|
On June 25 2013 05:13 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:11 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:07 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 05:06 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:02 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:54 PH wrote:On June 25 2013 04:48 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:41 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:33 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
Well you're moving away from your original point. This post is irrelevant. You said that marriage tax subsidies were for the purpose of incentivising kids. As long as adoption is legal and married couples can not have kids and still collect the subsidies, your points are bunk. Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right. The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc. Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.htmlAlso let's start sourcing our arguments here when we make claims to know things. If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply. Social Security death benefits, COBRA insurance continuation. You can call those "gimme monies" all you want, it doesn't make them any less a federal discrimination against a homosexual couple merely for the reason that they are homosexual. Even your source explicitly calls them benefits. Benefits are not rights. They are privileges. You are welcome to argue that couples should qualify for these benefits regardless of gender. Maybe you are correct. I might even agree with you. However the typical modus operandi is to declare these benefits "rights" and then emotionally blackmail people or shame people into caving into the LGBT lobbies demands. I just want people to drop the emotional bullshit and use logic and reason to justify their views. Calling them "rights" may have been an error, but that's not the actual issue. Equality is what's at issue. Stopping at the start of someone else's argument because of what's ultimately a semantic error is pretty lame. It's not a semantic error, it's a very deliberate emotional appeal. They want to frame the argument emotionally to shut down criticism and portray opposition to their views as evil and morally reprehensible. It's all very dogmatic. Yes, but you keep harping on that issue and ignoring other arguments and points of discussion. Its almost like you want to focus on the semantics, rather than the subject. Semiotics plays a pretty big role in legal disputes. Rarely, and they don't get in the way of facts. Trying to catch someone in a semantic slip up, like misuse of the word "debtor", is a good way to get your ass handed to you by the judge for not focusing on stuff that matters. But; a lot of the supreme court's ruling in regards to constitution are often based on semantics of the wording in the constitution. It's the job of the lawyers to frame the definition of what they're arguing to give a strong context to the judge (or jury).
And what percentage of cases make it to the Supreme Court? The vast majority of cases are settled on the facts alone and semantics are only used when there is no real argument to make.
|
I just came here to say that I really appreciate this gesture, and feel proud to be part of the teamliquid community. It made me feel so good to wake up today to this amazing logo, and see that even in starcraft there are people out there who care.
It's not politics, it's compassion. Thank you team liquid.
|
Actually things like this banner is one of the reasons why I'm annoyed by the LGBT community or whatever you call it as a whole. :l I understand that to a certain extent, perhaps it is necessary for them to be vocal about their issues and struggle etc, but, at least in my experience, many homosexuals / bisexuals are way too eager to make a public statement out of it, and it gets pretty annoying. I mean, we don't have "straight banners" or "straight parades" or "straight pride days" - in fact I'm pretty sure that if anyone tried to make one, they'd be labelled an intolerant jerk quite quickly by some; likewise I've had the "pleasure" of watching homosexual PDA in the most inappropriate of places like work offices and whatnot - and if anyone showed even a modicum of displeasure about it, they'd be instantly called a gay hater a bigot etc etc. (And yes before anyone asks, I'd be annoyed by straight people kissing or something dumb at the end of the shift in the office too, it just... seems a lot more common between homosexuals, especially when you consider how many more straight couples are there). If we could all just agree that grown up people are free to do whatever the hell they please with that - as long as they keep it decent and you know, out of other people's faces - that would be perfect. It's true that we should generally stay out of other people's sexual lives - it's just that they should keep their sexual life out of my own life, too.
|
|
|
|
|
On June 25 2013 05:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:13 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 05:11 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:07 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 05:06 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:02 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:54 PH wrote:On June 25 2013 04:48 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:41 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote:
[quote]
Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right.
The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc.
Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.htmlAlso let's start sourcing our arguments here when we make claims to know things. If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply. Social Security death benefits, COBRA insurance continuation. You can call those "gimme monies" all you want, it doesn't make them any less a federal discrimination against a homosexual couple merely for the reason that they are homosexual. Even your source explicitly calls them benefits. Benefits are not rights. They are privileges. You are welcome to argue that couples should qualify for these benefits regardless of gender. Maybe you are correct. I might even agree with you. However the typical modus operandi is to declare these benefits "rights" and then emotionally blackmail people or shame people into caving into the LGBT lobbies demands. I just want people to drop the emotional bullshit and use logic and reason to justify their views. Calling them "rights" may have been an error, but that's not the actual issue. Equality is what's at issue. Stopping at the start of someone else's argument because of what's ultimately a semantic error is pretty lame. It's not a semantic error, it's a very deliberate emotional appeal. They want to frame the argument emotionally to shut down criticism and portray opposition to their views as evil and morally reprehensible. It's all very dogmatic. Yes, but you keep harping on that issue and ignoring other arguments and points of discussion. Its almost like you want to focus on the semantics, rather than the subject. Semiotics plays a pretty big role in legal disputes. Rarely, and they don't get in the way of facts. Trying to catch someone in a semantic slip up, like misuse of the word "debtor", is a good way to get your ass handed to you by the judge for not focusing on stuff that matters. But; a lot of the supreme court's ruling in regards to constitution are often based on semantics of the wording in the constitution. It's the job of the lawyers to frame the definition of what they're arguing to give a strong context to the judge (or jury). And what percentage of cases make it to the Supreme Court? The vast majority of cases are settled on the facts alone and semantics are only used when there is no real argument to make.
Well; even in the creation of laws, semantics is important.
On June 25 2013 05:16 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:13 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 05:11 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:07 wei2coolman wrote:On June 25 2013 05:06 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 05:02 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:54 PH wrote:On June 25 2013 04:48 Zaqwe wrote:On June 25 2013 04:41 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 04:39 Zaqwe wrote:
[quote]
Taxpayer funded subsidies are a privilege, not a right. I touched on the reason these privileges have been granted to married couples (i.e. to enable the wife to quit work and bear children), but that has no bearing on the fact these are a privilege, not a right. Just because some couples can't bear children doesn't mean subsidies intended to encourage child bearing magically becomes a right.
The way pro-gay activists tell the story you would think someone is preventing gays from having a wedding, saying vows to each other, living together, staying monogamous, etc.
Gays already have equal rights. They just don't qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies and other privileges in some places. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.htmlAlso let's start sourcing our arguments here when we make claims to know things. If you are in a same-sex marriage in one of the states where same-sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and D.C.), or if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union in any of the states that offer those relationship options, none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships. For example, you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner, even if your state allows you to file taxes jointly. And other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply. Social Security death benefits, COBRA insurance continuation. You can call those "gimme monies" all you want, it doesn't make them any less a federal discrimination against a homosexual couple merely for the reason that they are homosexual. Even your source explicitly calls them benefits. Benefits are not rights. They are privileges. You are welcome to argue that couples should qualify for these benefits regardless of gender. Maybe you are correct. I might even agree with you. However the typical modus operandi is to declare these benefits "rights" and then emotionally blackmail people or shame people into caving into the LGBT lobbies demands. I just want people to drop the emotional bullshit and use logic and reason to justify their views. Calling them "rights" may have been an error, but that's not the actual issue. Equality is what's at issue. Stopping at the start of someone else's argument because of what's ultimately a semantic error is pretty lame. It's not a semantic error, it's a very deliberate emotional appeal. They want to frame the argument emotionally to shut down criticism and portray opposition to their views as evil and morally reprehensible. It's all very dogmatic. Yes, but you keep harping on that issue and ignoring other arguments and points of discussion. Its almost like you want to focus on the semantics, rather than the subject. Semiotics plays a pretty big role in legal disputes. Rarely, and they don't get in the way of facts. Trying to catch someone in a semantic slip up, like misuse of the word "debtor", is a good way to get your ass handed to you by the judge for not focusing on stuff that matters. But; a lot of the supreme court's ruling in regards to constitution are often based on semantics of the wording in the constitution. It's the job of the lawyers to frame the definition of what they're arguing to give a strong context to the judge (or jury). Yes and in the eyes of the law, when one person gets something from the government (a right, privilege, benefit or whatever you want to call it), and another person doesn't get something, based on how they were born, what do you call that? I call it discrimination, and that's the case they are making. What else would you call it, if semantics are really this important?
Well if you want to take that argument, those born with mental disabilities often lose their right to make certain decisions, such as medical decisions. Which is a basic human right.
EDIT: to clarify; since Aberu seems to like to take my words out of context, or misconstrue what I mean. I'm not saying homosexuals have mental disabilities; but I'm arguing to the core of his argument that "based on how they were born" "doesn't get something".
|
On June 25 2013 05:20 Salazarz wrote:
Actually things like this banner is one of the reasons why I'm annoyed by the LGBT community or whatever you call it as a whole. :l I understand that to a certain extent, perhaps it is necessary for them to be vocal about their issues and struggle etc, but, at least in my experience, many homosexuals / bisexuals are way too eager to make a public statement out of it, and it gets pretty annoying. I mean, we don't have "straight banners" or "straight parades" or "straight pride days" - in fact I'm pretty sure that if anyone tried to make one, they'd be labelled an intolerant jerk quite quickly by some; likewise I've had the "pleasure" of watching homosexual PDA in the most inappropriate of places like work offices and whatnot - and if anyone showed even a modicum of displeasure about it, they'd be instantly called a gay hater a bigot etc etc. (And yes before anyone asks, I'd be annoyed by straight people kissing or something dumb at the end of the shift in the office too, it just... seems a lot more common between homosexuals, especially when you consider how many more straight couples are there). If we could all just agree that grown up people are free to do whatever the hell they please with that - as long as they keep it decent and you know, out of other people's faces - that would be perfect. It's true that we should generally stay out of other people's sexual lives - it's just that they should keep their sexual life out of my own life, too.
Spoken like a true privileged straight person.
http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/01/29-examples-of-heterosexual-privilege/
Do straights have a historically significant moment like Stone Wall?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
If not, then maybe you know why they have parades then?
It's not like when blacks were protesting for civil rights, the people who said "why don't we have white parades?" didn't look fucking ignorant for saying that.
|
On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much?
I agree a lot with this post.
Sometimes instead of moving foward into making homosexuality something normal, average and accepted, the comunity make it sure to make it look like some suffered, niche, and exceptional group of people, and that is fucking it up the purpose of that outcry.
I guess that TL could make the same with the banner but about any kind of racism , like jews, blacks, latinos, and such, right?
No, that do not lead anywhere, even when I read racism a lot of slight discrimination coments in most american forums in a daily basis.
|
On June 25 2013 05:21 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:20 Salazarz wrote:
Actually things like this banner is one of the reasons why I'm annoyed by the LGBT community or whatever you call it as a whole. :l I understand that to a certain extent, perhaps it is necessary for them to be vocal about their issues and struggle etc, but, at least in my experience, many homosexuals / bisexuals are way too eager to make a public statement out of it, and it gets pretty annoying. I mean, we don't have "straight banners" or "straight parades" or "straight pride days" - in fact I'm pretty sure that if anyone tried to make one, they'd be labelled an intolerant jerk quite quickly by some; likewise I've had the "pleasure" of watching homosexual PDA in the most inappropriate of places like work offices and whatnot - and if anyone showed even a modicum of displeasure about it, they'd be instantly called a gay hater a bigot etc etc. (And yes before anyone asks, I'd be annoyed by straight people kissing or something dumb at the end of the shift in the office too, it just... seems a lot more common between homosexuals, especially when you consider how many more straight couples are there). If we could all just agree that grown up people are free to do whatever the hell they please with that - as long as they keep it decent and you know, out of other people's faces - that would be perfect. It's true that we should generally stay out of other people's sexual lives - it's just that they should keep their sexual life out of my own life, too. Spoken like a true privileged straight person. http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/01/29-examples-of-heterosexual-privilege/
It's a similar argument to what Morgan Freeman poses towards race. Also; no need to post like a prick just cuz someone has a different opinion than you.
|
On June 25 2013 05:20 Salazarz wrote:
Actually things like this banner is one of the reasons why I'm annoyed by the LGBT community or whatever you call it as a whole. :l I understand that to a certain extent, perhaps it is necessary for them to be vocal about their issues and struggle etc, but, at least in my experience, many homosexuals / bisexuals are way too eager to make a public statement out of it, and it gets pretty annoying. I mean, we don't have "straight banners" or "straight parades" or "straight pride days" - in fact I'm pretty sure that if anyone tried to make one, they'd be labelled an intolerant jerk quite quickly by some; likewise I've had the "pleasure" of watching homosexual PDA in the most inappropriate of places like work offices and whatnot - and if anyone showed even a modicum of displeasure about it, they'd be instantly called a gay hater a bigot etc etc. (And yes before anyone asks, I'd be annoyed by straight people kissing or something dumb at the end of the shift in the office too, it just... seems a lot more common between homosexuals, especially when you consider how many more straight couples are there). If we could all just agree that grown up people are free to do whatever the hell they please with that - as long as they keep it decent and you know, out of other people's faces - that would be perfect. It's true that we should generally stay out of other people's sexual lives - it's just that they should keep their sexual life out of my own life, too.
Like I said before, the pride thing is a counter to discrimination. It's a way to send a message to all the people having insecurity or feeling bad for being different than the majority so that they can accept themselves and be happy about who they are. It's also a way to denounce discrimination and promote equality.
|
On June 25 2013 05:26 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:21 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:20 Salazarz wrote:
Actually things like this banner is one of the reasons why I'm annoyed by the LGBT community or whatever you call it as a whole. :l I understand that to a certain extent, perhaps it is necessary for them to be vocal about their issues and struggle etc, but, at least in my experience, many homosexuals / bisexuals are way too eager to make a public statement out of it, and it gets pretty annoying. I mean, we don't have "straight banners" or "straight parades" or "straight pride days" - in fact I'm pretty sure that if anyone tried to make one, they'd be labelled an intolerant jerk quite quickly by some; likewise I've had the "pleasure" of watching homosexual PDA in the most inappropriate of places like work offices and whatnot - and if anyone showed even a modicum of displeasure about it, they'd be instantly called a gay hater a bigot etc etc. (And yes before anyone asks, I'd be annoyed by straight people kissing or something dumb at the end of the shift in the office too, it just... seems a lot more common between homosexuals, especially when you consider how many more straight couples are there). If we could all just agree that grown up people are free to do whatever the hell they please with that - as long as they keep it decent and you know, out of other people's faces - that would be perfect. It's true that we should generally stay out of other people's sexual lives - it's just that they should keep their sexual life out of my own life, too. Spoken like a true privileged straight person. http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/01/29-examples-of-heterosexual-privilege/ It's a similar argument to what Morgan Freeman poses towards race. Also; no need to post like a prick just cuz someone has a different opinion than you.
they're not opinions
lol
|
On June 25 2013 05:25 Belha wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much?
I agree a lot with this post. Sometimes instead of moving foward into making homosexuality something normal, average and accepted, the comunity make it sure to make it look like some suffered, niche, and exceptional group of people, and that is fucking it up the purpose of that outcry. I guess that TL could make the same with the banner but about any kind of racism , like jews, blacks, latinos, and such, right? No, that do not lead anywhere, even when I read racism a lot of slight discrimination coments in most american forums in a daily basis.
What does a rainbow on the horse say about "suffered, niche, and exceptional group of people"?
|
On June 25 2013 05:27 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:25 Belha wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much?
I agree a lot with this post. Sometimes instead of moving foward into making homosexuality something normal, average and accepted, the comunity make it sure to make it look like some suffered, niche, and exceptional group of people, and that is fucking it up the purpose of that outcry. I guess that TL could make the same with the banner but about any kind of racism , like jews, blacks, latinos, and such, right? No, that do not lead anywhere, even when I read racism a lot of slight discrimination coments in most american forums in a daily basis. What does a rainbow on the horse say about "suffered, niche, and exceptional group of people"?
We are forced to learn all those colors! The people who are able to do it are few, they suffer for their knowledge, and they are truly amazing. Am I doin this right?
|
On June 25 2013 05:27 Aberu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:25 Belha wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much?
I agree a lot with this post. Sometimes instead of moving foward into making homosexuality something normal, average and accepted, the comunity make it sure to make it look like some suffered, niche, and exceptional group of people, and that is fucking it up the purpose of that outcry. I guess that TL could make the same with the banner but about any kind of racism , like jews, blacks, latinos, and such, right? No, that do not lead anywhere, even when I read racism a lot of slight discrimination coments in most american forums in a daily basis. What does a rainbow on the horse say about "suffered, niche, and exceptional group of people"?
The rainbow is pretty much a symbol taken up by LGBTQQ community, it's a pretty flashy symbol, and it's always been a representation of the overall homosexual community strife and issues.
|
On June 25 2013 05:26 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:21 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:20 Salazarz wrote:
Actually things like this banner is one of the reasons why I'm annoyed by the LGBT community or whatever you call it as a whole. :l I understand that to a certain extent, perhaps it is necessary for them to be vocal about their issues and struggle etc, but, at least in my experience, many homosexuals / bisexuals are way too eager to make a public statement out of it, and it gets pretty annoying. I mean, we don't have "straight banners" or "straight parades" or "straight pride days" - in fact I'm pretty sure that if anyone tried to make one, they'd be labelled an intolerant jerk quite quickly by some; likewise I've had the "pleasure" of watching homosexual PDA in the most inappropriate of places like work offices and whatnot - and if anyone showed even a modicum of displeasure about it, they'd be instantly called a gay hater a bigot etc etc. (And yes before anyone asks, I'd be annoyed by straight people kissing or something dumb at the end of the shift in the office too, it just... seems a lot more common between homosexuals, especially when you consider how many more straight couples are there). If we could all just agree that grown up people are free to do whatever the hell they please with that - as long as they keep it decent and you know, out of other people's faces - that would be perfect. It's true that we should generally stay out of other people's sexual lives - it's just that they should keep their sexual life out of my own life, too. Spoken like a true privileged straight person. http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/01/29-examples-of-heterosexual-privilege/ It's a similar argument to what Morgan Freeman poses towards race. Also; no need to post like a prick just cuz someone has a different opinion than you.
Oh so Morgan Freeman said it's okay, therefore it's okay guys. Just like Louis CK says it's okay to call people faggots in his standup routine, therefore it's now okay. I don't agree with Morgan Freeman. I don't care if you think he is the ultimate authority of race wisdom. I don't agree with him.
I'm not posting like a prick. I'm pointing out this person's privilege. If you are straight, you have access to more benefits and privileges in life. This isn't just an opinion, it's a fact, go on read the article and see if those things aren't true.
|
Interesting.
Your link didn't mention the primary suspect was a gay patron who had been kicked out of the bar earlier.
The only suspect arrested for the attack was Rogder Dale Nunez,[1] a local hustler and troublemaker who had been tossed out of the bar earlier in the evening. [...] A friend later told investigators that Nunez confessed on at least four occasions to starting the fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UpStairs_Lounge_arson_attack
|
It becomes an argument the moment someone stands their opinion in opposition and attempts to discredit yours. Facts strengthen and legitimize an argument in a debate, to be sure.
The bible says so is one thing. Offering an interpretation of that is another.
|
On June 25 2013 05:29 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 05:27 Aberu wrote:On June 25 2013 05:25 Belha wrote:On June 25 2013 03:58 Adelphia wrote:
As a new TL-er, but a long time lurker on the site, I'm not sure how to feel about the rainbow logo. On one hand I think it is great that a rather large online community is openly supporting gay marriage. However, on the other hand I think that the banner change and large amount of discussion generated from the engagement has really taken away from the "Equality" aspect of it.
I have no problem with homosexuals. In fact, on my high school wrestling team, I knowingly wrestled with homosexuals in tournaments and even on my team (so don't take this a homosexual hate post). However, I feel that some homosexuals make it seem as if they are bombarded with extreme hate daily in every single part of their lives, when in truth, I see huge leaps and bounds towards general acceptance of homosexuality today as compared to say, a few years ago. In addition to that, many gays are extremely flamboyant and flashy, and this drives many people away from them which may contribute to the hate that they do get.
But this large outcry just seems like ALOT, maybe even too much?
I agree a lot with this post. Sometimes instead of moving foward into making homosexuality something normal, average and accepted, the comunity make it sure to make it look like some suffered, niche, and exceptional group of people, and that is fucking it up the purpose of that outcry. I guess that TL could make the same with the banner but about any kind of racism , like jews, blacks, latinos, and such, right? No, that do not lead anywhere, even when I read racism a lot of slight discrimination coments in most american forums in a daily basis. What does a rainbow on the horse say about "suffered, niche, and exceptional group of people"? The rainbow is pretty much a symbol taken up by LGBTQQ community, it's a pretty flashy symbol, and it's always been a representation of the overall homosexual community strife and issues.
To me it's just a symbol of the LGBTQQ community. I don't associate it with suffering, and being niche, and exceptional. I was trying to point out how that isn't some inherent meaning, that's what this particular person interpreted from it themselves.
|
On June 25 2013 05:20 Salazarz wrote:
Actually things like this banner is one of the reasons why I'm annoyed by the LGBT community or whatever you call it as a whole. :l I understand that to a certain extent, perhaps it is necessary for them to be vocal about their issues and struggle etc, but, at least in my experience, many homosexuals / bisexuals are way too eager to make a public statement out of it, and it gets pretty annoying. I mean, we don't have "straight banners" or "straight parades" or "straight pride days" - in fact I'm pretty sure that if anyone tried to make one, they'd be labelled an intolerant jerk quite quickly by some; likewise I've had the "pleasure" of watching homosexual PDA in the most inappropriate of places like work offices and whatnot - and if anyone showed even a modicum of displeasure about it, they'd be instantly called a gay hater a bigot etc etc. (And yes before anyone asks, I'd be annoyed by straight people kissing or something dumb at the end of the shift in the office too, it just... seems a lot more common between homosexuals, especially when you consider how many more straight couples are there). If we could all just agree that grown up people are free to do whatever the hell they please with that - as long as they keep it decent and you know, out of other people's faces - that would be perfect. It's true that we should generally stay out of other people's sexual lives - it's just that they should keep their sexual life out of my own life, too.
I hate to say it like this, but this post could only be written seriously by a straight white person. Because you seem to be a straight white person, you are completely blind to how the entire country has straight pride days every day (and for that matter, white pride days. It also extends racially). LBGT are underrepresented in the media, in commercials, in television, in movies, etc. Everywhere you go, you see straight people openly talking about their relationships, who they slept with, how their date went, what their wife did for them.
And as a gay person you always have to look over your shoulder, 'is it okay for me to mention my girlfriend? maybe I should just say partner...' So, yea, some gay people might have a bit more pda in inappropriate places, but that is a reaction to the fact that for most of us, we can never have pda without looking over our shoulders. We can expect that most people will assume we are straight until proven otherwise. So you need a fucking straight pride day when everyone assumes that all but the most open LBGT people are straight? Really? Straight is the *norm*. I don't have anything against straight pride, except the fact that most of the time, straight pride is really just a reaction against LBGT pride, which *completely* ignores the huge difference in communities. One is marginalized, the other is celebrated as the universal norm.
|
On June 25 2013 05:30 Zaqwe wrote:Interesting. Your link didn't mention the primary suspect was a gay patron who had been kicked out of the bar earlier. Show nested quote +The only suspect arrested for the attack was Rogder Dale Nunez,[1] a local hustler and troublemaker who had been tossed out of the bar earlier in the evening. [...] A friend later told investigators that Nunez confessed on at least four occasions to starting the fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UpStairs_Lounge_arson_attack
Where do you get that he was gay?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
