-gay" or...something.
I'm offended that people believe in gods and what not. I think religious conventions be forced to be indoors only. See where I'm going?
No, because a lot of them already are indoors...
Pretty sure most sex is too so the analogy holds just fine.
Do you think all religion should be forced to only be indoors?
Maybe you guys didn't get what I was specifically referring to. I wasn't sure it was so good to bring it up here...
Yeah, I wasn't quite sure, and it sounded as though you were referring to people having sex in public places, which is definitely illegal and shouldn't have been happening if it did lol. Could you clarify?
Um, basically yes. And there's a minority in the LGBT group that claims that stopping that is anti-gay. (There are crazies in every group...) Trouble is people are seeing EVERY member of the LGBT group that way which is just ridiculous.
Man, I've never even heard of that perception in the LGBT community. Are you sure it isn't just a small offshoot that you heard on the news once and have assumed that the LGBT community is now perceived that way? I would say that stereotype has definitely not permeated into general mainstream thought, but that's only from my personal thoughts and could very well be wrong....
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Because that's what society has decided upon? I'd say it's more of an issue when it's discriminating particularly against a particular group. The ban on sex is universal. I mean, there is some validity to your point, but it might be slightly offtopic, no?
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
Nope, I'm being serious, just playing devils advocate here.
We need to draw a line somewhere on when it's ok to force your discomfort on other people and when it's not ok. I'm curious where you will place it.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
On October 12 2012 04:54 S_SienZ wrote: [quote] [quote]
Who are you to decide that? They're not hurting anybody and they should have the right to assembly and protest just like everyone else.
True. However, there have been times where things get out of control sexually and I am vividly reminded of those street fairs which really, REALLY should take place inside. Maybe I'm biased because I find it offensive on a personal level that to some people sex isn't sacred, but it's not like I have the right to change their minds on that...just please keep it where other people who might not want to see it won't see it? I don't think it's really too much to ask but of course whenever I bring this up to anyone, I get slammed as being "anti-gay" or...something.
I'm offended that people believe in gods and what not. I think religious conventions be forced to be indoors only. See where I'm going?
No, because a lot of them already are indoors...
Pretty sure most sex is too so the analogy holds just fine.
Do you think all religion should be forced to only be indoors?
Maybe you guys didn't get what I was specifically referring to. I wasn't sure it was so good to bring it up here...
Yeah, I wasn't quite sure, and it sounded as though you were referring to people having sex in public places, which is definitely illegal and shouldn't have been happening if it did lol. Could you clarify?
Um, basically yes. And there's a minority in the LGBT group that claims that stopping that is anti-gay. (There are crazies in every group...) Trouble is people are seeing EVERY member of the LGBT group that way which is just ridiculous.
Man, I've never even heard of that perception in the LGBT community. Are you sure it isn't just a small offshoot that you heard on the news once and have assumed that the LGBT community is now perceived that way? I would say that stereotype has definitely not permeated into general mainstream thought, but that's only from my personal thoughts and could very well be wrong....
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Really nothing except "the kids" argument.
Right, but people use that same exact argument against gays. That they want to "protect their children" from seeing that sort of thing.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Well, I don't think most people want to see people dry-humping or fingering each other or practicing bondage when they walk out their front door...at least, I mean, I really wouldn't.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Really nothing except "the kids" argument.
There's nothing special in sexuality that damages kids. The stigma is what makes it "bad". If people were raised in societies where people have sex everywhere, they wouldn't mind it.
But right now, kids are shielded from sexuality, and if they come across some of it, mommy will start yelling like a lunatic because little Timothy saw Janet Jackson's tit on national television. It's only bad for the kids because we say it is.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Well, I don't think most people want to see people dry-humping or fingering each other or practicing bondage when they walk out their front door...at least, I mean, I really wouldn't.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Really nothing except "the kids" argument.
There's nothing special in sexuality that damages kid. The stigma is what makes it "bad". If people were raised in societies where people have sex everywhere, they wouldn't mind it.
But right now, kids are shielded from sexuality, and if they come across some of it, mommy will start yelling like a lunatic because little Timothy saw Janet Jackson's tit on national television. It's only bad for the kids because we say it is.
To me it depends on the context.
Edit to respond to your edit: And I wouldn't want to see that, nor would anyone I know.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Really nothing except "the kids" argument.
Right, but people use that same exact argument against gays. That they want to "protect their children" from seeing that sort of thing.
Yup, I'm of the opinion that sex is natural and beautiful and there's really nothing to be offended or disturbed by. I think people who want to "protect their children" from sex are misguided. Sex created us, and our children will have their own children by having sex. Should we pretend it doesn't happen? Lie to our kids and tell them the stork dropped them into the damn chimney?
I like this, it's an interesting topic of discussion.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
Nope, I'm being serious, just playing devils advocate here.
We need to draw a line somewhere on when it's ok to force your discomfort on other people and when it's not ok. I'm curious where you will place it.
I realize youre playing devils advocate but really thats taking it and running off a cliff.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Really nothing except "the kids" argument.
There's nothing special in sexuality that damages kids. The stigma is what makes it "bad". If people were raised in societies where people have sex everywhere, they wouldn't mind it.
But right now, kids are shielded from sexuality, and if they come across some of it, mommy will start yelling like a lunatic because little Timothy saw Janet Jackson's tit on national television. It's only bad for the kids because we say it is.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Well, I don't think most people want to see people dry-humping or fingering each other or practicing bondage when they walk out their front door...at least, I mean, I really wouldn't.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Well, I don't think most people want to see people dry-humping or fingering each other or practicing bondage when they walk out their front door...at least, I mean, I really wouldn't.
I demand that my right to observe scissoring in public be protected. So says my version of social contract theory.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
Nope, I'm being serious, just playing devils advocate here.
We need to draw a line somewhere on when it's ok to force your discomfort on other people and when it's not ok. I'm curious where you will place it.
That's not the issue at stake here at all.
The issue here is equal rights for all groups. If society would be ok with people having sex on the street it would have to apply to heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals equally. Society obviously draws an arbitrary line at some point, but that line needs to be applied to all different groups equally.
I'd figure out of all people you'd appreciate that.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Really nothing except "the kids" argument.
Right, but people use that same exact argument against gays. That they want to "protect their children" from seeing that sort of thing.
Yup, I'm of the opinion that sex is natural and beautiful and there's really nothing to be offended or disturbed by. I think people who want to "protect their children" from sex are misguided. Sex created us, and our children will have their own children by having sex. Should we pretend it doesn't happen? Lie to our kids and tell them the stork dropped them into the damn chimney?
I like this, it's an interesting topic of discussion.
Yes, it is interesting, and it gets to the root of the problem instead of repeating the "bigotry" argument over and over.
So with your stance, are you saying adults would be allowed to expose themselves to children, to commit sexual acts in front of children?
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Really nothing except "the kids" argument.
Right, but people use that same exact argument against gays. That they want to "protect their children" from seeing that sort of thing.
Yup, I'm of the opinion that sex is natural and beautiful and there's really nothing to be offended or disturbed by. I think people who want to "protect their children" from sex are misguided. Sex created us, and our children will have their own children by having sex. Should we pretend it doesn't happen? Lie to our kids and tell them the stork dropped them into the damn chimney?
I like this, it's an interesting topic of discussion.
It's a beautiful thing between those who are having sex, and in seeing it I feel like I've intruded on something sensual and special. People who display it like that offend me because it's like they don't care how special it is.
...I seem to be of a rather unique viewpoint here, confirm/deny. XD
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Really nothing except "the kids" argument.
Right, but people use that same exact argument against gays. That they want to "protect their children" from seeing that sort of thing.
Yup, I'm of the opinion that sex is natural and beautiful and there's really nothing to be offended or disturbed by. I think people who want to "protect their children" from sex are misguided. Sex created us, and our children will have their own children by having sex. Should we pretend it doesn't happen? Lie to our kids and tell them the stork dropped them into the damn chimney?
I like this, it's an interesting topic of discussion.
It's a beautiful thing between those who are having sex, and in seeing it I feel like I've intruded on something sensual and special. People who display it like that offend me because it's like they don't care how special it is.
...I seem to be of a rather unique viewpoint here, confirm/deny. XD
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Really nothing except "the kids" argument.
Right, but people use that same exact argument against gays. That they want to "protect their children" from seeing that sort of thing.
Yup, I'm of the opinion that sex is natural and beautiful and there's really nothing to be offended or disturbed by. I think people who want to "protect their children" from sex are misguided. Sex created us, and our children will have their own children by having sex. Should we pretend it doesn't happen? Lie to our kids and tell them the stork dropped them into the damn chimney?
I like this, it's an interesting topic of discussion.
Yes, it is interesting, and it gets to the root of the problem instead of repeating the "bigotry" argument over and over.
So with your stance, are you saying adults would be allowed to expose themselves to children, to commit sexual acts in front of children?
I think we benefit from being realists here. We can't just assume that out society doesn't exist, so no adults shouldn't be allowed to "expose themselves" (especially not in those words, ew) to children. But that's because it CAN be traumatic to them because they've been programmed to not know how to react to sexuality.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Really nothing except "the kids" argument.
Right, but people use that same exact argument against gays. That they want to "protect their children" from seeing that sort of thing.
Yup, I'm of the opinion that sex is natural and beautiful and there's really nothing to be offended or disturbed by. I think people who want to "protect their children" from sex are misguided. Sex created us, and our children will have their own children by having sex. Should we pretend it doesn't happen? Lie to our kids and tell them the stork dropped them into the damn chimney?
I like this, it's an interesting topic of discussion.
It's a beautiful thing between those who are having sex, and in seeing it I feel like I've intruded on something sensual and special. People who display it like that offend me because it's like they don't care how special it is.
...I seem to be of a rather unique viewpoint here, confirm/deny. XD
People get to choose eh. Sex is private for some, and for others they do it for $2000 and hundreds of dudes are fapping to it because it's a video on the internet.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
Nope, I'm being serious, just playing devils advocate here.
We need to draw a line somewhere on when it's ok to force your discomfort on other people and when it's not ok. I'm curious where you will place it.
That's not the issue at stake here at all.
The issue here is equal rights for all groups. If society would be ok with people having sex on the street it would have to apply to heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals equally. Society obviously draws an arbitrary line at some point, but that line needs to be applied to all different groups equally.
I'd figure out of all people you'd appreciate that.
Yes, that's a valid way to approach this problem. It's just that in practice, society has passed laws based purely on discomfort without regard to discrimination or equality under the law.
I'm trying to think of a comparable example of a censoring law that has popular support and yet is discriminatory in nature. Can't think of any now, but if I do I'll be sure to bring it up.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Really nothing except "the kids" argument.
Right, but people use that same exact argument against gays. That they want to "protect their children" from seeing that sort of thing.
Yup, I'm of the opinion that sex is natural and beautiful and there's really nothing to be offended or disturbed by. I think people who want to "protect their children" from sex are misguided. Sex created us, and our children will have their own children by having sex. Should we pretend it doesn't happen? Lie to our kids and tell them the stork dropped them into the damn chimney?
I like this, it's an interesting topic of discussion.
It's a beautiful thing between those who are having sex, and in seeing it I feel like I've intruded on something sensual and special. People who display it like that offend me because it's like they don't care how special it is.
...I seem to be of a rather unique viewpoint here, confirm/deny. XD
confirm,lol. sex is really casual to many people.
Haha, I figured I'd be unique in this. Does that make me old-fashioned? ^^;
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
Nope, I'm being serious, just playing devils advocate here.
We need to draw a line somewhere on when it's ok to force your discomfort on other people and when it's not ok. I'm curious where you will place it.
That's not the issue at stake here at all.
The issue here is equal rights for all groups. If society would be ok with people having sex on the street it would have to apply to heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals equally. Society obviously draws an arbitrary line at some point, but that line needs to be applied to all different groups equally.
I'd figure out of all people you'd appreciate that.
Yes, that's a valid way to approach this problem. It's just that in practice, society has passed laws based purely on discomfort without regard to discrimination or equality under the law.
I'm trying to think of a comparable example of a censoring law that has popular support and yet is discriminatory in nature. Can't think of any now, but if I do I'll be sure to bring it up.
If it helps sodomy is still illegal here in Malaysia technically blowjobs too.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Really nothing except "the kids" argument.
Right, but people use that same exact argument against gays. That they want to "protect their children" from seeing that sort of thing.
Yup, I'm of the opinion that sex is natural and beautiful and there's really nothing to be offended or disturbed by. I think people who want to "protect their children" from sex are misguided. Sex created us, and our children will have their own children by having sex. Should we pretend it doesn't happen? Lie to our kids and tell them the stork dropped them into the damn chimney?
I like this, it's an interesting topic of discussion.
It's a beautiful thing between those who are having sex, and in seeing it I feel like I've intruded on something sensual and special. People who display it like that offend me because it's like they don't care how special it is.
...I seem to be of a rather unique viewpoint here, confirm/deny. XD
confirm,lol. sex is really casual to many people.
Haha, I figured I'd be unique in this. Does that make me old-fashioned? ^^;
Probably just makes you a good christian or something. Be proud though cause most of them only pretend to share that view. haha
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
Nope, I'm being serious, just playing devils advocate here.
We need to draw a line somewhere on when it's ok to force your discomfort on other people and when it's not ok. I'm curious where you will place it.
That's not the issue at stake here at all.
The issue here is equal rights for all groups. If society would be ok with people having sex on the street it would have to apply to heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals equally. Society obviously draws an arbitrary line at some point, but that line needs to be applied to all different groups equally.
I'd figure out of all people you'd appreciate that.
Yes, that's a valid way to approach this problem. It's just that in practice, society has passed laws based purely on discomfort without regard to discrimination or equality under the law.
I'm trying to think of a comparable example of a censoring law that has popular support and yet is discriminatory in nature. Can't think of any now, but if I do I'll be sure to bring it up.
If it helps sodomy is still illegal here in Malaysia technically blowjobs too.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Really nothing except "the kids" argument.
Right, but people use that same exact argument against gays. That they want to "protect their children" from seeing that sort of thing.
Yup, I'm of the opinion that sex is natural and beautiful and there's really nothing to be offended or disturbed by. I think people who want to "protect their children" from sex are misguided. Sex created us, and our children will have their own children by having sex. Should we pretend it doesn't happen? Lie to our kids and tell them the stork dropped them into the damn chimney?
I like this, it's an interesting topic of discussion.
It's a beautiful thing between those who are having sex, and in seeing it I feel like I've intruded on something sensual and special. People who display it like that offend me because it's like they don't care how special it is.
...I seem to be of a rather unique viewpoint here, confirm/deny. XD
confirm,lol. sex is really casual to many people.
Haha, I figured I'd be unique in this. Does that make me old-fashioned? ^^;
Probably just makes you a good christian or something. Be proud though cause most of them only pretend to share that view. haha
That's HILARIOUS because I'm actually not religious at all! XD
Edit: It's amazing that this topic hasn't descended into a flame war. That makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. There ARE still reasonable people on the internets.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
Nope, I'm being serious, just playing devils advocate here.
We need to draw a line somewhere on when it's ok to force your discomfort on other people and when it's not ok. I'm curious where you will place it.
That's not the issue at stake here at all.
The issue here is equal rights for all groups. If society would be ok with people having sex on the street it would have to apply to heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals equally. Society obviously draws an arbitrary line at some point, but that line needs to be applied to all different groups equally.
I'd figure out of all people you'd appreciate that.
Yes, that's a valid way to approach this problem. It's just that in practice, society has passed laws based purely on discomfort without regard to discrimination or equality under the law.
I'm trying to think of a comparable example of a censoring law that has popular support and yet is discriminatory in nature. Can't think of any now, but if I do I'll be sure to bring it up.
If it helps sodomy is still illegal here in Malaysia technically blowjobs too.
Guess I know where not to go for my summer trip!
Food here's awesome though. And it's not like anyone's gonna be monitoring your intimate activities anyway.
On October 12 2012 05:17 heliusx wrote: [quote] Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Really nothing except "the kids" argument.
Right, but people use that same exact argument against gays. That they want to "protect their children" from seeing that sort of thing.
Yup, I'm of the opinion that sex is natural and beautiful and there's really nothing to be offended or disturbed by. I think people who want to "protect their children" from sex are misguided. Sex created us, and our children will have their own children by having sex. Should we pretend it doesn't happen? Lie to our kids and tell them the stork dropped them into the damn chimney?
I like this, it's an interesting topic of discussion.
It's a beautiful thing between those who are having sex, and in seeing it I feel like I've intruded on something sensual and special. People who display it like that offend me because it's like they don't care how special it is.
...I seem to be of a rather unique viewpoint here, confirm/deny. XD
confirm,lol. sex is really casual to many people.
Haha, I figured I'd be unique in this. Does that make me old-fashioned? ^^;
Probably just makes you a good christian or something. Be proud though cause most of them only pretend to share that view. haha
That's HILARIOUS because I'm actually not religious at all! XD
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
Nope, I'm being serious, just playing devils advocate here.
We need to draw a line somewhere on when it's ok to force your discomfort on other people and when it's not ok. I'm curious where you will place it.
That's not the issue at stake here at all.
The issue here is equal rights for all groups. If society would be ok with people having sex on the street it would have to apply to heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals equally. Society obviously draws an arbitrary line at some point, but that line needs to be applied to all different groups equally.
I'd figure out of all people you'd appreciate that.
Yes, that's a valid way to approach this problem. It's just that in practice, society has passed laws based purely on discomfort without regard to discrimination or equality under the law.
I'm trying to think of a comparable example of a censoring law that has popular support and yet is discriminatory in nature. Can't think of any now, but if I do I'll be sure to bring it up.
If it helps sodomy is still illegal here in Malaysia technically blowjobs too.
Guess I know where not to go for my summer trip!
Food here's awesome though. And it's not like anyone's gonna be monitoring your intimate activities anyway.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
Nope, I'm being serious, just playing devils advocate here.
We need to draw a line somewhere on when it's ok to force your discomfort on other people and when it's not ok. I'm curious where you will place it.
That's not the issue at stake here at all.
The issue here is equal rights for all groups. If society would be ok with people having sex on the street it would have to apply to heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals equally. Society obviously draws an arbitrary line at some point, but that line needs to be applied to all different groups equally.
I'd figure out of all people you'd appreciate that.
Yes, that's a valid way to approach this problem. It's just that in practice, society has passed laws based purely on discomfort without regard to discrimination or equality under the law.
I'm trying to think of a comparable example of a censoring law that has popular support and yet is discriminatory in nature. Can't think of any now, but if I do I'll be sure to bring it up.
If it helps sodomy is still illegal here in Malaysia technically blowjobs too.
Guess I know where not to go for my summer trip!
Food here's awesome though. And it's not like anyone's gonna be monitoring your intimate activities anyway.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Really nothing except "the kids" argument.
Right, but people use that same exact argument against gays. That they want to "protect their children" from seeing that sort of thing.
Yup, I'm of the opinion that sex is natural and beautiful and there's really nothing to be offended or disturbed by. I think people who want to "protect their children" from sex are misguided. Sex created us, and our children will have their own children by having sex. Should we pretend it doesn't happen? Lie to our kids and tell them the stork dropped them into the damn chimney?
I like this, it's an interesting topic of discussion.
Yes, it is interesting, and it gets to the root of the problem instead of repeating the "bigotry" argument over and over.
So with your stance, are you saying adults would be allowed to expose themselves to children, to commit sexual acts in front of children?
No, because that leaves too much room for adults to manipulate children. I think a fair start would be to be more lenient as far as sex goes on television. I just don't see how so much horrific violence can be displayed but a nipple is just out of the question.
On October 12 2012 05:18 Djzapz wrote: [quote] What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Really nothing except "the kids" argument.
Right, but people use that same exact argument against gays. That they want to "protect their children" from seeing that sort of thing.
Yup, I'm of the opinion that sex is natural and beautiful and there's really nothing to be offended or disturbed by. I think people who want to "protect their children" from sex are misguided. Sex created us, and our children will have their own children by having sex. Should we pretend it doesn't happen? Lie to our kids and tell them the stork dropped them into the damn chimney?
I like this, it's an interesting topic of discussion.
It's a beautiful thing between those who are having sex, and in seeing it I feel like I've intruded on something sensual and special. People who display it like that offend me because it's like they don't care how special it is.
...I seem to be of a rather unique viewpoint here, confirm/deny. XD
confirm,lol. sex is really casual to many people.
Haha, I figured I'd be unique in this. Does that make me old-fashioned? ^^;
Probably just makes you a good christian or something. Be proud though cause most of them only pretend to share that view. haha
That's HILARIOUS because I'm actually not religious at all! XD
Then I'm as confused as you are!
Hehe. Confused is my default state of mind. Only augmented by how anyone could find kissing or holding hands offensive. (To get back on topic.)
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
What's wrong with the thing he said? What's so scary about people shagging?
Really nothing except "the kids" argument.
Right, but people use that same exact argument against gays. That they want to "protect their children" from seeing that sort of thing.
Yup, I'm of the opinion that sex is natural and beautiful and there's really nothing to be offended or disturbed by. I think people who want to "protect their children" from sex are misguided. Sex created us, and our children will have their own children by having sex. Should we pretend it doesn't happen? Lie to our kids and tell them the stork dropped them into the damn chimney?
I like this, it's an interesting topic of discussion.
Yes, it is interesting, and it gets to the root of the problem instead of repeating the "bigotry" argument over and over.
So with your stance, are you saying adults would be allowed to expose themselves to children, to commit sexual acts in front of children?
No, because that leaves too much room for adults to manipulate children. I think a fair start would be to be more lenient as far as sex goes on television. I just don't see how so much horrific violence can be displayed but a nipple is just out of the question.
This is a good point. I made a statement about context earlier; this is what I mean. Some people like rough or kinky sex but I would NOT want any child of mine seeing that until they were old enough to understand what was going on and the mindset behind it. But simple nudity I don't think even implies sexuality in the first place...
On October 12 2012 05:24 arfyron wrote: I like how decriminalization in 1991 is seen as the mark of a tolerant society.
In my home state of Texas sodomy laws weren't repealed weren't repealed until 2003.
There are still dozens of extremely antiquated laws on the books. When those laws are no longer enforced, then they are effectively repealed, even if not technically repealed. In other words, the tolerance of a society cannot be judged by the laws on the books.
On October 12 2012 05:24 arfyron wrote: I like how decriminalization in 1991 is seen as the mark of a tolerant society.
In my home state of Texas sodomy laws weren't repealed weren't repealed until 2003.
There are still dozens of extremely antiquated laws on the books. When those laws are no longer enforced, then they are effectively repealed, even if not technically repealed. In other words, the tolerance of a society cannot be judged by the laws on the books.
Ever been to Texas? It's a pretty accurate metric for tolerance.
My point being that 1991 is actually quite early to have those laws struck down. Regardless of whether or not they were enforced.
On October 12 2012 05:24 arfyron wrote: I like how decriminalization in 1991 is seen as the mark of a tolerant society.
In my home state of Texas sodomy laws weren't repealed weren't repealed until 2003.
There are still dozens of extremely antiquated laws on the books. When those laws are no longer enforced, then they are effectively repealed, even if not technically repealed. In other words, the tolerance of a society cannot be judged by the laws on the books.
Yeah, in my home state of Maryland, oral sex is outlawed, but these laws aren't enforced, and I don't see how they could be in most situations.
I think it's Chino in CA that has a 500 dollar fine for detonating a nuclear device within the city limits. Genius move imo, keeps the terrorists away with no expensive wars or morally suspect internment camps.
Gays should be afforded all the same legal rights by the government and be free from persecution.
However many gays seem hell bent on demanding society accept homosexuality as a complete equal to heterosexuality in every way, shape, and form.
That's not gonna happen. It sucks to be a small minority in a world that isn't built for you, but that's how it is.
I'm left handed, the world is mostly right handed and is built for right handed people, it's just how it is.
There doesn't need to be a gay character in every tv show and movie, there doesn't need to be this concerted effort to "normalize" something that by definition is not normal (aka most people are not gay)
If someone is gay, that's fine and that's their right. If someone wants to think gay is gross, that's their right too. People need to get over trying to impose their beliefs on others, in either direction.
Yes, we get it, you think sex is magic and blessed by angels.
The point is, at which point do you take your own opinions on sex, and declare them the standard. What gives you the permission to pass that threshold where you turn a personal view on a private subject, and decide that your view is the best of the best, in fact, it is such a good view, it needs to be the law of the land.
People that get off on dictating what other people's sexual positions ought to be should get their fix in an BDSM club, not pretend themselves to be godly.
Old fashioned? Let's just call it what it is, controlling, authoritarian, and totalitarian. If you believe yourself entitled to dictate what people's sex lives should be, you acknowledge that there is no limit to how far you are willing to reach in and control the private lives of other people.
On October 12 2012 05:55 Zaqwert wrote: Gays should be afforded all the same legal rights by the government and be free from persecution.
However many gays seem hell bent on demanding society accept homosexuality as a complete equal to heterosexuality in every way, shape, and form.
That's not gonna happen. It sucks to be a small minority in a world that isn't built for you, but that's how it is.
I'm left handed, the world is mostly right handed and is built for right handed people, it's just how it is.
There doesn't need to be a gay character in every tv show and movie, there doesn't need to be this concerted effort to "normalize" something that by definition is not normal (aka most people are not gay)
If someone is gay, that's fine and that's their right. If someone wants to think gay is gross, that's their right too. People need to get over trying to impose their beliefs on others, in either direction.
To this someone could simply say "treating something as normal does not equate to a concerted effort to normalize it. It is your own discomfort which interprets it as an imposition."
On October 12 2012 05:55 Zaqwert wrote: Gays should be afforded all the same legal rights by the government and be free from persecution.
However many gays seem hell bent on demanding society accept homosexuality as a complete equal to heterosexuality in every way, shape, and form.
That's not gonna happen. It sucks to be a small minority in a world that isn't built for you, but that's how it is.
I'm left handed, the world is mostly right handed and is built for right handed people, it's just how it is.
There doesn't need to be a gay character in every tv show and movie, there doesn't need to be this concerted effort to "normalize" something that by definition is not normal (aka most people are not gay)
If someone is gay, that's fine and that's their right. If someone wants to think gay is gross, that's their right too. People need to get over trying to impose their beliefs on others, in either direction.
Had you been born a few years earlier, that left hand of yours would have been the cause of a good many beatings.
Was that a good thing?
As for people being allowed to have any view, correct, they can. People can believe what they like, and they can also hold any reactionairy view they like.
Someone can think gay is gross, and people can think people that think like that are hateful and discriminatory. Everyone can think and feel whatever they like. People can even have opinions on your opinions! What is the world coming too!
On October 12 2012 05:57 zalz wrote: People keep avoiding the point.
Yes, we get it, you think sex is magic and blessed by angels.
The point is, at which point do you take your own opinions on sex, and declare them the standard. What gives you the permission to pass that threshold where you turn a personal view on a private subject, and decide that your view is the best of the best, in fact, it is such a good view, it needs to be the law of the land.
People that get off on dictating what other people's sexual positions ought to be should get their fix in an BDSM club, not pretend themselves to be godly.
Old fashioned? Let's just call it what it is, controlling, authoritarian, and totalitarian. If you believe yourself entitled to dictate what people's sex lives should be, you acknowledge that there is no limit to how far you are willing to reach in and control the private lives of other people.
It's not private lives being discussed, it is public behavior.
As has been mentioned before, I doubt you would support legal sex anywhere in public view. So it could be argued you yourself are imposing your discomfort on other people.
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).
There has been discussion about that in the Netherlands. The problem is that even though gays aren't allowed to donate blood, gay people who lie about their sexual prefrence are still reaponsible for the majority of AIDS infections via tranferred donor blood. (I don't know the nubers I'll try to look it up when I'm home.) Is it still not worth it when it's such a huge diffrence?
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).
The thing is homosexual men are normally more promiscuous than heterosexual couples (no girlfriend obsessed about you going out with your friends or anything what a surprise?), plus anal sex is more likely to transmit HIV, therefore it is true that homosexual men have a higher percentage of sexually transmitted diseases.
Honestly I agree that homosexual propaganda should be banned, sexuality should be something private I don't understand why they need to advertise it, though it's known that being a homosexual is a natural thing and not a learned choise and whoever is gay is not going to change their mind because of some advertisement.
Well if it's a democratic process, then theres no point in discussing it is there? Say the anti gay side wins, then if any country whatsoever try to intervene, then it's basically an attempt to bypass the majoritys votes, and thus dictating what they decide.
Democracy works both ways. In a democratic society, then there is no such thing as argueing with the majority, even if they say somehing like "force everyone to stop studying and get forced on a job".
Democracy is just another type of control. Always remember that.
On October 12 2012 06:08 cloneThorN wrote: Well if it's a democratic process, then theres no point in discussing it is there? Say the anti gay side wins, then if any country whatsoever try to intervene, then it's basically an attempt to bypass the majoritys votes, and thus dictating what they decide.
Democracy works both ways. In a democratic society, then there is no such thing as argueing with the majority, even if they say somehing like "force everyone to stop studying and get forced on a job".
Democracy is just another type of control. Always remember that.
You do realize that the only reason we have Civil Rights at all is because the minority fought against the majority? If we let the majority in the US dictate any law it wanted, we'd probably see a return to Jim Crow (thanks North Carolina!)
On October 12 2012 06:08 cloneThorN wrote: Well if it's a democratic process, then theres no point in discussing it is there? Say the anti gay side wins, then if any country whatsoever try to intervene, then it's basically an attempt to bypass the majoritys votes, and thus dictating what they decide.
Democracy works both ways. In a democratic society, then there is no such thing as argueing with the majority, even if they say somehing like "force everyone to stop studying and get forced on a job".
Democracy is just another type of control. Always remember that.
You do realize that the only reason we have Civil Rights at all is because the minority fought against the majority? If we let the majority in the US dictate any law it wanted, we'd probably see a return to Jim Crow (thanks North Carolina!)
Yep. Tyranny of the majority is what we are trying to avoid here, I think.
On October 12 2012 05:24 arfyron wrote: I like how decriminalization in 1991 is seen as the mark of a tolerant society.
In my home state of Texas sodomy laws weren't repealed weren't repealed until 2003.
There are still dozens of extremely antiquated laws on the books. When those laws are no longer enforced, then they are effectively repealed, even if not technically repealed. In other words, the tolerance of a society cannot be judged by the laws on the books.
Ever been to Texas? It's a pretty accurate metric for tolerance.
My point being that 1991 is actually quite early to have those laws struck down. Regardless of whether or not they were enforced.
They were repealed in the 30's in Sweden at least... Ukraine couldn't do it earlier as they were a part of the Soviet Union though, so we can't hold that against them. Texas on the other hand is all kinds of fucked up.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
Nope, I'm being serious, just playing devils advocate here.
We need to draw a line somewhere on when it's ok to force your discomfort on other people and when it's not ok. I'm curious where you will place it.
That's not the issue at stake here at all.
The issue here is equal rights for all groups. If society would be ok with people having sex on the street it would have to apply to heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals equally. Society obviously draws an arbitrary line at some point, but that line needs to be applied to all different groups equally.
I'd figure out of all people you'd appreciate that.
Yes, that's a valid way to approach this problem. It's just that in practice, society has passed laws based purely on discomfort without regard to discrimination or equality under the law.
I'm trying to think of a comparable example of a censoring law that has popular support and yet is discriminatory in nature. Can't think of any now, but if I do I'll be sure to bring it up.
It is the ONLY way to approach this issue. Yes, society has made discriminatory laws in the past, but that does not make them justified if you accept the principle of equal rights. This issue isn't all that different from discriminatory Jim Crow laws, segregation laws, you name it. One of the main principles of democracy is the extention of equal rights to every single individual.
If you reject the principle of equal rights on the other hand, there's nothing actually left to discuss. At that point we simply have incommensurable worldviews, and I'll just hope for the equal rights groups to eventually win out, which seems to be happening all over the world. Demographics are destiny after all.
On October 12 2012 06:08 cloneThorN wrote: Well if it's a democratic process, then theres no point in discussing it is there? Say the anti gay side wins, then if any country whatsoever try to intervene, then it's basically an attempt to bypass the majoritys votes, and thus dictating what they decide.
Democracy works both ways. In a democratic society, then there is no such thing as argueing with the majority, even if they say somehing like "force everyone to stop studying and get forced on a job".
Democracy is just another type of control. Always remember that.
That's why the most important means to protect the rights of the people is a CONSTITUTION!!!
Unfortunately, the average attitude towards constitutions these days is to call them just antiquated pieces of paper written by backward men.
On October 12 2012 05:57 zalz wrote: People keep avoiding the point.
Yes, we get it, you think sex is magic and blessed by angels.
The point is, at which point do you take your own opinions on sex, and declare them the standard. What gives you the permission to pass that threshold where you turn a personal view on a private subject, and decide that your view is the best of the best, in fact, it is such a good view, it needs to be the law of the land.
People that get off on dictating what other people's sexual positions ought to be should get their fix in an BDSM club, not pretend themselves to be godly.
Old fashioned? Let's just call it what it is, controlling, authoritarian, and totalitarian. If you believe yourself entitled to dictate what people's sex lives should be, you acknowledge that there is no limit to how far you are willing to reach in and control the private lives of other people.
It's not private lives being discussed, it is public behavior.
As has been mentioned before, I doubt you would support legal sex anywhere in public view. So it could be argued you yourself are imposing your discomfort on other people.
The act of sex and a pride parade are different, thus the argument falls apart. You're simply using some nonesense that they are both on some mythical "scale of sex."
Other than that, I don't really mind public sex or nudity all that much. I think it is somewhat akin to the heroin-argument when people talk about legalizing drugs. People pick the most extreme and act as if the law is the only thing keeping 90% of the people from going insane.
The truth is that if you made it legal to have sex in public, the same amount of people would probably be having sex in public.
The reason I'm not fucking in the middle of the train station isn't because the law tells me I can't.
Hell, it might even get you people over that fear of sex.
On October 12 2012 05:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Why is arresting people for having sex in public a good thing? Suppose I think sex in public is good and should be allowed, and you are imposing your discomfort on me.
Please tell me you are joking...
Nope, I'm being serious, just playing devils advocate here.
We need to draw a line somewhere on when it's ok to force your discomfort on other people and when it's not ok. I'm curious where you will place it.
That's not the issue at stake here at all.
The issue here is equal rights for all groups. If society would be ok with people having sex on the street it would have to apply to heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals equally. Society obviously draws an arbitrary line at some point, but that line needs to be applied to all different groups equally.
I'd figure out of all people you'd appreciate that.
Yes, that's a valid way to approach this problem. It's just that in practice, society has passed laws based purely on discomfort without regard to discrimination or equality under the law.
I'm trying to think of a comparable example of a censoring law that has popular support and yet is discriminatory in nature. Can't think of any now, but if I do I'll be sure to bring it up.
It is the ONLY way to approach this issue. Yes, society has made discriminatory laws in the past, but that does not make them justified if you accept the principle of equal rights.
If you reject the principle of equal rights on the other hand, there's nothing actually left to discuss. At that point we simply have incommensurable worldviews, and I'll just hope for the equal rights groups to eventually win out, which seems to be happening all over the world. Demographics are destiny after all.
I'm guessing you aren't so passionate about repealing other discriminatory laws, such as affirmative action, or progressive taxation, but that's a separate topic.
If two straight men were to kiss in public, it would be treated the same as two gay men. So it's really a specific behavior if you want to get technical here. But I agree that this is discriminatory, and therefore I wouldn't support such a law.
In any case, there are numerous arguments taking place here at once, and the legal perspective is only one of them. I've been focusing more on the social views perspective and the claims of bigotry, etc.
Discomfort does not equal bigotry. When we ban blow jobs on TV, it is not due to bigotry towards heterosexuals. Nor when we prevented the I Love Lucy couple from sitting in the same bed. Neither is it bigotry when we censor violence or language. Discomfort is due in part to something being hidden from public, a lack of familiarity.
People keep repeating that this is about imposing your own sexual views on other people, but there are dozens of such laws that they would support. We all agree that at some point we should impose majority discomfort on everyone, but we all disagree on where to draw the line.
On October 12 2012 06:08 cloneThorN wrote: Well if it's a democratic process, then theres no point in discussing it is there? Say the anti gay side wins, then if any country whatsoever try to intervene, then it's basically an attempt to bypass the majoritys votes, and thus dictating what they decide.
Democracy works both ways. In a democratic society, then there is no such thing as argueing with the majority, even if they say somehing like "force everyone to stop studying and get forced on a job".
Democracy is just another type of control. Always remember that.
That's why the most important means to protect the rights of the people is a CONSTITUTION!!!
Unfortunately, the average attitude towards constitutions these days is to call them just antiquated pieces of paper written by backward men.
Hm? That would depend on the constitution wouldn't it? Every country have their own constitution, so generalizing and calling them outdated is a bold move.
On October 12 2012 06:27 jdseemoreglass wrote: I'm guessing you aren't so passionate about repealing other discriminatory laws, such as affirmative action, or progressive taxation, but that's a separate topic.
If two straight men were to kiss in public, it would be treated the same as two gay men. So it's really a specific behavior if you want to get technical here. But I agree that this is discriminatory, and therefore I wouldn't support such a law.
In any case, there are numerous arguments taking place here at once, and the legal perspective is only one of them. I've been focusing more on the social views perspective and the claims of bigotry, etc.
Discomfort does not equal bigotry. When we ban blow jobs on TV, it is not due to bigotry towards heterosexuals. Nor when we prevented the I Love Lucy couple from sitting in the same bed. Neither is it bigotry when we censor violence or language. Discomfort is due in part to something being hidden from public, a lack of familiarity.
People keep repeating that this is about imposing your own sexual views on other people, but there are dozens of such laws that they would support. We all agree that at some point we should impose majority discomfort on everyone, but we all disagree on where to draw the line.
Again, entirely based on the falsehood that all these behaviours are part of this mythical "sex scale."
Casual nudity, sexual acts, fringe sexual behaviour, etc, all are their own unique thing.
Discomfort is not something by which you can dictate your own little worldview. Why are some people more important than others?
Why is that when you feel uncomfortable seeing two men kiss, it needs to be banned? Why asexual people having their feelings protected from having to see any people showing affection?
Don't clothe it in discomfort. You advocate majority rules.
You can't deprive individual liberty on the whim of being in the majority.
On October 12 2012 06:27 jdseemoreglass wrote: I'm guessing you aren't so passionate about repealing other discriminatory laws, such as affirmative action, or progressive taxation, but that's a separate topic.
If two straight men were to kiss in public, it would be treated the same as two gay men. So it's really a specific behavior if you want to get technical here. But I agree that this is discriminatory, and therefore I wouldn't support such a law.
In any case, there are numerous arguments taking place here at once, and the legal perspective is only one of them. I've been focusing more on the social views perspective and the claims of bigotry, etc.
Discomfort does not equal bigotry. When we ban blow jobs on TV, it is not due to bigotry towards heterosexuals. Nor when we prevented the I Love Lucy couple from sitting in the same bed. Neither is it bigotry when we censor violence or language. Discomfort is due in part to something being hidden from public, a lack of familiarity.
People keep repeating that this is about imposing your own sexual views on other people, but there are dozens of such laws that they would support. We all agree that at some point we should impose majority discomfort on everyone, but we all disagree on where to draw the line.
Again, entirely based on the falsehood that all these behaviours are part of this mythical "sex scale."
Casual nudity, sexual acts, fringe sexual behaviour, etc, all are their own unique thing.
Discomfort is not something by which you can dictate your own little worldview. Why are some people more important than others?
Why is that when you feel uncomfortable seeing two men kiss, it needs to be banned? Why asexual people having their feelings protected from having to see any people showing affection?
Don't clothe it in discomfort. You advocate majority rules.
You can't deprive individual liberty on the whim of being in the majority.
I really don't see how you can claim this isn't all just a scale of sexuality and discomfort.
You don't believe people should be able to commit sexual acts in front of a school yard. You are in the majority. You and the majority are imposing your sexual views on whatever small minority want to commit such acts.
Now all of your statements can be turned back onto you. It really is just a matter of degree.
On October 12 2012 05:24 arfyron wrote: I like how decriminalization in 1991 is seen as the mark of a tolerant society.
In my home state of Texas sodomy laws weren't repealed weren't repealed until 2003.
There are still dozens of extremely antiquated laws on the books. When those laws are no longer enforced, then they are effectively repealed, even if not technically repealed. In other words, the tolerance of a society cannot be judged by the laws on the books.
Ever been to Texas? It's a pretty accurate metric for tolerance.
My point being that 1991 is actually quite early to have those laws struck down. Regardless of whether or not they were enforced.
They were repealed in the 30's in Sweden at least... Ukraine couldn't do it earlier as they were a part of the Soviet Union though, so we can't hold that against them. Texas on the other hand is all kinds of fucked up.
About 40% or so of them still believe the planet we live on is 6k-10k years old, we might have to cut them some slack.
On October 12 2012 06:36 sickle wrote: How about letting the country decide for itself?? You should not impose your own values on other's cultures.
You do realise that this is pretty much supported by a great majority over there.
Universalism is a big part of Enlightenment. So condemning them for having different values is a consequence of my cultural heritage. And therefore above criticism from everyone who is a relativist.
For the record I don't want them to change their laws. I just think they are horrible human beings and this part of their culture sucks.
On October 12 2012 06:27 jdseemoreglass wrote: I'm guessing you aren't so passionate about repealing other discriminatory laws, such as affirmative action, or progressive taxation, but that's a separate topic.
If two straight men were to kiss in public, it would be treated the same as two gay men. So it's really a specific behavior if you want to get technical here. But I agree that this is discriminatory, and therefore I wouldn't support such a law.
In any case, there are numerous arguments taking place here at once, and the legal perspective is only one of them. I've been focusing more on the social views perspective and the claims of bigotry, etc.
Discomfort does not equal bigotry. When we ban blow jobs on TV, it is not due to bigotry towards heterosexuals. Nor when we prevented the I Love Lucy couple from sitting in the same bed. Neither is it bigotry when we censor violence or language. Discomfort is due in part to something being hidden from public, a lack of familiarity.
People keep repeating that this is about imposing your own sexual views on other people, but there are dozens of such laws that they would support. We all agree that at some point we should impose majority discomfort on everyone, but we all disagree on where to draw the line.
Again, entirely based on the falsehood that all these behaviours are part of this mythical "sex scale."
Casual nudity, sexual acts, fringe sexual behaviour, etc, all are their own unique thing.
Discomfort is not something by which you can dictate your own little worldview. Why are some people more important than others?
Why is that when you feel uncomfortable seeing two men kiss, it needs to be banned? Why asexual people having their feelings protected from having to see any people showing affection?
Don't clothe it in discomfort. You advocate majority rules.
You can't deprive individual liberty on the whim of being in the majority.
I really don't see how you can claim this isn't all just a scale of sexuality and discomfort.
You don't believe people should be able to commit sexual acts in front of a school yard. You are in the majority. You and the majority are imposing your sexual views on whatever small minority want to commit such acts.
Now all of your statements can be turned back onto you. It really is just a matter of degree.
That is like saying that because the government makes laws against murder, it can make laws against everything it can conjure up.
A sexual act in front of a school ground, and a pride parade, are distinctly different.
Outlawing one does not comment on the other, nor does it grant permission to take an axe to individual liberty.
This nonesense that all these acts are inherently the same, because they share some trivial identifier, is simply insanity. It is up there with the slippery slope nonesense. Just because you "feel" it makes sense, doesn't actually mean that it does.
You might have to realize that approaching something as complex as human existence, from the perspective of a handful of sliders, isn't the most effective way of managing either human society, individual rights, or the rule of law.
majority should rule but it never did. do you think 'the majority' started the crusade against homosexuals?. fuck, just get over yourself. the majority was always spoonfed with bullshit they didn't even cared about and still, they did what they always do: mind their own business and just 'go with the times'.
On October 12 2012 06:27 jdseemoreglass wrote: I'm guessing you aren't so passionate about repealing other discriminatory laws, such as affirmative action, or progressive taxation, but that's a separate topic.
If two straight men were to kiss in public, it would be treated the same as two gay men. So it's really a specific behavior if you want to get technical here. But I agree that this is discriminatory, and therefore I wouldn't support such a law.
In any case, there are numerous arguments taking place here at once, and the legal perspective is only one of them. I've been focusing more on the social views perspective and the claims of bigotry, etc.
Discomfort does not equal bigotry. When we ban blow jobs on TV, it is not due to bigotry towards heterosexuals. Nor when we prevented the I Love Lucy couple from sitting in the same bed. Neither is it bigotry when we censor violence or language. Discomfort is due in part to something being hidden from public, a lack of familiarity.
People keep repeating that this is about imposing your own sexual views on other people, but there are dozens of such laws that they would support. We all agree that at some point we should impose majority discomfort on everyone, but we all disagree on where to draw the line.
Again, entirely based on the falsehood that all these behaviours are part of this mythical "sex scale."
Casual nudity, sexual acts, fringe sexual behaviour, etc, all are their own unique thing.
Discomfort is not something by which you can dictate your own little worldview. Why are some people more important than others?
Why is that when you feel uncomfortable seeing two men kiss, it needs to be banned? Why asexual people having their feelings protected from having to see any people showing affection?
Don't clothe it in discomfort. You advocate majority rules.
You can't deprive individual liberty on the whim of being in the majority.
I really don't see how you can claim this isn't all just a scale of sexuality and discomfort.
You don't believe people should be able to commit sexual acts in front of a school yard. You are in the majority. You and the majority are imposing your sexual views on whatever small minority want to commit such acts.
Now all of your statements can be turned back onto you. It really is just a matter of degree.
That is like saying that because the government makes laws against murder, it can make laws against everything it can conjure up.
A sexual act in front of a school ground, and a pride parade, are distinctly different.
Outlawing one does not comment on the other, nor does it grant permission to take an axe to individual liberty.
This nonesense that all these acts are inherently the same, because they share some trivial identifier, is simply insanity. It is up there with the slippery slope nonesense. Just because you "feel" it makes sense, doesn't actually mean that it does.
You might have to realize that approaching something as complex as human existence, from the perspective of a handful of sliders, isn't the most effective way of managing either human society, individual rights, or the rule of law.
(In general response to nested quote) Maybe it is a scale of discomfort. But when jews made Hitler uncomfortable, did it warrant genocide?
On October 12 2012 06:27 jdseemoreglass wrote: I'm guessing you aren't so passionate about repealing other discriminatory laws, such as affirmative action, or progressive taxation, but that's a separate topic.
If two straight men were to kiss in public, it would be treated the same as two gay men. So it's really a specific behavior if you want to get technical here. But I agree that this is discriminatory, and therefore I wouldn't support such a law.
In any case, there are numerous arguments taking place here at once, and the legal perspective is only one of them. I've been focusing more on the social views perspective and the claims of bigotry, etc.
Discomfort does not equal bigotry. When we ban blow jobs on TV, it is not due to bigotry towards heterosexuals. Nor when we prevented the I Love Lucy couple from sitting in the same bed. Neither is it bigotry when we censor violence or language. Discomfort is due in part to something being hidden from public, a lack of familiarity.
People keep repeating that this is about imposing your own sexual views on other people, but there are dozens of such laws that they would support. We all agree that at some point we should impose majority discomfort on everyone, but we all disagree on where to draw the line.
Again, entirely based on the falsehood that all these behaviours are part of this mythical "sex scale."
Casual nudity, sexual acts, fringe sexual behaviour, etc, all are their own unique thing.
Discomfort is not something by which you can dictate your own little worldview. Why are some people more important than others?
Why is that when you feel uncomfortable seeing two men kiss, it needs to be banned? Why asexual people having their feelings protected from having to see any people showing affection?
Don't clothe it in discomfort. You advocate majority rules.
You can't deprive individual liberty on the whim of being in the majority.
I really don't see how you can claim this isn't all just a scale of sexuality and discomfort.
You don't believe people should be able to commit sexual acts in front of a school yard. You are in the majority. You and the majority are imposing your sexual views on whatever small minority want to commit such acts.
Now all of your statements can be turned back onto you. It really is just a matter of degree.
That is like saying that because the government makes laws against murder, it can make laws against everything it can conjure up.
A sexual act in front of a school ground, and a pride parade, are distinctly different.
Outlawing one does not comment on the other, nor does it grant permission to take an axe to individual liberty.
This nonesense that all these acts are inherently the same, because they share some trivial identifier, is simply insanity. It is up there with the slippery slope nonesense. Just because you "feel" it makes sense, doesn't actually mean that it does.
You might have to realize that approaching something as complex as human existence, from the perspective of a handful of sliders, isn't the most effective way of managing either human society, individual rights, or the rule of law.
Ah, ok.
Well, I don't really think that people should call each other "asshole." I think it is harmful and unproductive. And because there is no such thing as a slider called "freedom of speech" then there is no reason not to make the word illegal, or any of a hundred other things that we subjectively decide are good or bad on a moment's notice. It doesn't mean that we are going to start burning books, because there is no such thing as a slippery slope. Although, I don't think that burning the Communist Manifesto in particular is a bad thing, so we can do that without worry, since there is no "freedom of the press" slider either.
On October 12 2012 07:07 xM(Z wrote: majority should rule but it never did. do you think 'the majority' started the crusade against homosexuals?. fuck, just get over yourself. the majority was always spoonfed with bullshit they didn't even cared about and still, they did what they always do: mind their own business and just 'go with the times'.
Oh, come on. Eastern Europe and the Balkans are still deeply homophobic. Some of it is religious influence but that's certainly not all. There might be politicians who try to use it for their own purpose but it's been there all along.
On October 12 2012 07:07 xM(Z wrote: majority should rule but it never did. do you think 'the majority' started the crusade against homosexuals?. fuck, just get over yourself. the majority was always spoonfed with bullshit they didn't even cared about and still, they did what they always do: mind their own business and just 'go with the times'.
Oh, come on. Eastern Europe and the Balkans are still deeply homophobic. Some of it is religious influence but that's certainly not all. There might be politicians who try to use it for their own purpose but it's been there all along.
are you trying to say that people in the Balkans are born homophobes?.
On October 12 2012 07:07 xM(Z wrote: majority should rule but it never did. do you think 'the majority' started the crusade against homosexuals?. fuck, just get over yourself. the majority was always spoonfed with bullshit they didn't even cared about and still, they did what they always do: mind their own business and just 'go with the times'.
Oh, come on. Eastern Europe and the Balkans are still deeply homophobic. Some of it is religious influence but that's certainly not all. There might be politicians who try to use it for their own purpose but it's been there all along.
are you trying to say that people in the Balkans are born homophobes?.
No, they learn it from their peers, their parents and everyone else around them. But it's not coming from a small group of individuals, it's deeply ingrained in society.
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...
Yeah I agree. I feel like the only people that would care for these parades and such is homosexual people themselves. Think about it, those people who don't have an issue against them wouldn't notice it as something super important and the opposite end of the spectrum just don't give a shit anyway, there isn't really anything that you do to change their perception. Most of them are really close-minded people so persuasion just won't work.
And I agree about rubbing it on the people's face aspect which is really not nice imo.. Organize conferences, seminars, talk about the current issues regarding the rights and problems that gay people face, support foundations etc., but a parade just to show off? It always felt stupid to me.
I demand that someone define what qualifies as "offensive," in such a way where the argument cannot be obliterated with a counterargument of extremes, or is somehow not applicable when using the same examples involving heterosexuality.
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...
Sorry, but how is this a problem that warrants oppression?
Why are you dressing them in a cloak of guilt because others are evil?
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...
Yeah I agree. I feel like the only people that would care for these parades and such is homosexual people themselves. Think about it, those people who don't have an issue against them wouldn't notice it as something super important and the opposite end of the spectrum just don't give a shit anyway, there isn't really anything that you do to change their perception. Most of them are really close-minded people so persuasion just won't work.
And I agree about rubbing it on the people's face aspect which is really not nice imo.. Organize conferences, seminars, talk about the current issues regarding the rights and problems that gay people face, support foundations etc., but a parade just to show off? It always felt stupid to me.
Then don't participate; but do not contemplate oppression...????
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...
Yeah I agree. I feel like the only people that would care for these parades and such is homosexual people themselves. Think about it, those people who don't have an issue against them wouldn't notice it as something super important and the opposite end of the spectrum just don't give a shit anyway, there isn't really anything that you do to change their perception. Most of them are really close-minded people so persuasion just won't work.
And I agree about rubbing it on the people's face aspect which is really not nice imo.. Organize conferences, seminars, talk about the current issues regarding the rights and problems that gay people face, support foundations etc., but a parade just to show off? It always felt stupid to me.
Parades exist because they are fucking fun seriously. I don't know why we have 4th of July parades, they are just throwing their patriotism in my face (oh wait, I know why we have them, because their are people who go to them and enjoy them, of course!). If you don't like parades don't go to them and if enough people dislike them they won't happen.
Very often when there is some anti-gay attitude on TL it's from posters from Eastern European countries that will say how unnatural and sick it is. I imagine it's not as bad there as in some other places in the world, but it's still kinda sad since it's so close to Western Europe.
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...
Yeah I agree. I feel like the only people that would care for these parades and such is homosexual people themselves. Think about it, those people who don't have an issue against them wouldn't notice it as something super important and the opposite end of the spectrum just don't give a shit anyway, there isn't really anything that you do to change their perception. Most of them are really close-minded people so persuasion just won't work.
And I agree about rubbing it on the people's face aspect which is really not nice imo.. Organize conferences, seminars, talk about the current issues regarding the rights and problems that gay people face, support foundations etc., but a parade just to show off? It always felt stupid to me.
The purpose of such a parade is not to deliberately annoy close-minded people, but it's a nice bonus. Unfortunately, life is tough and sometimes we will have to be confronted with our own weaknesses. If you find gay people 'icky', then it's really your problem and you have no right to complain about how others impose on you and about how offensive it is.
On October 12 2012 04:01 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: It's interesting how the Slavic nations that were the pioneers of social freedoms and human equality are now becoming rather conservative and contradicting their policies of the 20th century.
That is indeed very sad And this gay topic is far from the only manifestation of this unfortunate trend
Disgusting. I was in a good humor until this. Fun thing is I was just talking with my sister about some extreme right-wing shit that is going on east europe.
On October 12 2012 09:40 autoexec wrote: Why aren't there any straight pride parades?
Now THAT is discrimination.
Because straight people are not oppressed and said you are wrong for being what you are 24/7 365 days a week for the rest of your life.
The people who say "why aren't there straight pride parades" are probably the same people who wonder why there is no affirmative action for white people.
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...
Yeah I agree. I feel like the only people that would care for these parades and such is homosexual people themselves. Think about it, those people who don't have an issue against them wouldn't notice it as something super important and the opposite end of the spectrum just don't give a shit anyway, there isn't really anything that you do to change their perception. Most of them are really close-minded people so persuasion just won't work.
And I agree about rubbing it on the people's face aspect which is really not nice imo.. Organize conferences, seminars, talk about the current issues regarding the rights and problems that gay people face, support foundations etc., but a parade just to show off? It always felt stupid to me.
That's too bad.
It's about self-dignity. It doesn't fucking matter if it seems unnecessary to you because they aren't doing it for you. People from these community have been fucked around long enough throughout history and they're tired of hiding. Liberal nations, primarily in the West, are the only places that have grown up as a society to allow these people to finally gain the respect and tolerance enough for these parades to occur. They are a natural evolution of the riots and demonstrations of bygone eras when they were viewed as less than human by the majority of the population.
Once people stop giving a fuck about homosexuals like people don't give a fuck that you're straight, then we'll talk. But this isn't the time.
"Gay Propaganda" and other campaigns of awareness of the issues are necessary. When a group is marginalized in society they need ways to get their plight out there to the greater public. Its why they do parades and have advocacy groups. You wouldn't talk down to people who were fighting for civil rights for "throwing their race views in your face". Why is this different? If society was better at accepting people different than themselves they wouldn't do things like that because there wouldn't be a need to celebrate being gay when if its considered just part of the normal spectrum of sexuality. The fact that they were marginalized is what makes them stand out and have to fight against it and you can't fault a group of people for doing what they can to gain rights that they should be entitled to in the first place.
On October 12 2012 07:07 xM(Z wrote: majority should rule but it never did. do you think 'the majority' started the crusade against homosexuals?. fuck, just get over yourself. the majority was always spoonfed with bullshit they didn't even cared about and still, they did what they always do: mind their own business and just 'go with the times'.
Oh, come on. Eastern Europe and the Balkans are still deeply homophobic. Some of it is religious influence but that's certainly not all. There might be politicians who try to use it for their own purpose but it's been there all along.
are you trying to say that people in the Balkans are born homophobes?.
No, they learn it from their peers, their parents and everyone else around them. But it's not coming from a small group of individuals, it's deeply ingrained in society.
they learn that is wrong to be one; they don't learn to hate them nor that they need to hurt them. that is the product of the same herd mentality you see everywhere arround you. proper education and time solves everything. i mean, look at your western world; you have legalized homosexuality dacades ago but to this day when someone comes out it's like a holiday. and why is that?, 'cause they are still tacitly opressed by others. in schools, at their work place, on the streets. the ones openly gay are the ones that can afford to be; either materially, socially or emotionally. there's no law that can forbid hate you know. if you just teach people that it's ok to be gay you won't need a law to protect gays after they have already been victimized.
There are a lot of views that are stigmatized by modern western culture. For example, vegetarians and vegans can be constantly harassed by people who eat meat (including their own families) simply because they choose not to. I wondered why this was for a loooong time until I saw a youtube video where the guy explains it perfectly. Basically, he thinks that meat-eaters see vegetarians/vegans as passively judging them as inferior for eating meat.
Americans even have holidays that are centered around meat-eating, including Thanksgiving, where turkey is traditionally the main dish, and Christmas, where ham is traditionally served. Vegans, a subset of vegetarians, can get every nutrient their body needs without eating meat, so it isn't unhealthy to be vegan. Yet if you go to your family Thanksgiving and refuse the turkey that is served, you could risk being socially exiled.
Another American social stigma is men with long hair. If you listen to your tv you may find this negative view towards men with long hair actively being reinforced. Often the man with long hair also has a beard. Here's an example. + Show Spoiler [The Reason I Will Never Buy A Nissan] +
If you replace the man working at the gas station with a gay man acting the same way the guy in the commercial does, it's suddenly a very offensive and homophobic commercial.
I think there are people in high places who push these stigmas on the masses so that people who identify with the stigma are socially oppressed by people who are easily programmed by the media. The person in question then typically becomes depressed until s/he either conforms to society's will or finds strength within enough that s/he can withstand being around starers, pointers, and whisperers until the day the stigma is done away with.
I feel for gay people when I hear about bullshit like this. It has to stop. I have long hair and a beard but I am considering cutting all of it short when I return to college so that I do not have to put up with stupid people and their bullshit. But I am afraid that my mind will change if I do and I will stop caring about things that are important to me in favor of materialism.
Wow, a thread on TL about situation in my country... Sick! Accidently saw the thread on the right side of main screen of this site. I'm sorry for maybe not good english cause my native is ukrainian.
Guys, I wouldn't pay attention on that shit with that law voting in our parliament. It's like in any country when they have huge REAL problems (like now we have very shitty economy) those fuckers from powers (government, president and parliament at this moment are controlled by one big group) decide to throw attention from REAL problems by throwing some shit that causes butthurt - laws about gays, laws about languages, laws about religion etc. Those politicians dont actualy care about all these gays/languages, cause its just a distraction so news lines wont be like "Ukraine's economy is in deep shit", "Ukraine is bankrupt". 2-3 month earlier we had "language" vote. We have 1 sovereign language - ukrainian (but still 30-50% people speak russian). That vote was about facticly getting russian language regional status. And so on...
On 28th of October (ye, in 16 days ) we have parliamentary elections and politicians dont want people to hear "ukraine is bankrupt", they want them to hear about gay/language/religion because talking about REAL problems (economy, corruption) will cause huge rating falling right before elections (I actualy dont know who votes for them, but sadly to say... most people are not realy smart).
So dont be misleaded... People here are just the same as in your country (by your I mean any country you're reading from, US, England, France, Mexica etc. ). Of course most people are homophobic, but but dont showing it. And of course we dont show it and act tolerately in most cases just like in any other country. And of course people DONT realy care about that idiotic law...
Here laws are made in 2 stages in parliament (1st vote and 2nd vote). 1st vote - thats what you know and what newspapers wrote about, but the law starts working after 2nd vote. And as far as I remember 2nd vote is after elections so I think they just will "forget" about this idiotic law and wont even do the 2nd vote...
On October 12 2012 09:40 autoexec wrote: Why aren't there any straight pride parades?
Now THAT is discrimination.
Are you fucking serious?
Go ahead and organize a Straight Pride Parade. Who is stopping you?
What I want to know is why there aren't straight kids committing suicide because they're being bullied for being straight.
Why aren't straight kids being told they are going to burn in hell for being straight?
Let's even out the playing field here.
None of that is the reason, either. The reason there are no straight pride parades is because there is no interest in those. It would be discrimination if you were not allowed to have one, which i am pretty sure you are. It is just that noone organizes one, and if they try, apparently not a lot of people go there. If you really want to have one, find enough likeminded people and organize one.
On October 12 2012 09:40 autoexec wrote: Why aren't there any straight pride parades?
Now THAT is discrimination.
Are you fucking serious?
Go ahead and organize a Straight Pride Parade. Who is stopping you?
What I want to know is why there aren't straight kids committing suicide because they're being bullied for being straight.
Why aren't straight kids being told they are going to burn in hell for being straight?
Let's even out the playing field here.
None of that is the reason, either. The reason there are no straight pride parades is because there is no interest in those. It would be discrimination if you were not allowed to have one, which i am pretty sure you are. It is just that noone organizes one, and if they try, apparently not a lot of people go there. If you really want to have one, find enough likeminded people and organize one.
A straight pride parade would be a very sad affair, likely mostly populated by people who are very into normative heterosexuality.
On October 12 2012 09:40 autoexec wrote: Why aren't there any straight pride parades?
Now THAT is discrimination.
Are you fucking serious?
Go ahead and organize a Straight Pride Parade. Who is stopping you?
What I want to know is why there aren't straight kids committing suicide because they're being bullied for being straight.
Why aren't straight kids being told they are going to burn in hell for being straight?
Let's even out the playing field here.
None of that is the reason, either. The reason there are no straight pride parades is because there is no interest in those. It would be discrimination if you were not allowed to have one, which i am pretty sure you are. It is just that noone organizes one, and if they try, apparently not a lot of people go there. If you really want to have one, find enough likeminded people and organize one.
Straight pride marches would just end up being really populated with neo-nazis.
The average joe really isn't going to go out of his way to march on what would, in the end, not boil down to a celebration of being straight, but a childish sneer at those who are gay.
On October 12 2012 16:56 gylka wrote: Wow, a thread on TL about situation in my country... Sick! Accidently saw the thread on the right side of main screen of this site. I'm sorry for maybe not good english cause my native is ukrainian.
Guys, I wouldn't pay attention on that shit with that law voting in our parliament. It's like in any country when they have huge REAL problems (like now we have very shitty economy) those fuckers from powers (government, president and parliament at this moment are controlled by one big group) decide to throw attention from REAL problems by throwing some shit that causes butthurt - laws about gays, laws about languages, laws about religion etc. Those politicians dont actualy care about all these gays/languages, cause its just a distraction so news lines wont be like "Ukraine's economy is in deep shit", "Ukraine is bankrupt". 2-3 month earlier we had "language" vote. We have 1 sovereign language - ukrainian (but still 30-50% people speak russian). That vote was about facticly getting russian language regional status. And so on...
On 28th of October (ye, in 16 days ) we have parliamentary elections and politicians dont want people to hear "ukraine is bankrupt", they want them to hear about gay/language/religion because talking about REAL problems (economy, corruption) will cause huge rating falling right before elections (I actualy dont know who votes for them, but sadly to say... most people are not realy smart).
So dont be misleaded... People here are just the same as in your country (by your I mean any country you're reading from, US, England, France, Mexica etc. ). Of course most people are homophobic, but but dont showing it. And of course we dont show it and act tolerately in most cases just like in any other country. And of course people DONT realy care about that idiotic law...
Here laws are made in 2 stages in parliament (1st vote and 2nd vote). 1st vote - thats what you know and what newspapers wrote about, but the law starts working after 2nd vote. And as far as I remember 2nd vote is after elections so I think they just will "forget" about this idiotic law and wont even do the 2nd vote...
Thank you. This is one of the first things a government does when in deep deep shit. Start make the population think in a "we vs them" way, and bring the country together. Nationalism and conservatism is the go-to way to deal with bad economy if you want to be re-elected.
Everytime I read shit about straight people being 'offended' by gay people and how they have to right not to be exposed to their lifestyle or some shit like that I just roll my eyes and think how fucking privileged these people are. It's such a disgrace.
I am straight myself, but I have a lot of sympathy for my gay friends. Don't ya think some of them aren't exactly excited to see straight people kiss in like every movie ever made? That they can't run away from crappy romance plots in the vast majority of books, TV shows, what have you? That you can't walk two feet outside of any city in the Western world without seeing some guy and a girl hold hands and kiss? Maybe they don't find it very hot either, but you don't hear them crying about it because it's their lot to grow up as a sexual minority and accept the ubiquity of straight sexuality everywhere they look?
So really, all I can say to whiny straight people is that privilege is a very fine drug indeed and that you can get the fuck out of my life right now if you don't understand what it is. Seriously.
I know, ranty. But my eyes literally go O_____________O at all this fucking anti-gay rubbish lately and it just makes me go more I don't wanna live on this planet anymore.gif than most anything else, because, guh, so stupid.
On October 13 2012 07:28 Vo-one wrote: I just leave this link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85DqjlKm0Io Multivoting, forceblocking - you can find all of these in Ukrainian Parliament! Enjoy and Laugh YourAO.
Personally, I believe in democracy. Yes, democracy. Not that shit that's in US/Canada right now where if you're black/gay/single mother, you get all sorts of special treatment.
I believe that the majority should decide what to do. There is no absolute fair way to do something. There is no way for everyone to be satisfied. The satisfaction of some people leads to the dissatisfaction of other people. Unfortunately in the US, people seem to think that if you're a minority, you need to be "protected" even if that would mean doing something that goes against what 95% of the population wants.
If they win the vote to outlaw gay propaganda, then that is the way it should be. If they don't then that is the way it should be.
I'm proud for Ukraina. You can fuck at your bed anyone you want, but you should be punished for homosexual propaganda.
On October 13 2012 07:28 Vo-one wrote: I just leave this link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85DqjlKm0Io Multivoting, forceblocking - you can find all of these in Ukrainian Parliament! Enjoy and Laugh YourAO.
PS yeah, that's Klitchko.
You can find everything the same at almost every parliament of the world, dont be silly.
On October 12 2012 16:56 gylka wrote: Wow, a thread on TL about situation in my country... Sick! Accidently saw the thread on the right side of main screen of this site. I'm sorry for maybe not good english cause my native is ukrainian.
Guys, I wouldn't pay attention on that shit with that law voting in our parliament. It's like in any country when they have huge REAL problems (like now we have very shitty economy) those fuckers from powers (government, president and parliament at this moment are controlled by one big group) decide to throw attention from REAL problems by throwing some shit that causes butthurt - laws about gays, laws about languages, laws about religion etc. Those politicians dont actualy care about all these gays/languages, cause its just a distraction so news lines wont be like "Ukraine's economy is in deep shit", "Ukraine is bankrupt". 2-3 month earlier we had "language" vote. We have 1 sovereign language - ukrainian (but still 30-50% people speak russian). That vote was about facticly getting russian language regional status. And so on...
On 28th of October (ye, in 16 days ) we have parliamentary elections and politicians dont want people to hear "ukraine is bankrupt", they want them to hear about gay/language/religion because talking about REAL problems (economy, corruption) will cause huge rating falling right before elections (I actualy dont know who votes for them, but sadly to say... most people are not realy smart).
So dont be misleaded... People here are just the same as in your country (by your I mean any country you're reading from, US, England, France, Mexica etc. ). Of course most people are homophobic, but but dont showing it. And of course we dont show it and act tolerately in most cases just like in any other country. And of course people DONT realy care about that idiotic law...
Here laws are made in 2 stages in parliament (1st vote and 2nd vote). 1st vote - thats what you know and what newspapers wrote about, but the law starts working after 2nd vote. And as far as I remember 2nd vote is after elections so I think they just will "forget" about this idiotic law and wont even do the 2nd vote...
On October 13 2012 13:45 agfoxGnom wrote: You can find everything the same at almost every parliament of the world, dont be silly.
Nah... Far NOT at every parliament in the world. Just yours (you're from Russia, right? ), mine (ukr) and several others asian or african countries... )) In normal countries political hustlers act much more adequete, they're a bit smarter and NEVER vote for other people.
But I dont want to argue, just replying to the thread. Peace
On October 13 2012 13:45 agfoxGnom wrote: I'm proud for Ukraina. You can fuck at your bed anyone you want, but you should be punished for homosexual propaganda
btw, there is no such thing as homosexual propaganda. What is it? By that definition that your St.Petersburg's municipal council's law gave - it can be anything... Even when teacher at school is saying that animals in nature sometimes make homosexual acts (dogs, monkeys etc) - it passes definition of homosexual propaganda and that teacher should be punished. When the boy is born homosexual and has a bit problems with adaptation in his class at school and parents are sending him to school psychologyst and he is saying that its normal, that at any place in the world 3-7% are born homosexual (its geneticaly deternimed sign) and you're just one of them - he passes homosexual propaganda and should be punished by that law. Its idiotic, dumb and that law made by some cave-people that dont read what specialists say (psychiatrist, medics and others who study that thing... not just some random guy with his own opinion based on irrational fears and fantasy and which is often wrong).
EPT
. Homosexuality spreads it significantly more faster given their population representation. 
(Warning: Language.)
technically blowjobs too.
Accidently saw the thread on the right side of main screen of this site. 
