|
On June 25 2013 13:45 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 13:30 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:25 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 13:23 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:18 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:37 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:35 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:15 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
The reason it's appended with "phobia" is more to indicate that it's irrational. Any argumentation in favor of it is going to be necessarily flawed because there's no rational argument in favor of discrimination based on a characteristic that does no harm to society and the individual doesn't control. That however is not what a phobia is. Sure a phobia is irrational, but for it to be a phobia it is required that the subject is self-aware of said irrationality. Now please point out which of the anti-homosexuals in this thread that has been aware of the irrationality. A phobia is further defined by it being a fear - I have yet to see anyone have a panic attack because said person saw a gay couple. The fact that it is irrational should be clear enough without misusing terms. On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
List the stuff you have experienced and explain why that experience was based on your sexual orientation not being normal and how that made you feel threatened. Do it. I'll wait. Why would I? First of all I consider homosexuality to be normal - apparently unlike you? Secondly I never claimed that it was based on my sexual orientation not being normal - you were the one to impose that. My point was exactly that despite having a normal sexual orientation one could experience quite a few things on those lists that were supposedly exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. Thirdly, I fail to see why I have to give personal examples - it really should be self-evident that the list is far from exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. However, since you are quite obviously going to insist: I was "dating" a muslim girl, being a Caucasian white agnostic guy I do not think it would be hard for you to figure out what I have experienced - stepping into a world where killing for the honor of the family is not unheard of and where you are by definition a spot on the family honor simply due to who you are, through no choice of your own. EDIT: Fixed the quotes - only took 3 tries! Yeah that has absolutely nothing to do with your sexual orientation. You haven't experienced anything on that list. But I'll be damned if you aren't gonna pretend like you have just to make yourself feel like you have something to contribute to your side of the discussion. So your strawman failed and this is what you come back with? Let me guess, you feel like you have actually written anything of relevance in response to what I wrote? EDIT: For clarification as you seemed to miss it the first 2 times around. I never claimed that it would have anything to do with my sexuality - in fact I claimed the opposite. That regardless of sexuality one could have said experiences. I know you think you can. But that's exactly why you're missing the point. You don't understand why sexual orientation matters in those situations. Because as a heterosexual male, you can't understand how your orientation would ever be relevant. But for those in the minority, it is relevant. Not only do you lack sympathy, you even lack the desire to have sympathy which is pretty gross. You're part of the problem and you're the reason TeamLiquid can do something as simple as change the banner and have it be meaningful. Because it exposes people like you who have never been confronted with the fact that they can't understand why this is an issue, because they're trapped in a bubble and won't even admit that there are things they might not know. The lists that have been posted so far have all claimed that e.g. "not being able to hold you loved ones hand out of fear" was exclusive to homosexuals and that a heterosexual white person could never possibly experience this and consequently he was privileged. I EXPERIENCED THIS. I was fearful for her life and it let ultimately to us never actually dating. And you have the audacity to tell me that I have never had to fear for the life of my loved ones due to a factor over which neither of us had control? That I am not sympathetic when I have done nothing but express my support for the cause - a cause I personally had hoped by now was no longer needed to fight for, but it sadly still is? Sure my experiences might not have root in my sexuality, it was rooted in my attraction to a girl and the person I am, but I am hardly any more in control of my feelings for her or who I am, than a homosexual is of his/her sexuality and who he/she is. You've experienced adversity and therefor you've had it rough just like any minority. White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster. You might want to reread that post. Also I fail to see why it somehow diminishes the issues that everyone in the world are faced with them. If anything it should magnify the importance of tolerance. I've read your posts in this thread and it seems like if you're not talking about various logical fallacies, you're rambling about semantics in a semi-coherent fashion... What I picked up from your last post is that you're annoyed that people say you're privileged because you're a straight white dude... and your argument is that you've experienced "not being able to hold your loved one's hand out of fear" and therefore you're no more privileged than them... The fact that you suggested that this situation of fear is argued to be exclusive to homosexuals is absolutely ridiculous, especially from someone like yourself. You probably used the term strawman somewhere in this thread, so come on. EDIT: And there we have it: Klondikebar apperantly feels that a heterosexual man can just find another girl because they are in control of their attractions whilst a homosexual isn't. Glad we got that established. I am at a loss for words.
Yup. That's what I said. It's clear you read my post very well and made a genuine effort to understand it. Now that we have that out of the way, I'll go back to pestering R1CH to add 4 hours of gay porn to the account creation process so that everyone can have gay shoved in their face all the time!
|
well played TL. Please make a shirt!
|
On June 24 2013 22:28 goste wrote:
the rainbow is the de-facto "sign/symbol" (for want of a better description) for homosexuals. it is usually displayed with pride and / or support. in this specific case, i suspect it is probably both.
Why do gays get ALL the colors??? Pick one!
|
People getting mad over a rainbow colored horse logo.
VIBGYOR too stronk.
|
Man, the tumblr definition and the dictionary definition of privilege are different. I think that's the source of this semantics debate.
Also, the idea that hetero people have special, extra rights when they just have normal, basic ones. The problem being that LGBT people don't have them. I'm not privileged by having two legs, amputees are just disadvantaged when it comes to the leg counting competition. We're not gonna solve anything by ranting about how white hetero males have bonus content for the game of life, it's about getting everyone else up to the same level. That's my major problem with the progressive movement, everyone's so hung up on "tearing down the patriarchy" when we should instead be lifting everyone to the same great heights.
Sad that those "great heights" are just basic human right.
|
On June 25 2013 13:59 Acer.Scarlett` wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 13:57 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 13:48 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 13:45 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 13:30 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:25 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 13:23 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:18 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:37 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
So your strawman failed and this is what you come back with? Let me guess, you feel like you have actually written anything of relevance in response to what I wrote?
EDIT: For clarification as you seemed to miss it the first 2 times around. I never claimed that it would have anything to do with my sexuality - in fact I claimed the opposite. That regardless of sexuality one could have said experiences. I know you think you can. But that's exactly why you're missing the point. You don't understand why sexual orientation matters in those situations. Because as a heterosexual male, you can't understand how your orientation would ever be relevant. But for those in the minority, it is relevant. Not only do you lack sympathy, you even lack the desire to have sympathy which is pretty gross. You're part of the problem and you're the reason TeamLiquid can do something as simple as change the banner and have it be meaningful. Because it exposes people like you who have never been confronted with the fact that they can't understand why this is an issue, because they're trapped in a bubble and won't even admit that there are things they might not know. The lists that have been posted so far have all claimed that e.g. "not being able to hold you loved ones hand out of fear" was exclusive to homosexuals and that a heterosexual white person could never possibly experience this and consequently he was privileged. I EXPERIENCED THIS. I was fearful for her life and it let ultimately to us never actually dating. And you have the audacity to tell me that I have never had to fear for the life of my loved ones due to a factor over which neither of us had control? That I am not sympathetic when I have done nothing but express my support for the cause - a cause I personally had hoped by now was no longer needed to fight for, but it sadly still is? Sure my experiences might not have root in my sexuality, it was rooted in my attraction to a girl and the person I am, but I am hardly any more in control of my feelings for her or who I am, than a homosexual is of his/her sexuality and who he/she is. You've experienced adversity and therefor you've had it rough just like any minority. White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster. You might want to reread that post. Also I fail to see why it somehow diminishes the issues that everyone in the world are faced with them. If anything it should magnify the importance of tolerance. I've read your posts in this thread and it seems like if you're not talking about various logical fallacies, you're rambling about semantics in a semi-coherent fashion... What I picked up from your last post is that you're annoyed that people say you're privileged because you're a straight white dude... and your argument is that you've experienced "not being able to hold your loved one's hand out of fear" and therefore you're no more privileged than them... The fact that you suggested that this situation of fear is argued to be exclusive to homosexuals is absolutely ridiculous, especially from someone like yourself. You probably used the term strawman somewhere in this thread, so come on. I am largely talking semantics - I thought I had made so much clear from the beginning when I asked that we started to use the correct phrases and not bastardizing words? I am annoyed that people misuse the term privileged to cover the majority - it does not mean "people who has it easier than others", rather it means "a special right". "Privileged" is thus a terrible choice of words because of not only the negative associations alienating would-be supporters, but it at the same time alludes to basic human rights as "a special right" rather than what should not be special in any way. I was contesting the lists, not purely based on semantics, but rather the fact that they were listed as reasons why a heterosexual person could never understand, or even sympathize with a homosexual. This is a logical fallacy. Especially when those reasons are, unlike their portrayal in this thread, NOT exclusive to homosexuals. It might not be due to sexuality, but due to other circumstances of which a person has equally no control over as this persons sexuality. I think it is reasonable to mention strawman when someone portrays this to mean that you are against homosexual rights, but if you got "White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster." I guess we should really just stop here. You do have a "special right." That's what we've been trying to explain. Mainstream society exclusively caters to your orientation. So much so that you don't even notice when they are catering to you. That's a privilege. You're not entitled to have your orientation coddled, so it's not a right. It's something extra given to you for being straight. It's a privilege. And I get that you didn't ask for it and you may not even want it, but you have it. And refusing to acknowledge it makes you sound extremely spoiled. Mainstream society exclusively caters to right-handed. Are all right-handed privileged? If you are going with yes here, then sure I will cave and admit to be privileged under that pretense. But following that definition you hopefully do realize that even if society was completely tolerant and open for homosexuals, heterosexuals would still be privileged, simply because they make up the majority and society will always cater primarily to the majority. That however still does not equate to not being able to sympathize nor understand the minority. Yes they still would be, and no one is saying being privileged means you can't sympathize. It is just something you need to be aware of the implications of when you're discussing issues such as these
Thank you. We are simply using privileged to mean 2 very different things then. I have little idea about what it is recognized to mean in the LGBT community, but this definition is by no means what I was taught it to mean. An exclusive group that makes up the majority does not seem all that exclusive to me.
Klondikebar said so very clearly a page ago:
Because as a heterosexual male, you can't understand how your orientation would ever be relevant.
My entire argument about the muslim girl I "dated" revolved around the fact that despite being a heterosexual male I can understand how a factor, over which I hold no control, could possibly affect what I can and can't do with a partner in public. I really have at no point claimed that it was equally as bad as what a homosexual couple must endure - I do recognize that it is a permanent feeling for them, whilst for me it was dictated by this specific girl. I do believe however that the fear described in my situation is not much different (remember I am talking about the fear whilst we "dated" - back when I believed it could be something permanent) and consequently that the list stating a heterosexual could never feel or understand this is wrong.
On June 25 2013 14:00 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 13:45 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 13:30 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:25 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 13:23 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:18 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:37 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:35 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:15 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
That however is not what a phobia is. Sure a phobia is irrational, but for it to be a phobia it is required that the subject is self-aware of said irrationality. Now please point out which of the anti-homosexuals in this thread that has been aware of the irrationality. A phobia is further defined by it being a fear - I have yet to see anyone have a panic attack because said person saw a gay couple. The fact that it is irrational should be clear enough without misusing terms.
[quote]
Why would I? First of all I consider homosexuality to be normal - apparently unlike you? Secondly I never claimed that it was based on my sexual orientation not being normal - you were the one to impose that. My point was exactly that despite having a normal sexual orientation one could experience quite a few things on those lists that were supposedly exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. Thirdly, I fail to see why I have to give personal examples - it really should be self-evident that the list is far from exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. However, since you are quite obviously going to insist: I was "dating" a muslim girl, being a Caucasian white agnostic guy I do not think it would be hard for you to figure out what I have experienced - stepping into a world where killing for the honor of the family is not unheard of and where you are by definition a spot on the family honor simply due to who you are, through no choice of your own.
EDIT: Fixed the quotes - only took 3 tries! Yeah that has absolutely nothing to do with your sexual orientation. You haven't experienced anything on that list. But I'll be damned if you aren't gonna pretend like you have just to make yourself feel like you have something to contribute to your side of the discussion. So your strawman failed and this is what you come back with? Let me guess, you feel like you have actually written anything of relevance in response to what I wrote? EDIT: For clarification as you seemed to miss it the first 2 times around. I never claimed that it would have anything to do with my sexuality - in fact I claimed the opposite. That regardless of sexuality one could have said experiences. I know you think you can. But that's exactly why you're missing the point. You don't understand why sexual orientation matters in those situations. Because as a heterosexual male, you can't understand how your orientation would ever be relevant. But for those in the minority, it is relevant. Not only do you lack sympathy, you even lack the desire to have sympathy which is pretty gross. You're part of the problem and you're the reason TeamLiquid can do something as simple as change the banner and have it be meaningful. Because it exposes people like you who have never been confronted with the fact that they can't understand why this is an issue, because they're trapped in a bubble and won't even admit that there are things they might not know. The lists that have been posted so far have all claimed that e.g. "not being able to hold you loved ones hand out of fear" was exclusive to homosexuals and that a heterosexual white person could never possibly experience this and consequently he was privileged. I EXPERIENCED THIS. I was fearful for her life and it let ultimately to us never actually dating. And you have the audacity to tell me that I have never had to fear for the life of my loved ones due to a factor over which neither of us had control? That I am not sympathetic when I have done nothing but express my support for the cause - a cause I personally had hoped by now was no longer needed to fight for, but it sadly still is? Sure my experiences might not have root in my sexuality, it was rooted in my attraction to a girl and the person I am, but I am hardly any more in control of my feelings for her or who I am, than a homosexual is of his/her sexuality and who he/she is. You've experienced adversity and therefor you've had it rough just like any minority. White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster. You might want to reread that post. Also I fail to see why it somehow diminishes the issues that everyone in the world are faced with them. If anything it should magnify the importance of tolerance. I've read your posts in this thread and it seems like if you're not talking about various logical fallacies, you're rambling about semantics in a semi-coherent fashion... What I picked up from your last post is that you're annoyed that people say you're privileged because you're a straight white dude... and your argument is that you've experienced "not being able to hold your loved one's hand out of fear" and therefore you're no more privileged than them... The fact that you suggested that this situation of fear is argued to be exclusive to homosexuals is absolutely ridiculous, especially from someone like yourself. You probably used the term strawman somewhere in this thread, so come on. EDIT: And there we have it: Klondikebar apperantly feels that a heterosexual man can just find another girl because they are in control of their attractions whilst a homosexual isn't. Glad we got that established. I am at a loss for words. Yup. That's what I said. It's clear you read my post very well and made a genuine effort to understand it. Now that we have that out of the way, I'll go back to pestering R1CH to add 4 hours of gay porn to the account creation process so that everyone can have gay shoved in their face all the time!
Just realized I should start to only put in the same effort as you did chuckles.
EDIT:
What RockIronrod wrote was essentially my gripe with the term privileged. I was not exactly out to pick a fight and will gladly admit to have learned something over the course of the last couple of pages.
|
It seemed inevitable that this thread would end up with a torrent of white cis straight middle class males decrying the concept of privilege and whining that it hurts their feelings.
I love the mods for doing this and feel they have shown extraordinary restraint in not dropping banhammers like it's in style.I also admire all the brave sexual and gender minoritied people who have posted in this thread, knowing how ugly it would be in here.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I had to check this thread to be sure, but I was so proud to see TL sporting the rainbow mane. This is how the stigma of homophobia is removed from the culture of gaming, with a whole community standing up for what's right.
|
On June 25 2013 14:15 Fission wrote:It seemed inevitable that this thread would end up with a torrent of white cis straight middle class males decrying the concept of privilege and whining that it hurts their feelings. I love the mods for doing this and feel they have shown extraordinary restraint in not dropping banhammers like it's in style.I also admire all the brave sexual and gender minoritied people who have posted in this thread, knowing how ugly it would be in here. + Show Spoiler +
I'm a bi Asian who makes <$30k a year, is my opinion worth more than yours now?
I don't argue against "privilege" because its insulting to white heteros. I argue because it's demeaning to the LGBT movement.
Just like how education is a right, not a privilege, marriage is a right, not a privilege. Voting is a right, the ability to sit in the front of the bus is a right, the ability to love who you want to love is a right. Not a privilege.
We're fighting for equal rights, not privileges. There is nothing special about what they have, what they have is the baseline for what humans should be allowed. Basic rights aren't a fucking privilege.
|
I support that.
However, I often feel annoyed as how the rainbow has been taken over by the LGBT movement. I have rainbow wristbands from the 2008 Olympics, and also a great-looking rainbow umbrella bought just a few weeks ago. The colors of the rainbow have always been beautiful to me. But today if I go out by myself wearing either of those, people will think that I am either a) proclaiming my homosexuality or b) proclaiming my support of the LGBT movement. It's certainly not the end of the world, and I do support the LGBT movement, but there are times when I would like to wear the natural and timeless colors of the rainbow without all the added human baggage. I wish another symbol would have been picked.
|
On June 25 2013 14:31 Matoo- wrote:
I support that.
However, I often feel annoyed as how the rainbow has been taken over by the LGBT movement. I have rainbow wristbands from the 2008 Olympics, and also a great-looking rainbow umbrella bought just a few weeks ago. The colors of the rainbow have always been beautiful to me. But today if I go out by myself wearing either of those, people will think that I am either a) proclaiming my homosexuality or b) proclaiming my support of the LGBT movement. It's certainly not the end of the world, and I do support the LGBT movement, but there are times when I would like to wear the natural and timeless colors of the rainbow without all the added human baggage. I wish another symbol would have been picked.
The rainbow wasn't taken over by the LGBT movement. It was associated with "gayness" by a gay-panicked society. The LGBT movement responded by proudly accepting the symbolization of the rainbow and wearing it proudly.
|
TL should cover LOL. It is currently the biggest game in the world, and LOL supports E-sports a lot!!
|
On June 25 2013 14:41 Shantastic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 14:31 Matoo- wrote:
I support that.
However, I often feel annoyed as how the rainbow has been taken over by the LGBT movement. I have rainbow wristbands from the 2008 Olympics, and also a great-looking rainbow umbrella bought just a few weeks ago. The colors of the rainbow have always been beautiful to me. But today if I go out by myself wearing either of those, people will think that I am either a) proclaiming my homosexuality or b) proclaiming my support of the LGBT movement. It's certainly not the end of the world, and I do support the LGBT movement, but there are times when I would like to wear the natural and timeless colors of the rainbow without all the added human baggage. I wish another symbol would have been picked. The rainbow wasn't taken over by the LGBT movement. It was associated with "gayness" by a gay-panicked society. The LGBT movement responded by proudly accepting the symbolization of the rainbow and wearing it proudly.
Do you have a source for this? All the ones I've been looking up just now tell that the rainbow flag was created specifically in response to the need the gay community had for a symbol.
|
On June 25 2013 14:41 Shantastic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 14:31 Matoo- wrote:
I support that.
However, I often feel annoyed as how the rainbow has been taken over by the LGBT movement. I have rainbow wristbands from the 2008 Olympics, and also a great-looking rainbow umbrella bought just a few weeks ago. The colors of the rainbow have always been beautiful to me. But today if I go out by myself wearing either of those, people will think that I am either a) proclaiming my homosexuality or b) proclaiming my support of the LGBT movement. It's certainly not the end of the world, and I do support the LGBT movement, but there are times when I would like to wear the natural and timeless colors of the rainbow without all the added human baggage. I wish another symbol would have been picked. The rainbow wasn't taken over by the LGBT movement. It was associated with "gayness" by a gay-panicked society. The LGBT movement responded by proudly accepting the symbolization of the rainbow and wearing it proudly.
I always thought it was an adaption of the Flag of the Human Race?
|
On June 25 2013 13:46 RParks42 wrote:It boils down to this, for the US at least: Since there is no definitive proof on whether being gay or not is a choice, gay people are not being discriminated against, at least legally, in the United States just because somebody doesn't believe in being gay or gay marriage.
You're incorrect here. I mean it depends on how you define definitive, as in do we have the same strength as a mathematical proof? No, but it's pretty damn conclusive evidence.
Regardless of whether people can choose to be gay the issue doesn't change. If a woman chooses to have a relationship with another woman, or if she simply can't have a real relationship with a man, either way she deserves the same rights as everyone else. You misunderstand the term discrimination if you think it doesn't apply to both situations.
On June 25 2013 13:46 RParks42 wrote:I'll finish it off with this thought though. Just as the argument, "Who are you to tell them what they can and can't do in the sanctity of their home, they're free people," is thrown around incorrectly (I don't remember the last time I was allowed to do Heroin in my house or murder someone just because I thought it was okay)
I can't believe you're comparing gay rights to hard drugs and murder, are you fucking serious? Obviously people who use the argument you quoted are doing it in the context of a fucking civil rights movement, not the trial for a murderer.
You have some thinking to do if these are the "technically correct" arguments you were referring to.
|
On June 25 2013 14:52 Matoo- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 14:41 Shantastic wrote:On June 25 2013 14:31 Matoo- wrote:
I support that.
However, I often feel annoyed as how the rainbow has been taken over by the LGBT movement. I have rainbow wristbands from the 2008 Olympics, and also a great-looking rainbow umbrella bought just a few weeks ago. The colors of the rainbow have always been beautiful to me. But today if I go out by myself wearing either of those, people will think that I am either a) proclaiming my homosexuality or b) proclaiming my support of the LGBT movement. It's certainly not the end of the world, and I do support the LGBT movement, but there are times when I would like to wear the natural and timeless colors of the rainbow without all the added human baggage. I wish another symbol would have been picked. The rainbow wasn't taken over by the LGBT movement. It was associated with "gayness" by a gay-panicked society. The LGBT movement responded by proudly accepting the symbolization of the rainbow and wearing it proudly. Do you have a source for this? All the ones I've been looking up just now tell that the rainbow flag was created specifically in response to the need the gay community had for a symbol.
A source on general cultural knowledge? Men in heteronormative American societies have always been encouraged to wear darker, duller colors, and bright multi-color has been frequently associated with effeminacy, before and after the rainbow flag was designed.
|
On June 25 2013 13:46 RParks42 wrote:
The main problem with this issue, to me, is that just as "pro-gay rights" people are unwilling to accept the reasoning behind "anti-gay rights" people's arguments, those against gay rights are usually a little bit too closed minded or portray their opinions as too closed minded, while actually being technically "correct" a lot of the time depending on the context of the situation. It boils down to this, for the US at least: Since there is no definitive proof on whether being gay or not is a choice, gay people are not being discriminated against, at least legally, in the United States just because somebody doesn't believe in being gay or gay marriage. What is happening is a societal "agreement" or coming to conclusion, where we as a society decide what we deem morally correct. At this current moment, multiple states have voted for gay rights to be advanced, and that is every bit their right, just as it is another person or state's right to not support homosexuality and vote against it.
I'll finish it off with this thought though. Just as the argument, "Who are you to tell them what they can and can't do in the sanctity of their home, they're free people," is thrown around incorrectly (I don't remember the last time I was allowed to do Heroin in my house or murder someone just because I thought it was okay), one must remember to keep their mind open to an ever changing societal climate, allowing themselves the opportunity to evolve in thought process and keep with the times. It was acceptable back in time to make black people slaves. Now it isn't. There wasn't just a whistle blown for when this change happened, eventually our society deemed it unacceptable to discriminate, and that became the norm over time
Societal climate is wholly irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it will take time, it doesn't make the matter any less pressing, nor should it. Same with blacks and slavery. It still needed to be pushed hard in your face extreme back then. Just like the civil rights movement was as well.
|
On June 25 2013 13:46 RParks42 wrote:
The main problem with this issue, to me, is that just as "pro-gay rights" people are unwilling to accept the reasoning behind "anti-gay rights" people's arguments, those against gay rights are usually a little bit too closed minded or portray their opinions as too closed minded, while actually being technically "correct" a lot of the time depending on the context of the situation. It boils down to this, for the US at least: Since there is no definitive proof on whether being gay or not is a choice, gay people are not being discriminated against, at least legally, in the United States just because somebody doesn't believe in being gay or gay marriage. What is happening is a societal "agreement" or coming to conclusion, where we as a society decide what we deem morally correct. At this current moment, multiple states have voted for gay rights to be advanced, and that is every bit their right, just as it is another person or state's right to not support homosexuality and vote against it.
I'll finish it off with this thought though. Just as the argument, "Who are you to tell them what they can and can't do in the sanctity of their home, they're free people," is thrown around incorrectly (I don't remember the last time I was allowed to do Heroin in my house or murder someone just because I thought it was okay), one must remember to keep their mind open to an ever changing societal climate, allowing themselves the opportunity to evolve in thought process and keep with the times. It was acceptable back in time to make black people slaves. Now it isn't. There wasn't just a whistle blown for when this change happened, eventually our society deemed it unacceptable to discriminate, and that became the norm over time
Anyone else find it ironic that someone who has named themselves after Rosa Parks would be defending an anti-civil-rights position?
Telling people what they can and can't do with their own body, to the harm of nobody else, is wrong. Your statement about not being able to murder someone is just stupid, and you know exactly why, so I'll ignore that. The reason you don't see anyone fighting for heroin user rights is that A) if you get your hands on heroin and ride out a heroin fix in the privacy of your own home, nobody is going to give two shits, B) drug use is not an integral part of western community life as matrimony is. If marriage opens doors financially and logistically to couples, it should be available to all couples.
Also, anyone who thinks homosexuality might be a conscious choice should try choosing their orientation.
|
On June 25 2013 14:15 Fission wrote:It seemed inevitable that this thread would end up with a torrent of white cis straight middle class males decrying the concept of privilege and whining that it hurts their feelings. I love the mods for doing this and feel they have shown extraordinary restraint in not dropping banhammers like it's in style.I also admire all the brave sexual and gender minoritied people who have posted in this thread, knowing how ugly it would be in here. + Show Spoiler +
"A torrent of whining white straight male people" vs "brave and heroic LGBT members", is that how we have to see it now?
Sorry if I don't buy it.
|
It's just a rainbow colored logo. Why are people getting worked up over that?
Who cares. Nothing has changed, Flash and Innovation still smashes faces which is all that matters.
I couldn't care less if TL changed their logo from a horse to a rainbow.
Flash, Innovation smashing nerds > logo
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
