|
On November 24 2012 13:53 Luppy1 wrote:
Just because it's increasingly acceptable in some western nations, it doesn't mean that the entire world needs to accept it. Personally, I'm glad it's still frown upon in most (if not all) asian nations [and considering the state of things in the world, I can safely say that the asian societies do know better in some aspects.]
China and Tibet comes to mind. Genocide and ongoing occupation. And what the Chinese social party did to its inhabitants during Mao (and afterwards)... add censorship on the internet... I'm not convinced by your words. I do not feel you have the same respect for individual life. At least China always puts the nation before any single inhabitant. Hence it's specially hard to make a case for gay rights. Don't know too much about other Asian countries.
Much of the culture seems very rich, and cool. But, yeah. Not convinced you are better than us at respecting individual life, nor that you are better off not respecting individual life.
Anyway. Can I just remind you that you are "frowning" upon actual people with hopes and dreams, who were born different or developed differently than you. Their first wish is like yours: To be allowed to love and be loved. I'm asking why you are glad that these people are frowned upon. Remove the frown from the "equation" and I'd argue you lose nothing. They have not transgressed nor asking for the right to transgress. Only to be free. If it were within your power to grant this, would you deny them freedom to love?
|
On November 24 2012 10:47 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote:
I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference. While it's somewhat of a tenuous statement to make, I don't think it's entirely unjustified. Which of the two is more likely to be a forward thinking person? The one that's "gay friendly", or the opposite?
Well now you are just projecting.
On November 24 2012 10:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote:
I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference. Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
Since when does being tolerant of one thing make you "forward thinking", essentially justifying your entire world view?
They tend to go together in the way popular media uses the term, but having one viewpoint doesn't automatically define your entire value system. "Forward thinking" is not even descriptive of any one particular set of views. I consider myself forward thinking, but I bet someone out there would consider me bass-ackwards.
|
On November 24 2012 14:13 sambo400 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 10:47 Shival wrote:On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote:
I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference. While it's somewhat of a tenuous statement to make, I don't think it's entirely unjustified. Which of the two is more likely to be a forward thinking person? The one that's "gay friendly", or the opposite? Well now you are just projecting.
Does it really matter to begin with? I'd argue one would have a wish to control love ("only between so and so"). The other would realize that you cannot control love, only how you treat others. Doesn't matter in what 'direction' you think. Decide what kind of person you want to be, and don't hide behind technicalities.
|
On November 24 2012 12:51 Praetorial wrote:
To all those who think that
-Homosexuality is wrong because of your beliefs, and that you have a right to impose them on others
-That a definition is more important that the happiness of others
-That it's okay for the government to strip away the basic rights of the people on a majority vote
-That a single act damns a person to death
You're all complete idiots. I hope that you burn in flames of the hell you believe the people you persecute are going to, because you're neither loving nor forgiving, but imposing upon people the decision when they were granted choice by Christ.
This would be exactly how opponents of a traditional marriage frame the debate. That, first of all, it's a basic right, and second of all, that it unduly denies the happiness of others, and third of all, that its religious people imposing their beliefs on everybody else. Taking the very populous country of the United States as an example, it's the believe that 42-49% of the population have their heads up their collective arses. When the Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry under the constitution, 52% of California voted in Prop. 8 in 2008 to overturn that ruling, putting it back to defined between a man and a woman. In the state that has San Francisco and Los Angeles, a majority found that it just wasn't a good idea. So maybe there's an opposition to this definition that isn't blindly pushing religion, or killjoys of happiness, or hating basic rights. I'm not ready to dismiss around half the country I live in on the basis of your arguments for it (i.e. how could anyone be against it?)
|
On November 24 2012 13:53 Luppy1 wrote:
Just because it's increasingly acceptable in some western nations, it doesn't mean that the entire world needs to accept it. Personally, I'm glad it's still frown upon in most (if not all) asian nations [and considering the state of things in the world, I can safely say that the asian societies do know better in some aspects.]
Huh? I do not see where you are going with that last statement, nor does it reflect better knowing. Actually the last statement doesnt reflect the state of the world at all.
|
On November 24 2012 14:17 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 13:53 Luppy1 wrote:
Just because it's increasingly acceptable in some western nations, it doesn't mean that the entire world needs to accept it. Personally, I'm glad it's still frown upon in most (if not all) asian nations [and considering the state of things in the world, I can safely say that the asian societies do know better in some aspects.] Huh? I do not see where you are going with that last statement, nor does it reflect better knowing. Actually the last statement doesnt reflect the state of the world at all.
I put it in brackets cause it was originally in this guys post, but then he removed it so I bracketed it. Maybe it's confusing, sorry. Oh, you did see it as his post. Well. He did remove it for a reason I guess ^^.
|
On November 24 2012 14:15 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 14:13 sambo400 wrote:On November 24 2012 10:47 Shival wrote:On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote:
I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference. While it's somewhat of a tenuous statement to make, I don't think it's entirely unjustified. Which of the two is more likely to be a forward thinking person? The one that's "gay friendly", or the opposite? Well now you are just projecting. Does it really matter to begin with? I'd argue one would have a wish to control love ("only between so and so"). The other would realize that you cannot control love, only how you treat others. Doesn't matter in what 'direction' you think. Decide what kind of person you want to be, and don't hide behind technicalities.
I don't believe in categorizing people. Being for gay rights should be a description in isolation. But unfortunately, the way popular media works, any one viewpoint essentially gets a bunch of other viewpoints dumped on you too.
|
On November 24 2012 14:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 12:51 Praetorial wrote:
To all those who think that
-Homosexuality is wrong because of your beliefs, and that you have a right to impose them on others
-That a definition is more important that the happiness of others
-That it's okay for the government to strip away the basic rights of the people on a majority vote
-That a single act damns a person to death
You're all complete idiots. I hope that you burn in flames of the hell you believe the people you persecute are going to, because you're neither loving nor forgiving, but imposing upon people the decision when they were granted choice by Christ. This would be exactly how opponents of a traditional marriage frame the debate. That, first of all, it's a basic right, and second of all, that it unduly denies the happiness of others, and third of all, that its religious people imposing their beliefs on everybody else. Taking the very populous country of the United States as an example, it's the believe that 42-49% of the population have their heads up their collective arses. When the Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry under the constitution, 52% of California voted in Prop. 8 in 2008 to overturn that ruling, putting it back to defined between a man and a woman. In the state that has San Francisco and Los Angeles, a majority found that it just wasn't a good idea. So maybe there's an opposition to this definition that isn't blindly pushing religion, or killjoys of happiness, or hating basic rights. I'm not ready to dismiss around half the country I live in on the basis of your arguments for it (i.e. how could anyone be against it?)
"Only" in the US would such a view be classified as "opponent of traditional marriage", though. Presenting it like it would somehow oppose or infringe/transgress on current marriages. Which isn't true. It's simply a law, where people ask for it to include a minority group.
|
This is indescribably evil. Furthermore, the presence of so many homophobia apologists in this thread is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself for enabling the mass murder of innocents.
|
On November 24 2012 14:21 sambo400 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 14:15 Cutlery wrote:On November 24 2012 14:13 sambo400 wrote:On November 24 2012 10:47 Shival wrote:On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote:
I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference. While it's somewhat of a tenuous statement to make, I don't think it's entirely unjustified. Which of the two is more likely to be a forward thinking person? The one that's "gay friendly", or the opposite? Well now you are just projecting. Does it really matter to begin with? I'd argue one would have a wish to control love ("only between so and so"). The other would realize that you cannot control love, only how you treat others. Doesn't matter in what 'direction' you think. Decide what kind of person you want to be, and don't hide behind technicalities. I don't believe in categorizing people. Being for gay rights should be a description in isolation. But unfortunately, the way popular media works, any one viewpoint essentially gets a bunch of other viewpoints dumped on you too.
How is sexuality not about love though? I don't think it's unfortunate or unrelated. If people would not get married for love then it wouldn't have mattered. But here we are. Marrying for love. But I can agree that "rights are rights", regardless.
But the argument was made about being "gay friendly". and should you be gay "un-friendly" I'd argue that you would rather have your way and not want gays to love. That was what I wanted to say. Regardless of your views on individual rights.
|
On November 24 2012 13:53 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 13:47 whatevername wrote:On November 23 2012 21:14 EtherealBlade wrote:
So if there's strong support for it throughout the country what's your deal with it? Let them make their own laws, they aren't a colony. There are other moral standards than Western. The disgusting consequences of relativistic morality. Thanks, you vile excuse for a human being. --- Hopefully this bill doesnt pass, but people, dont blame Christianity. Africa is stuck, in every sense of the word, quite a bit in the past. They have little to no respect for individual rights or the modern world as a whole, and religions got nothing to do with that. Just because they don't support being gay doesn't mean that they are "stuck in the past". You have such an aggressive stance towards this topic, it looks like the majority are voting against it and the majority winning is the way most people can live in peace. This is also how america works. Personally I don't mind gay people however I could see either side and if the country wants to vote against it well then so be it. If they don't then they don't. Take your stance for what you believe in and hope your side wins, no reason to take out pitchforks and scream death to the non believers. K...this is not the other side of the debate over the ethicacy of active homosexual behaviour. You see that other side all the time in Churches in America, where they make the case for love and respect, but abstinence on the part of homosexuals. This is the, lets kill gays and hang witches crowd, and there is every room to aggressively condemn and abhor them for that. There is every reason to "scream to death".On November 24 2012 14:22 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 14:16 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2012 12:51 Praetorial wrote:
To all those who think that
-Homosexuality is wrong because of your beliefs, and that you have a right to impose them on others
-That a definition is more important that the happiness of others
-That it's okay for the government to strip away the basic rights of the people on a majority vote
-That a single act damns a person to death
You're all complete idiots. I hope that you burn in flames of the hell you believe the people you persecute are going to, because you're neither loving nor forgiving, but imposing upon people the decision when they were granted choice by Christ. This would be exactly how opponents of a traditional marriage frame the debate. That, first of all, it's a basic right, and second of all, that it unduly denies the happiness of others, and third of all, that its religious people imposing their beliefs on everybody else. Taking the very populous country of the United States as an example, it's the believe that 42-49% of the population have their heads up their collective arses. When the Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry under the constitution, 52% of California voted in Prop. 8 in 2008 to overturn that ruling, putting it back to defined between a man and a woman. In the state that has San Francisco and Los Angeles, a majority found that it just wasn't a good idea. So maybe there's an opposition to this definition that isn't blindly pushing religion, or killjoys of happiness, or hating basic rights. I'm not ready to dismiss around half the country I live in on the basis of your arguments for it (i.e. how could anyone be against it?) "Only" in the US would such a view be classified as "opponent of traditional marriage", though. Presenting it like it would somehow oppose or infringe/transgress on current marriages. Which isn't true. It's simply a law, where people ask for it to include a minority group. We both know thats false given the majority of Europe doesnt recognize gay marriage either. Are you really suggesting their rationalization for rejecting such a proposal isnt related to infringing on traditional concepts whatsoever? Then what exactly could their rationalization be at all? It was also the argument against gay marriage in Canada as well.
|
On November 24 2012 14:32 Selendis wrote:
This is indescribably evil. Furthermore, the presence of so many homophobia apologists in this thread is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself for enabling the mass murder of innocents.
Yes because what someone says on an internetforum will obviously enable the mass murder of innocents in a country in Africa - oh wait - no.
And before you jump the gun here, I have nothing against gay rights, I see absolutely nothing wrong with man/man or woman/woman, whatever floats your boat. But I would really urge people to take a step back from condemning people who do not agree with them as ironically it makes you no better than those you are so eager to judge.
|
On November 24 2012 14:04 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 13:53 Luppy1 wrote:
Just because it's increasingly acceptable in some western nations, it doesn't mean that the entire world needs to accept it. Personally, I'm glad it's still frown upon in most (if not all) asian nations [and considering the state of things in the world, I can safely say that the asian societies do know better in some aspects.] China and Tibet comes to mind. Genocide and ongoing occupation. And what the Chinese social party did to its inhabitants during Mao (and afterwards)... add censorship on the internet... I'm not convinced by your words. I do not feel you have the same respect for individual life. At least China always puts the nation before any single inhabitant. Hence it's specially hard to make a case for gay rights. Don't know too much about other Asian countries. Much of the culture seems very rich, and cool. But, yeah. Not convinced you are better than us at respecting individual life, nor that you are better off not respecting individual life. Anyway. Can I just remind you that you are "frowning" upon actual people with hopes and dreams, who were born different or developed differently than you. Their first wish is like yours: To be allowed to love and be loved. I'm asking why you are glad that these people are frowned upon. Remove the frown from the "equation" and I'd argue you lose nothing. They have not transgressed nor asking for the right to transgress. Only to be free. If it were within your power to grant this, would you deny them freedom to love?
Do we even know for sure whether they're born different? There's no complete freedom for everything where I'm at. Having slightly less freedom doesn't suffocate everyone because most people do realise that it's necessary, since some people need to be protected from themselves. The western nations are probably proud about their freedom. But, personally, I don't think they're doing enough to protect their own people. To me, having complete freedom is too chaotic and it's like moving slowly towards self destruction. I don't want that for my country.
While being a homosexual is frowned upon in my country, these people are not hunted down and labelled as criminals. But, it's just widely considered as unnatural and those who confess as being a homosexual would probably be considered as freaks (but, they would not be treated any differently). There's a very negative stigma attached to being a gay, enough for people not to be open about it. Still, It's not as bad as the negative stigma of being bad in school/exams.
|
On November 24 2012 15:07 Luppy1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 14:04 Cutlery wrote:On November 24 2012 13:53 Luppy1 wrote:
Just because it's increasingly acceptable in some western nations, it doesn't mean that the entire world needs to accept it. Personally, I'm glad it's still frown upon in most (if not all) asian nations [and considering the state of things in the world, I can safely say that the asian societies do know better in some aspects.] China and Tibet comes to mind. Genocide and ongoing occupation. And what the Chinese social party did to its inhabitants during Mao (and afterwards)... add censorship on the internet... I'm not convinced by your words. I do not feel you have the same respect for individual life. At least China always puts the nation before any single inhabitant. Hence it's specially hard to make a case for gay rights. Don't know too much about other Asian countries. Much of the culture seems very rich, and cool. But, yeah. Not convinced you are better than us at respecting individual life, nor that you are better off not respecting individual life. Anyway. Can I just remind you that you are "frowning" upon actual people with hopes and dreams, who were born different or developed differently than you. Their first wish is like yours: To be allowed to love and be loved. I'm asking why you are glad that these people are frowned upon. Remove the frown from the "equation" and I'd argue you lose nothing. They have not transgressed nor asking for the right to transgress. Only to be free. If it were within your power to grant this, would you deny them freedom to love? Do we even know for sure whether they're born different? There's no complete freedom for everything where I'm at. Having slightly less freedom doesn't suffocate everyone because most people do realise that it's necessary, since some people need to be protected from themselves. The western nations are probably proud about their freedom. But, personally, I don't think they're doing enough to protect their own people. To me, having complete freedom is too chaotic and it's like moving slowly towards self destruction. While being a homosexual is frowned upon in my country, these people are not hunted down and labelled as criminals. But, it's just widely considered as unnatural and those who confess as being a homosexual would probably be considered as freaks (but, they would not be treated any differently). There's a very negative stigma attached to being a gay, enough for people not to be open about it. Still, It's not as bad as the negative stigma of being bad in school/exams.
I don't think you really know what it feels like to be discriminated against for not being straight. Things like doing shitty on exams, or getting bad grades in school are fixable. You can study, you can work harder next time..
If you're gay, you're completely screwed. It's inside you literally every single day reminding you that every little attraction you feel towards someone would get you labeled as a freak even though it's harmless. Even if it's not as out in the open, it's insane how horrible it can be. Even little passive remarks are incredibly hurtful.
|
On November 24 2012 14:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 12:51 Praetorial wrote:
To all those who think that
-Homosexuality is wrong because of your beliefs, and that you have a right to impose them on others
-That a definition is more important that the happiness of others
-That it's okay for the government to strip away the basic rights of the people on a majority vote
-That a single act damns a person to death
You're all complete idiots. I hope that you burn in flames of the hell you believe the people you persecute are going to, because you're neither loving nor forgiving, but imposing upon people the decision when they were granted choice by Christ. This would be exactly how opponents of a traditional marriage frame the debate. That, first of all, it's a basic right, and second of all, that it unduly denies the happiness of others, and third of all, that its religious people imposing their beliefs on everybody else. Taking the very populous country of the United States as an example, it's the believe that 42-49% of the population have their heads up their collective arses. When the Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry under the constitution, 52% of California voted in Prop. 8 in 2008 to overturn that ruling, putting it back to defined between a man and a woman. In the state that has San Francisco and Los Angeles, a majority found that it just wasn't a good idea. So maybe there's an opposition to this definition that isn't blindly pushing religion, or killjoys of happiness, or hating basic rights. I'm not ready to dismiss around half the country I live in on the basis of your arguments for it (i.e. how could anyone be against it?)
When did people who are for gay marriage become "opponents of a traditional marriage"? I have yet to here a single person claim that they think that a heterosexual marriage should be illegal. That would be opposing a traditional marriage.
Also, that was not what this was about. It is a lot easier to argue that homosexual marriage should not be allowed then it is to argue directly against homosexuality. I have yet to see a single argument that shows that homosexuality is bad and should be illegal. Which is what we are talking about here. Not gay marriage, but being gay. And if so many arguments exist why it is bad, it should not be hard to find one. Preferably a rational argument, not one based on "The bible says so" "I find it disgusting" or "It's unnatural". An rational ethical argument should be based on a very generic set of rules that are easily accepted, and then explain why something breaks those rules, and why the proposed solution breaks the rules less then the starting argument. I think most people would say that a good rational basic ethical rule is based around that harm being done to people is bad, and stuff that does no harm is not bad. If you want to propose a different rule, you are free to do so, of course.
|
On November 24 2012 15:11 Glurkenspurk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 15:07 Luppy1 wrote:On November 24 2012 14:04 Cutlery wrote:On November 24 2012 13:53 Luppy1 wrote:
Just because it's increasingly acceptable in some western nations, it doesn't mean that the entire world needs to accept it. Personally, I'm glad it's still frown upon in most (if not all) asian nations [and considering the state of things in the world, I can safely say that the asian societies do know better in some aspects.] China and Tibet comes to mind. Genocide and ongoing occupation. And what the Chinese social party did to its inhabitants during Mao (and afterwards)... add censorship on the internet... I'm not convinced by your words. I do not feel you have the same respect for individual life. At least China always puts the nation before any single inhabitant. Hence it's specially hard to make a case for gay rights. Don't know too much about other Asian countries. Much of the culture seems very rich, and cool. But, yeah. Not convinced you are better than us at respecting individual life, nor that you are better off not respecting individual life. Anyway. Can I just remind you that you are "frowning" upon actual people with hopes and dreams, who were born different or developed differently than you. Their first wish is like yours: To be allowed to love and be loved. I'm asking why you are glad that these people are frowned upon. Remove the frown from the "equation" and I'd argue you lose nothing. They have not transgressed nor asking for the right to transgress. Only to be free. If it were within your power to grant this, would you deny them freedom to love? Do we even know for sure whether they're born different? There's no complete freedom for everything where I'm at. Having slightly less freedom doesn't suffocate everyone because most people do realise that it's necessary, since some people need to be protected from themselves. The western nations are probably proud about their freedom. But, personally, I don't think they're doing enough to protect their own people. To me, having complete freedom is too chaotic and it's like moving slowly towards self destruction. While being a homosexual is frowned upon in my country, these people are not hunted down and labelled as criminals. But, it's just widely considered as unnatural and those who confess as being a homosexual would probably be considered as freaks (but, they would not be treated any differently). There's a very negative stigma attached to being a gay, enough for people not to be open about it. Still, It's not as bad as the negative stigma of being bad in school/exams. I don't think you really know what it feels like to be discriminated against for not being straight. Things like doing shitty on exams, or getting bad grades in school are fixable. You can study, you can work harder next time.. If you're gay, you're completely screwed. It's inside you literally every single day reminding you that every little attraction you feel towards someone would get you labeled as a freak even though it's harmless. Even if it's not as out in the open, it's insane how horrible it can be. Even little passive remarks are incredibly hurtful.
I've been racially discriminated when I had to live abroad for 4 years. So, I do know what it feels like to be discriminated. It doesn't feel good. But, it's really nothing. I think you're too sheltered (You mentioned the attraction being harmless. Getting called a freak/the passive remarks are just as harmless). Also, I'm not convinced that people have no choice about who they're attracted to.
I was just comparing the negative stigma of being a gay and being bad at exams. From where I'm at, the negative stigma attached to being bad at exams is more severe than the stigma attached to being a homosexual. So, it's not really that bad for the homosexuals.
|
On November 24 2012 15:23 Luppy1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 15:11 Glurkenspurk wrote:On November 24 2012 15:07 Luppy1 wrote:On November 24 2012 14:04 Cutlery wrote:On November 24 2012 13:53 Luppy1 wrote:
Just because it's increasingly acceptable in some western nations, it doesn't mean that the entire world needs to accept it. Personally, I'm glad it's still frown upon in most (if not all) asian nations [and considering the state of things in the world, I can safely say that the asian societies do know better in some aspects.] China and Tibet comes to mind. Genocide and ongoing occupation. And what the Chinese social party did to its inhabitants during Mao (and afterwards)... add censorship on the internet... I'm not convinced by your words. I do not feel you have the same respect for individual life. At least China always puts the nation before any single inhabitant. Hence it's specially hard to make a case for gay rights. Don't know too much about other Asian countries. Much of the culture seems very rich, and cool. But, yeah. Not convinced you are better than us at respecting individual life, nor that you are better off not respecting individual life. Anyway. Can I just remind you that you are "frowning" upon actual people with hopes and dreams, who were born different or developed differently than you. Their first wish is like yours: To be allowed to love and be loved. I'm asking why you are glad that these people are frowned upon. Remove the frown from the "equation" and I'd argue you lose nothing. They have not transgressed nor asking for the right to transgress. Only to be free. If it were within your power to grant this, would you deny them freedom to love? Do we even know for sure whether they're born different? There's no complete freedom for everything where I'm at. Having slightly less freedom doesn't suffocate everyone because most people do realise that it's necessary, since some people need to be protected from themselves. The western nations are probably proud about their freedom. But, personally, I don't think they're doing enough to protect their own people. To me, having complete freedom is too chaotic and it's like moving slowly towards self destruction. While being a homosexual is frowned upon in my country, these people are not hunted down and labelled as criminals. But, it's just widely considered as unnatural and those who confess as being a homosexual would probably be considered as freaks (but, they would not be treated any differently). There's a very negative stigma attached to being a gay, enough for people not to be open about it. Still, It's not as bad as the negative stigma of being bad in school/exams. I don't think you really know what it feels like to be discriminated against for not being straight. Things like doing shitty on exams, or getting bad grades in school are fixable. You can study, you can work harder next time.. If you're gay, you're completely screwed. It's inside you literally every single day reminding you that every little attraction you feel towards someone would get you labeled as a freak even though it's harmless. Even if it's not as out in the open, it's insane how horrible it can be. Even little passive remarks are incredibly hurtful. I've been racially discriminated when I had to live abroad for 4 years. So, I do know what it feels like to be discriminated. It doesn't feel good. But, it's really nothing. I think you're too sheltered (You mentioned the attraction being harmless. Getting called a freak/the passive remarks are just as harmless). Also, I'm not convinced that people have no choice about who they're attracted to. I was just comparing the negative stigma of being a gay and being bad at exams. From where I'm at, the negative stigma attached to being bad at exams is more severe than the stigma attached to being a homosexual. So, it's not really that bad for the homosexuals.
Being bad at exams is something most people can change.
Being gay isn't something most, if any, homosexuals can change.
Can you see why that would make the stigma of being a homosexual worse for a homosexual?
As to your cultural comment about freedom, we don't have total freedom in the West, it isn't an anarchy over here. We feel that you're too far away from the edge of chaos and that some day being less free will hurt you worse than being more free will ever hurt us.
|
Maybe they're just homophobic. It doesn't have to be religion. The law is pointless anyway. The culture itself doesn't accept gays. As do many African nations. We can not impose our morals on others. Plain and simple.
Some say it's a matter of lack of education. Really? Even here in the west having an education doesn't make you more tolerate.
From what I read in the OP, they're not killing them there imprisoning them. But like a I said if the culture doesn't accept it, then even your average citizen is dangerous if you're homosexual.
|
On November 24 2012 15:23 Luppy1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 15:11 Glurkenspurk wrote:On November 24 2012 15:07 Luppy1 wrote:On November 24 2012 14:04 Cutlery wrote:On November 24 2012 13:53 Luppy1 wrote:
Just because it's increasingly acceptable in some western nations, it doesn't mean that the entire world needs to accept it. Personally, I'm glad it's still frown upon in most (if not all) asian nations [and considering the state of things in the world, I can safely say that the asian societies do know better in some aspects.] China and Tibet comes to mind. Genocide and ongoing occupation. And what the Chinese social party did to its inhabitants during Mao (and afterwards)... add censorship on the internet... I'm not convinced by your words. I do not feel you have the same respect for individual life. At least China always puts the nation before any single inhabitant. Hence it's specially hard to make a case for gay rights. Don't know too much about other Asian countries. Much of the culture seems very rich, and cool. But, yeah. Not convinced you are better than us at respecting individual life, nor that you are better off not respecting individual life. Anyway. Can I just remind you that you are "frowning" upon actual people with hopes and dreams, who were born different or developed differently than you. Their first wish is like yours: To be allowed to love and be loved. I'm asking why you are glad that these people are frowned upon. Remove the frown from the "equation" and I'd argue you lose nothing. They have not transgressed nor asking for the right to transgress. Only to be free. If it were within your power to grant this, would you deny them freedom to love? Do we even know for sure whether they're born different? There's no complete freedom for everything where I'm at. Having slightly less freedom doesn't suffocate everyone because most people do realise that it's necessary, since some people need to be protected from themselves. The western nations are probably proud about their freedom. But, personally, I don't think they're doing enough to protect their own people. To me, having complete freedom is too chaotic and it's like moving slowly towards self destruction. While being a homosexual is frowned upon in my country, these people are not hunted down and labelled as criminals. But, it's just widely considered as unnatural and those who confess as being a homosexual would probably be considered as freaks (but, they would not be treated any differently). There's a very negative stigma attached to being a gay, enough for people not to be open about it. Still, It's not as bad as the negative stigma of being bad in school/exams. I don't think you really know what it feels like to be discriminated against for not being straight. Things like doing shitty on exams, or getting bad grades in school are fixable. You can study, you can work harder next time.. If you're gay, you're completely screwed. It's inside you literally every single day reminding you that every little attraction you feel towards someone would get you labeled as a freak even though it's harmless. Even if it's not as out in the open, it's insane how horrible it can be. Even little passive remarks are incredibly hurtful. I've been racially discriminated when I had to live abroad for 4 years. So, I do know what it feels like to be discriminated. It doesn't feel good. But, it's really nothing. I think you're too sheltered (You mentioned the attraction being harmless. Getting called a freak/the passive remarks are just as harmless). Also, I'm not convinced that people have no choice about who they're attracted to. I was just comparing the negative stigma of being a gay and being bad at exams. From where I'm at, the negative stigma attached to being bad at exams is more severe than the stigma attached to being a homosexual. So, it's not really that bad for the homosexuals.
I literally can't stop liking guys. Sorry. I also can't stop liking women...
Dammit! If only I had your willpower!
Maybe I can also convince myself to like tomatoes, and stop liking candy so much, then I would lose weight..
|
We can not impose our morals on others. Plain and simple.
Lots of Nazis and Commies are really disappointed that they got started too early. If they'd waited until the post-George Bush era, the isolationists would have been a much bigger nuisance to the free world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
