Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
soxking

Gay Marrige/ Adoption

Recommended Posts

no, the last thing this society needs is gay people to have commercials on every channel about dating sites

 

some 7 yr old watching spongebob is gonna see a commercial that'll ruin his life

 

So, you're purporting that TV commercials about gay-dating, will "turn children gay"? -.-

Assuming he was right, everything could be "solved" by showing said children pictures of boobies! Everybody wins!

 

*snort* :)

 

Of course, this individual is likely to support the idea that video games beget violence too ... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most Americans already don't accept gay people for who they are. What makes you think media coverage of the more extreme gay people would change that?

after a while people grow accustomed to it

So, just because there's been a civil war in Sudan for 20 years, people are now accustomed to it? Because it doesn't seem that way to me.

 

Don't go about accusing me of a bad analogy. Give me a reason why shocking people over sexual orientation (you'd be surprised at how much a taboo subject sex is in American culture) is going to get people to change their minds. A logical one.

Last time i checked being gay didn’t cause people around you to get killed or houses being destroyed, woman being raped... :)

 

So either you it’s a bad analogy or you are one of those fanatics who think that gay people are a threat to society

They said the same about black people, woman, jews, …

So what’s it going to be?

Bad analogy or racist fanatic?

Your pick

Funny thing. You're wrong on either choice.

 

My point is, shocking people isn't going to make them get used to homosexuality's existence. Why you can't understand this is far beyond my comprehension.

Most Americans already don't accept gay people for who they are. What makes you think media coverage of the more extreme gay people would change that?

after a while people grow accustomed to it

You severely underestimate religion in America.

what do you want

every time I dare say that the USA is a theocracy all hell breaks loose...

 

well the god fearing American caucasian white male got used to seeing black people too...

so lets say that there is still hope... -.-

Italics: Well hurr. America isn't a theocracy. There's no high priest that I can see. I mean, you're allowed to believe purple fairy dragons exist, but it doesn't mean they do. You can believe America is a theocracy all you damn well please, but that doesn't make it so.

 

Can you tell me with a straight face and believe it yourself that someone who isn’t an outspoken Christian has a real chance to run for office and succeed?

 

I think not…

Not in this lifetime

Not a chance in the world

Barack Obama was not an outspoken Christian. Your point is invalid.

Also, if America is a theocracy, why is abortion legal?

Because 50% of your voting population is a woman and thus directly concerned because this is about their bodies directly

Same reason as why almost all Christian (and all others too ofc) boys masturbate

Last time I checked your religion still thinks that is naughty behavior and a sin…

Yet I’m sure that 99% of the Christian pubescent boys do it.

 

Naughty! Naughty! Naughty!

I love how you oversimplify everything so much that your arguments become illogical. It's hilarious. Great comedy material.

well bub at last I come up for my fellow humans

something I think your religion teaches

 

or is that one of those things you conveniently forget just like that one about masturbation or sex before marriage…

Oh no!! I practice what I preach!! The horror! The horror! You can't use your typical ad hominem attacks!! How can you attack me now?

 

Honestly, grow up and try debating the issues, and try understanding the other side. You're completely unwilling to do this, and too stubborn to try to change. You keep accusing me of "not being worthy of the debate room" when you yourself need to change your attitude about the debate room.

 

All you can do is attack me ad hominem. You can't actually attack my stance of being a Christian and not being against gay marriage. You nitpick with the most pointless and petty parts of my posts. Why are you even bothering? If you can't actually win, just man up and admit defeat. I did in this debate several pages ago, and reconsidered my viewpoints, and changed them. You are completely unwilling to even allow yourself to consider the possibility that you are wrong, and that, my friend, is called narrow-mindedness, something you claim to despise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has a good point...we don't have a ban on masturbation, but how is that any different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
\'3572610\' date=\'Jan 19 2010, 01:03 PM\']

All you can do is attack me ad hominem. You can\'t actually attack my stance of being a Christian and not being against gay marriage. You nitpick with the most pointless and petty parts of my posts. Why are you even bothering? If you can\'t actually win, just man up and admit defeat. I did in this debate several pages ago, and reconsidered my viewpoints, and changed them. You are completely unwilling to even allow yourself to consider the possibility that you are wrong, and that, my friend, is called narrow-mindedness, something you claim to despise.

yes i'm too stubborn to abide by discrimination

i won't ever accept it

i think it's a great virtue in people -.-

but i see that you think discrimination is ok

 

because that is what you are doing

searching for excuses to discriminate a group of people

 

and no i didn't attack you

i shot all your points down one by one :)

 

Barack Obama was not an outspoken Christian. Your point is invalid.

are you blind, deaf or ignorant?

 

the interview and fuss about what his priest/preacher said even reached the news here

 

He has a good point...we don't have a ban on masturbation, but how is that any different?

 

all the male followers of christ old enough to voice their opinion do or did it while gay people are a big minority

that is the difference

 

nothing more nothing less

Edited by Egghebrecht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
\'3572610\' date=\'Jan 19 2010, 01:03 PM\']

All you can do is attack me ad hominem. You can\'t actually attack my stance of being a Christian and not being against gay marriage. You nitpick with the most pointless and petty parts of my posts. Why are you even bothering? If you can\'t actually win, just man up and admit defeat. I did in this debate several pages ago, and reconsidered my viewpoints, and changed them. You are completely unwilling to even allow yourself to consider the possibility that you are wrong, and that, my friend, is called narrow-mindedness, something you claim to despise.

yes i'm too stubborn to abide by discrimination

i won't ever accept it

i think it's a great virtue in people -.-

but i see that you think discrimination is ok

 

How DARE you be intolerant of other people's intolerance?!?!?!?!

 

Eggy -- he's been trolling this same silly argument for weeks now. You're just the latest in a list of people to point out how ridiculous he reads to the rest of us ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
\'3572610\' date=\'Jan 19 2010, 01:03 PM\']

All you can do is attack me ad hominem. You can\'t actually attack my stance of being a Christian and not being against gay marriage. You nitpick with the most pointless and petty parts of my posts. Why are you even bothering? If you can\'t actually win, just man up and admit defeat. I did in this debate several pages ago, and reconsidered my viewpoints, and changed them. You are completely unwilling to even allow yourself to consider the possibility that you are wrong, and that, my friend, is called narrow-mindedness, something you claim to despise.

yes i'm too stubborn to abide by discrimination

i won't ever accept it

i think it's a great virtue in people -.-

but i see that you think discrimination is ok

How DARE you be intolerant of other people's intolerance?!?!?!?!

 

Eggy -- he's been trolling this same silly argument for weeks now. You're just the latest in a list of people to point out how ridiculous he reads to the rest of us ...

Um excuse me, but who's trolling—the people using the red herring/ad hominem attacks, or the people saying that Gay Pride isn't going to help the image of the gay community?

 

If I've said it once, I've said it ten thousand times, I am not against gay marriage. Let me repeat that for you, because you all clearly can't read normal text.

 

I AM NOT AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE OR ADOPTION. THAT IS fudgeING ALL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the black power movement was "in your face too"

 

Martin Luther King didn't exactly hide in the shadows either

 

if you want to change the public opinion you can't do that in silence

 

if a protest doesn't cause disturbance it's a failure and no one will notice it...

 

do you think that keeping quiet gets anything done?

 

the only thing you can accomplish with that is being forgotten

 

if you want something to change you got to bring it, and keep it, into attention

 

 

and you can be sure that a parade of men in bikini is going to draw media attention

just like you cna be sure that a symposium about gay rights won't get any

 

 

symposiums get nothing done

 

nothing at all

 

the only people who show up or look it up are the people who already agree with your case

the rest doesn't give a damn

 

although in America you might get anti protest which might get some coverage from the media maybe, but i doubt it would be of any use

 

 

adds cost a hell of a lot money and don't have that much effect unless you can afford a real hell of a let of adds during a very long period on nearly every possible way

 

 

demonstrations cost nothing at all

 

 

and what the hell

are you really saying that the American populace won't accept Gay people for what they are because they are themselves openly

that stupid "don't ask don't tell" notion pisses me off to no end

it shows how deep the discrimination is rooted when the discriminated group itself gets the blame for being discriminated

 

so yes i read your posts and this is my analysis of em

i think it's quite clear that i don't agree

 

 

 

I've been following this debate for quite a while, but I think I'll take this time to note a few things.

 

Egghebrecht, while you've got a lot of enthusiasm for the topic, you don't seem to realize that things are not "Either this, or that". It is possible to do something to get attention to the gay rights issue without causing shock and disgust by those who feel men in bikinis are shocking and disgusting. If the people you're trying to convince are unable to look past something as silly as the clothing the protesters are wearing, then they'll never hear a word that's said, and all of those fantastic points about how gays have every right to marry and how they're perfectly natural and normal and moral will just be utterly lost. Yes, you have a great point, having a gay rights rally is a lot cheaper than making commercials, and will get a lot more attention than any symposium. But wouldn't it be better for the cause, wouldn't it get the point across so much better, if those news cameras showed gays looking like your average person off the street? Wouldn't that convey that they're exactly like everyone else infinitely better than seeing a street full of drag queens?

 

 

I'd also like to note that your comparison with Martin Luther King actually takes away from your point: You seem to be trying to convey that more extreme measures need to be taken for anything to happen, and that MLK did the same thing. Funnily enough, he's famous for bringing attention to his cause despite not being extreme. While others wanted to fight, to protest violently, he instead resisted passively, modeling his protests after Gandhi. And it worked! While riot police were releasing dogs on them and spraying them with hoses and beating them, they did not fight back, and pictures and videos of them not fighting back were spread throughout the country. The logic was that by nonviolently protesting, onlookers would sympathize and identify with them, instead of with those who are opposing them.

 

But see, if you apply that logic to Gay Rights, it's clear that it's far easier for your average Joe to empathize with a middle-aged man in jeans and a rainbow T-shirt than it is to empathize with a middle-aged man in a bikini. Yes, drawing attention plays its role, but change will only come when the rest of the world empathizes with those being discriminated against, when they feel their pain and what they go through. Once you've got empathy, the next step is acceptance. Then we can break out the tights :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~CQ -.-

Edited by Cow Queen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But at least a symposium won't make people vomit.

Does a man's body in a bikini make you vomit?

No, but it's not attractive, and it doesn't convince the negative side of the debate.

There's more to pride parades than debating. It's also about having a chance to be accepted by others for who you really are. -.- You (and Gillis and others) have such a one-dimensional view on them.

I don't. My point is that others do and gay right activists need to realize that if they want their vote.

 

Are you guys even bothering to read my posts or am I just not conveying my point well enough? You seem to be putting as many words in my mouth as possible.

 

I'm with Gillis.

 

@lishu and egghe:

 

It's ironic that you accuse us of having a one sided view of homosexual people, when we aren't talking about that at all. Even more ironic, you present such a one-sided view of the issue that I'm starting also to wonder if you're even reading the posts of Gillis, D-Jizzy, and myself.

 

To clear things up: Those of us that have been posting that flamboyant behavior at gay rights parades actually hurts the cause are not against equal rights for homosexuals.

 

You are basing your ideas so much on principle that it is ridiculous.

 

@Egghe: Yes, I agree that people should be able to act however they want, and should be accepted as so. BUT THIS IS NOT A PERFECT WORLD. The United States is a quite religious country, and that combined with other cultural issues mean a good percentage of people consider homosexuals to be disgusting and sinful (before you freak out and stop reading there to attack me, I'm not one of those people). THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE CONVINCED IF THIS STEREOTYPE CONTINUES.

 

Like someone else has said, I have also wondered if you're trolling, because you seem to be refusing to read our posts or purposely misinterpreting them, and replying by calling us homophobic and discriminatory and insulting religion.

 

You act as if everyone in this world shares the same viewpoints, the same principles, as you do. I'm not talking about what is right and wrong here, I'm talking about what is practical for the gay-rights movement. I will reiterate: I am for gay rights. I just am stepping back from my own little world and realizing that not everyone is, and showing a gay person as a regular human being who happens to be gay rather than a man jumping around in a fairy suit will do much more to convince those who are opposed to gay rights.

 

I don't know why I'm posting this anyway, egghe. If recent history is any indication, you'll just twist it and call me homophobic and prejudiced . . .

 

EDIT: Cow Queen explained it above in a manner much more calmly and understandably than I. :)

Edited by heb0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the black power movement was "in your face too"

 

Martin Luther King didn't exactly hide in the shadows either

 

if you want to change the public opinion you can't do that in silence

 

if a protest doesn't cause disturbance it's a failure and no one will notice it...

 

do you think that keeping quiet gets anything done?

 

the only thing you can accomplish with that is being forgotten

 

if you want something to change you got to bring it, and keep it, into attention

 

 

and you can be sure that a parade of men in bikini is going to draw media attention

just like you cna be sure that a symposium about gay rights won't get any

 

 

symposiums get nothing done

 

nothing at all

 

the only people who show up or look it up are the people who already agree with your case

the rest doesn't give a damn

 

although in America you might get anti protest which might get some coverage from the media maybe, but i doubt it would be of any use

 

 

adds cost a hell of a lot money and don't have that much effect unless you can afford a real hell of a let of adds during a very long period on nearly every possible way

 

 

demonstrations cost nothing at all

 

 

and what the hell

are you really saying that the American populace won't accept Gay people for what they are because they are themselves openly

that stupid "don't ask don't tell" notion pisses me off to no end

it shows how deep the discrimination is rooted when the discriminated group itself gets the blame for being discriminated

 

so yes i read your posts and this is my analysis of em

i think it's quite clear that i don't agree

 

 

 

I've been following this debate for quite a while, but I think I'll take this time to note a few things.

 

Egghebrecht, while you've got a lot of enthusiasm for the topic, you don't seem to realize that things are not "Either this, or that". It is possible to do something to get attention to the gay rights issue without causing shock and disgust by those who feel men in bikinis are shocking and disgusting. If the people you're trying to convince are unable to look past something as silly as the clothing the protesters are wearing, then they'll never hear a word that's said, and all of those fantastic points about how gays have every right to marry and how they're perfectly natural and normal and moral will just be utterly lost. Yes, you have a great point, having a gay rights rally is a lot cheaper than making commercials, and will get a lot more attention than any symposium. But wouldn't it be better for the cause, wouldn't it get the point across so much better, if those news cameras showed gays looking like your average person off the street? Wouldn't that convey that they're exactly like everyone else infinitely better than seeing a street full of drag queens?

 

 

I'd also like to note that your comparison with Martin Luther King actually takes away from your point: You seem to be trying to convey that more extreme measures need to be taken for anything to happen, and that MLK did the same thing. Funnily enough, he's famous for bringing attention to his cause despite not being extreme. While others wanted to fight, to protest violently, he instead resisted passively, modeling his protests after Gandhi. And it worked! While riot police were releasing dogs on them and spraying them with hoses and beating them, they did not fight back, and pictures and videos of them not fighting back were spread throughout the country. The logic was that by nonviolently protesting, onlookers would sympathize and identify with them, instead of with those who are opposing them.

 

But see, if you apply that logic to Gay Rights, it's clear that it's far easier for your average Joe to empathize with a middle-aged man in jeans and a rainbow T-shirt than it is to empathize with a middle-aged man in a bikini. Yes, drawing attention plays its role, but change will only come when the rest of the world empathizes with those being discriminated against, when they feel their pain and what they go through. Once you've got empathy, the next step is acceptance. Then we can break out the tights :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~CQ -.-

 

I really agree with that. I think a lot of tolerance comes from respect, and, personally, I find it a lot easier to respect someone who I think respects themselves.

 

What I mean is, if I see a gay rights parade, and there's some dude wearing a bikini, I might think "look at that guy making a fool of himself! He's just putting on a show!" If I see a guy dressed averagely, and not (too) flamboyantly, I can take him a lot more seriously, which makes me listen to his points more seriously. I don't think anyone can take a certain group seriously, unless that group takes themselves seriously.

 

Now, I know there are a lot of gays who are not super flamboyant, bikini wearers, and who have a lot of self respect, but when I think "gay pride parade" I think more "show" and less "protest." I just think gays need to change up there protests a little more, and get a better public image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I mean is, if I see a gay rights parade, and there's some dude wearing a bikini, I might think "look at that guy making a fool of himself! He's just putting on a show!"

 

So, you deny that gays should be given basic rights provided to straight people because of the way they dress? :)

 

You know, they used this EXACT same argument to deny "Votes for Women" -- because certain women insisted on not dressing "properly", but wearing pantaloons!!!

 

Pantaloons!!!?!?!?!?!? eleventyones! OMG! :)

 

-.-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I mean is, if I see a gay rights parade, and there's some dude wearing a bikini, I might think "look at that guy making a fool of himself! He's just putting on a show!"

 

So, you deny that gays should be given basic rights provided to straight people because of the way they dress? :)

 

You know, they used this EXACT same argument to deny "Votes for Women" -- because certain women insisted on not dressing "properly", but wearing pantaloons!!!

 

Pantaloons!!!?!?!?!?!? eleventyones! OMG! :)

 

-.-

Read his damn post. If you ever get to that, read the two before at as well.

 

Holy crap I feel like I'm part of some kind of huge practical joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I mean is, if I see a gay rights parade, and there's some dude wearing a bikini, I might think "look at that guy making a fool of himself! He's just putting on a show!"

 

So, you deny that gays should be given basic rights provided to straight people because of the way they dress? :P

 

You know, they used this EXACT same argument to deny "Votes for Women" -- because certain women insisted on not dressing "properly", but wearing pantaloons!!!

 

Pantaloons!!!?!?!?!?!? eleventyones! OMG! :)

 

-.-

Read his damn post. If you ever get to that, read the two before at as well.

 

Holy crap I feel like I'm part of some kind of huge practical joke.

 

I did read it -- and like I said, it is providing the same argument that has been employed before.

 

Perhaps you should equip yourself with knowledge of the Suffragette Movement, and the obstacles and arguments employed against them? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I mean is, if I see a gay rights parade, and there's some dude wearing a bikini, I might think "look at that guy making a fool of himself! He's just putting on a show!"

 

So, you deny that gays should be given basic rights provided to straight people because of the way they dress? :P

 

You know, they used this EXACT same argument to deny "Votes for Women" -- because certain women insisted on not dressing "properly", but wearing pantaloons!!!

 

Pantaloons!!!?!?!?!?!? eleventyones! OMG! :P

 

-.-

Read his damn post. If you ever get to that, read the two before at as well.

 

Holy crap I feel like I'm part of some kind of huge practical joke.

 

I did read it -- and like I said, it is providing the same argument that has been employed before.

 

Perhaps you should equip yourself with knowledge of the Suffragette Movement, and the obstacles and arguments employed against them? :)

Perhaps you should read and respond to the two posts which were actually organized and presented in a way that make our side of the issue easily comprehensible, rather than pathetically misinterpreting the various posts others make to piggy-back onto those better arguments. I may have provided a similar argument as Gillis and heb0 and others have before, but you have yet to provide anything more than a flimsy excuse for a counter, and several idiot claims of discrimination. You hide behind a masquerade of cheap insults and misplaced self-righteousness, construing yourself as too "above it all" to bother explaining yourself properly. What are you doing in the Debate Room if you're incapable of debating?

 

 

Gillis, you're not the only one. What the hell did I just get myself into? :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

~CQ :P

Edited by Cow Queen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I mean is, if I see a gay rights parade, and there's some dude wearing a bikini, I might think "look at that guy making a fool of himself! He's just putting on a show!"

 

So, you deny that gays should be given basic rights provided to straight people because of the way they dress? :P

 

You know, they used this EXACT same argument to deny "Votes for Women" -- because certain women insisted on not dressing "properly", but wearing pantaloons!!!

 

Pantaloons!!!?!?!?!?!? eleventyones! OMG! :P

 

-.-

 

We're debating the practicality of the technique, not the principle of it. You automatically assume that, because we are saying dressing and acting "over-the-top" at a gay rights rally actually hurts the movement, we are biased and against gay rights. That is not the case. Please re-read our posts and try to understand the point four posters have tried to make. The point that you have simply ignored in favor of your automatic reaction of indignation and anger after skimming our replies rather than reading for comprehension.

 

If you'd take the time to do that, you might actually realize that we're on the same side. :P

 

Or you could keep attacking us for being practical rather than stubborn and unrealistic.

 

Perhaps you should read and respond to the two posts which were actually organized and presented in a way that make our side of the issue easily comprehensible, rather than pathetically misinterpreting the various posts others make to piggy-back onto those better arguments. I may have provided a similar argument as Gillis and heb0 and others have before, but you have yet to provide anything more than a flimsy excuse for a counter, and several idiot claims of discrimination. You hide behind a masquerade of cheap insults and misplaced self-righteousness, construing yourself as too "above it all" to bother explaining yourself properly. What are you doing in the Debate Room if you're incapable of debating?

 

 

Gillis, you're not the only one. What the hell did I just get myself into? :)

 

~CQ :)

 

Yay, I'm not the only one that's being driven mad to the point of screaming at everyone by this mess. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whether it hurts their cause or not doesn't matter

 

it is who they are

Blyaunte's allegory is true

they used the same for woman

 

 

i might not agree with how they dress but i sure as hell will defend their right to do so...

 

 

i really find it scary that you guys and girls don't

 

you are basically saying that them being discriminated is their own fault...

 

sorry it's the fault of the people discriminating them

 

in other threads i see you people defending the freedom of speech

where is the difference?

Edited by Egghebrecht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A person's sexual preference does not affect their parenting ability nor does it play a factor on whether they would make a good parent or not; it depends on the person. You will get homosexual couples who make bad parents, whilst there are also heterosexual couples who make bad parents too.

 

It would of course affect the child's life, however, I don't think that reason alone is justification enough to deny homosexuals adoption rights simply because society deems it as unacceptable. Of course the child is also likely to be teased or bullied in school also, however, I don't think anyone can say they were never picked on in school because it is simply in the nature of children to tease and torment. Therefore, if it's not because someone has homosexual parents, it will be because of something else simply because children always seem to find something to pick on.

 

Of course they don't just let anyone adopt children; there is a lengthy process involved which includes an interview and assessment. Homosexuals should have to undergo this procedure, just like any other couple, however, they should be judged as individuals and their capability of being a parent, rather than what they like in the bedroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whether it hurts their cause or not doesn't matter

 

it is who they are

Blyaunte's allegory is true

they used the same for woman

 

 

i might not agree with how they dress but i sure as hell will defend their right to do so...

 

 

i really find it scary that you guys and girls don't

 

For the last flipping time nobody says they don't have a right to dress up. I personally couldn't care less if anyone, gay or not, decided it'd be fun to walk down the street in a speedo, or any other kind of ridiculous clothing, since it doesn't affect me in the least. What people are saying is that doing so at a Gay Rights protest wouldn't be as good for the cause as dressing up normally.

 

As for your assumption that pirate costumes and bikinis and drag are "the way they are", I could not disagree more. You're asserting that the stereotype of gay men is true. It's not. For the most part, gays are exactly like everyone else, and the compulsion to dress up like women and talk high pitched and other nonsense isn't any stronger for them than it is for a hetero. It's simply become as a (generally nonconstructive) form of protest.

 

 

 

 

you are basically saying that them being discriminated is their own fault...

NO WE ARE NOT

 

 

Get that through your head. Nobody said it was their fault. The fact that you can't read that and figure it out for yourself is honestly pathetic. Look at our posts for more than two seconds, it might clear some things up.

 

 

in other threads i see you people defending the freedom of speech

where is the difference?

The difference is that nobody's saying they can't. If you don't understand what someone is saying, don't go trying to argue with them about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~CQ -.-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cow queen what the hell are you on about????

 

 

on way you are saying that they are free to act that way

the other way you are saying that it is a untrue stereotype

and just before that you say the have the right to be the stereotype

the other way you are saying that them acting that way has averse effects

...

 

so what do you propose?

 

it has averse effects in the USA

well i can understand that when i saw the amount of fuss "nipplegate" caused

 

but what do you suggest?

 

are you going to forbid over the top gay prides because it hurts the gay movement? -.-

 

 

i really don't get what you want to do about it...

 

because those extreme stereotypical flamboyant gay people exist, like most stereotypes they also exist

a minority of the gay population yes

but still existing and very much loved by the media for obvious "sensational" reasons

 

 

 

in the above post you have raged but against what?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egghe, if you can't read the posts, what the hell are you doing here?

 

Our point is simple.

 

Gay Pride parades do nothing but hurt the gay rights movement.

 

If homosexuals DID NOT PARTICIPATE in Gay Pride events, they would experience much less difficulty in convincing people to JOIN their side.

 

Myself, CQ, heb0, and Gillis ARE NOT AGAINST GRANTING RIGHTS TO HOMOSEXUALS.

 

NOBODY IS TRYING TO BAN GAY PRIDE EVENTS.

 

I don't know if I can make these points any simpler or clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Egghe, if you can't read the posts, what the hell are you doing here?

 

Our point is simple.

 

Gay Pride parades do nothing but hurt the gay rights movement.

 

If homosexuals DID NOT PARTICIPATE in Gay Pride events, they would experience much less difficulty in convincing people to JOIN their side.

 

Myself, CQ, heb0, and Gillis ARE NOT AGAINST GRANTING RIGHTS TO HOMOSEXUALS.

 

NOBODY IS TRYING TO BAN GAY PRIDE EVENTS.

 

I don't know if I can make these points any simpler or clearer.

then why are you/we arguing -.-

Edited by Egghebrecht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We're debating the practicality of the technique, not the principle of it. You automatically assume that, because we are saying dressing and acting "over-the-top" at a gay rights rally actually hurts the movement, we are biased and against gay rights.

 

No -- I am providing you with a historical frame of reference to demonstrate that you're mistaken.

 

The argument, in those days, was that women should not get the vote, because the Suffragettes' tactics, behaviour and public displays, demonstrated that women were "too emotional" and "could not think logically as men".

 

YOU are trying to equate "Rights for Gays" with "Gay Pride" in the very same manner.

 

Whether you claim to be anti-gay or not, you're still demonstrating the limits of your own prejudice.

 

-.-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Egghe, if you can't read the posts, what the hell are you doing here?

 

Our point is simple.

 

Gay Pride parades do nothing but hurt the gay rights movement.

 

If homosexuals DID NOT PARTICIPATE in Gay Pride events, they would experience much less difficulty in convincing people to JOIN their side.

 

Myself, CQ, heb0, and Gillis ARE NOT AGAINST GRANTING RIGHTS TO HOMOSEXUALS.

 

NOBODY IS TRYING TO BAN GAY PRIDE EVENTS.

 

I don't know if I can make these points any simpler or clearer.

then why are you/we arguing -.-

Because you weren't getting it. D'oh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That being said, I will on this occasion present my opinion.

 

I believe some people are born gay, but it isn't right for them to embrace it, just like it wouldn't be right for a naturally aggressive person to yell at people on the street, even though it would feel "right" to them. I believe that we are always given a choice to make ourselves who we are when it comes to things like this, and that being born gay doesn't mean you have to be gay. I do not believe your sexual identity is on par with things like gender and race. I believe gay relationships are wrong and I would very much like to see them disappear. That doesn't mean I hate gay people. It means I don't like what they do.

Since when can you decide for other people what's right and what's wrong? Since when do right and wrong exist?

 

You think that homosexual people are abnormal and you would love to see a world with only heterosexual couples. Now here's what annoys me. Those silly KKK guys would very much love to see only white couples. Being Caucasian is something you're born with. Being homosexual is something you're born with. You think all people should be like you. Why do you think heterosexual couples are perfect and homosexual couples are not? You have no reason to. You have a fear of what's different from you. It's called homophobia, a justified form of racism and discrimination.

 

You have absolutely no idea about what life is like and I feel that your religion is not making you a good, tolerant or moral person. You have conservative and right-wing ideas of certain groups of people.

 

You believe your religion allows you to discriminate people and gives you the right to hate the way they are born, because they are different from you. A religion that teaches you to be tolerant and live in peace. Tolerance? Peace? My ass. An excuse to be able to discriminate and hate people for being unlike you is more like it.

 

People choose to be homosexual just as much as you choose to be white or black. Please get a view on life and society.

When I said I'd never respond, I lied -.-

 

Since when do right and wrong exist? Since the dawn of humanity. The belief in right and wrong is essential to the world we live in. If you really believe there is no right and wrong, go tell that to someone like a holocaust victim.

 

People can be born with homosexual tendencies. I view this as an abnormality, yes. People can also be born with an aggressive nature that makes them have a naturally short temper. So you tell me, would I be intolerant if some angry guy started yelling at me and I told him to stop? I don't hate homosexuals, as they are people just like everyone else, but I don't agree with their practices and it offends me.

 

You cannot choose to be white or black, or any other race. You can choose whether you want to live a homosexual life, however, and that is the big difference. Gay rights groups constantly tell their members that it's not a problem, and that they shouldn't lie to themselves and embrace their homosexuality. That is not the only option. I know plenty of cases where people who were gay embraced their gay life style, realized it was only a shallow, physical attraction, and abandoned it, and if they can, so can anybody else.

 

If a gay person can make a choice about their identity, then they lose their justification for what they do. Many gay people feel guilty and vulnerable about being gay, and so they buy into the lie that there is nothing they can do about it.

 

I don't believe I'm being intolerant. I have gay friends and I treat them like anybody else. I just don't agree with homosexuality, and I've given my reasons why. And in response you have directly attacked me, my religion, my political views and compared me to the kkk. I believe in my religion because I know that I, nor anybody else, is a good person. I don't think I'm better than other people. I look at some of the things I've done and I can barely forgive myself. However, you have installed in your mind that because of my political and religious views I'm a discriminating, homophobic, Bible thumping bigot. All I did was give my opinion, and at least I tried to do it in a way that wouldn't offend. YOU are the intolerant one, attacking anyone who has a different opinion then you, and I refuse to be defined by someone like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That being said, I will on this occasion present my opinion.

 

I believe some people are born gay, but it isn't right for them to embrace it, just like it wouldn't be right for a naturally aggressive person to yell at people on the street, even though it would feel "right" to them. I believe that we are always given a choice to make ourselves who we are when it comes to things like this, and that being born gay doesn't mean you have to be gay. I do not believe your sexual identity is on par with things like gender and race. I believe gay relationships are wrong and I would very much like to see them disappear. That doesn't mean I hate gay people. It means I don't like what they do.

Since when can you decide for other people what's right and what's wrong? Since when do right and wrong exist?

 

You think that homosexual people are abnormal and you would love to see a world with only heterosexual couples. Now here's what annoys me. Those silly KKK guys would very much love to see only white couples. Being Caucasian is something you're born with. Being homosexual is something you're born with. You think all people should be like you. Why do you think heterosexual couples are perfect and homosexual couples are not? You have no reason to. You have a fear of what's different from you. It's called homophobia, a justified form of racism and discrimination.

 

You have absolutely no idea about what life is like and I feel that your religion is not making you a good, tolerant or moral person. You have conservative and right-wing ideas of certain groups of people.

 

You believe your religion allows you to discriminate people and gives you the right to hate the way they are born, because they are different from you. A religion that teaches you to be tolerant and live in peace. Tolerance? Peace? My ass. An excuse to be able to discriminate and hate people for being unlike you is more like it.

 

People choose to be homosexual just as much as you choose to be white or black. Please get a view on life and society.

When I said I'd never respond, I lied -.-

 

Since when do right and wrong exist? Since the dawn of humanity. The belief in right and wrong is essential to the world we live in. If you really believe there is no right and wrong, go tell that to someone like a holocaust victim.

 

People can be born with homosexual tendencies. I view this as an abnormality, yes. People can also be born with an aggressive nature that makes them have a naturally short temper. So you tell me, would I be intolerant if some angry guy started yelling at me and I told him to stop? I don't hate homosexuals, as they are people just like everyone else, but I don't agree with their practices and it offends me.

 

You cannot choose to be white or black, or any other race. You can choose whether you want to live a homosexual life, however, and that is the big difference. Gay rights groups constantly tell their members that it's not a problem, and that they shouldn't lie to themselves and embrace their homosexuality. That is not the only option. I know plenty of cases where people who were gay embraced their gay life style, realized it was only a shallow, physical attraction, and abandoned it, and if they can, so can anybody else.

 

If a gay person can make a choice about their identity, then they lose their justification for what they do. Many gay people feel guilty and vulnerable about being gay, and so they buy into the lie that there is nothing they can do about it.

 

I don't believe I'm being intolerant. I have gay friends and I treat them like anybody else. I just don't agree with homosexuality, and I've given my reasons why. And in response you have directly attacked me, my religion, my political views and compared me to the kkk. I believe in my religion because I know that I, nor anybody else, is a good person. I don't think I'm better than other people. I look at some of the things I've done and I can barely forgive myself. However, you have installed in your mind that because of my political and religious views I'm a discriminating, homophobic, Bible thumping bigot. All I did was give my opinion, and at least I tried to do it in a way that wouldn't offend. YOU are the intolerant one, attacking anyone who has a different opinion then you, and I refuse to be defined by someone like you.

I call burn.

 

That said there's no point in trying to reason with them about it. :)

 

All they'll do is continue calling you a Bible-thumping bigot because they can't think of a better argument against your own.

 

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on gay marriage/adoption itself? And have you read any of Aquinas' writings (seeing as you're a Christian)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We're debating the practicality of the technique, not the principle of it. You automatically assume that, because we are saying dressing and acting "over-the-top" at a gay rights rally actually hurts the movement, we are biased and against gay rights.

 

No -- I am providing you with a historical frame of reference to demonstrate that you're mistaken.

 

The argument, in those days, was that women should not get the vote, because the Suffragettes' tactics, behaviour and public displays, demonstrated that women were "too emotional" and "could not think logically as men".

 

YOU are trying to equate "Rights for Gays" with "Gay Pride" in the very same manner.

 

Whether you claim to be anti-gay or not, you're still demonstrating the limits of your own prejudice.

 

-.-

Now you're just fudgeing with us. There is no conceivable way that you do not understand what we're saying.

 

We are not against Gay Pride parades. Others are. These people are voting against equality. We want to change that by stopping, or at the very least calming down, these parades for the time being.

Edited by Gillis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.