Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[Double A]

All I said was that I hate it being in the media all the time, I don't mind gays in the media, I don't want to hear ABOUT gays in the media. Like "Old announcer reveals he's gay!" good for him, "Man comes out on national TV!" good for him, what are you doing with this? You are simply putting them in the target for bigots to bash and bash. Let's say there are two guys that work for a TV company and their getting married, I have no problem with them announcing it on TV, they would do the same for straight people getting married. What I have a problem with is turning on the TV and hearing about it all the time.

Then the issue becomes that you are exaggerating how much TV time is dedicated to coming out of the closet.

 

[Byzantine]

I don't think the stroke story means anything, it is entirely possible it did cause a change, since strokes affect the brain, but it is also possible he was gay beforehand and just didn't want to admit it to himself or others and the stroke made him realize there are more important things.

 

[Yeul]

>Politics + Homosexuality
>No mention of the kiddy fiddler who tried to run for Irish presidency

Serebii, I am disappoint.

 

[gyaradosuseddragonrage!]

RazorXtreme:

You say you're tolerant of homosexuals, and yet you want them to get out of your face and you're sick of them in the media. Slightly paradoxical, don't you think? If I want Africans out of my face and out of the media, then I wouldn't be tolerant. What makes you think you can do the same thing and get away clean?

 

[chuboy]

Hating homosexuals is not racist and therefore not bad.

Or, racism isn't bad either - Africans should get out of the media if they don't want so much negative attention.

Either is a likely thought process.

 

[gyaradosuseddragonrage!]

No, hating homosexuals isn't racist; it's homophobic.

 

[Razor Xtreme]

Razor Xtreme, you ask why gay people should get to go on TV just because they're coming out of the closet, which in your defense, I've seen, there's the airman and the newscaster I remember in recent history - but the fact is people view 'coming out' as a courageous thing to do, and that's why the get to be featured on TV. Aside from that, why shouldn't they? Is there a reason to keep people from getting more than they deserve? If some gay people get more publicity than they should from coming out of the closet, why exactly is that bad?

And please do not take this thread or what anybody says in it personally. Unless you get physically sick whenever someone criticizes you, you don't need to flame anybody who is impolite to you. It even says that at the beginning of my thread, "Repay insensitivity with politeness."

Yeah I understand that, and I apologize for my flaming. It completely come out that day, I had a bad day, and I've always had a pet peeve for when people get mad over someone having a different opinion, so I just released. I sincerely apologize, my bad.
Oh, and I agree that it's a brave thing to do, my main point is that if they put themselves into the spotlight over it, it leaves them open to bashing from bigots and etc.

I'm sorry for assuming you were a homophobe solely on your words and without knowing all of your background information also.

I understand what you mean by gays are getting treated more than equal. That's the problem I have with the feminist movement. They now just want women to be superior to men. I hate sexist phrases like. "You throw like a girl." or "Don't hit a girl." If women wanted to be equal, they would insist to pay for their own meals on dates.

Yeah I apologize for my way of handling it, if you can tell my last comment was far different from my other comments, I can be a dick when it's late here, apologies.

and yeah, that's one of the problems I've had too, not just with gay people, also with racism, sexism, etc. Like, I have no problem treating everyone equal, I just hate when people expect more.
I completely agree with your last 2 sentences/points.

You guys thought you had this debate pegged right? You thought "Oh they BORN that way" or "Oh, Some traumatic event happened that Made em THAT way"....

Think again!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...d=maing-grid7|hp-laptop|dl15|sec1_lnk3|110998

What do you think now huh?

That doesn't mean anything. Homosexuality can happen many ways, don't you think that makes sense? I'm sure there are some people that just chose to be gay, some were born that way, some were exposed to stuff, etc. My friend was born a lesbian, but my other friend just decided to be gay. It can go either way, it isn't like, "The only way to be gay is by choosing" or etc.

 

[chuboy]

my other friend just decided to be gay. It can go either way

Garbage. If that were true then you could decide to gay for the next week. I bet anything you can't.

 

[Sadib]

I think all the hot sweaty showers with ripped nude men probably had more to do with it.

possibly

@Marioguy:
you are such a homophobe so sexist
i can't believe you'd say that

That's not how becoming gay works. What's the point of telling you anything? You have such a deranged view on life that nothing will change your mind.

I want women to be treated equally with men, and that somehow makes me sexist? You may want women to have authority and to be quiet like Timothy 2:12, but that's not how the world works.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Garbage. If that were true then you could decide to gay for the next week. I bet anything you can't.

Have you really thought in depth about that claim? How can you tell someone point-blank who says 'my friend decided to be gay' that this never happens? Sometimes personal tastes and comforts are built over time from positive reinforcement. And especially when you consider the pliancy of someone who is just discovering their sexuality. I always here this, "Okay, turn gay instantly, now, do it for a week' argument, but that's a fallacious challenge, because no change in taste happens instananeously. We can't choose to like something immediately, but if we have significant initiative to change our tastes, even just curiousity, we can do it. It will be a while before we actually acquire that taste. Someone can enjoy a health food diet that they hated when they first started it. But we had to have been interested acquiring that taste in the first place, so somebody having no interest in being homosexual at all would indeed not be, because their mind is not open to it. But that does not mean that it is impossible for someone to change orientations if they did choose to pursue such a change. Hypothetically. Food for thought.

 

[Razor Xtreme]

Garbage. If that were true then you could decide to gay for the next week. I bet anything you can't.

Maybe not me personally, I grew up around a lot of girls and guys, but who knows what he grew up around?
For all you know he could've grown up around nothing but men, he could've been raped, he could've been touched, you have no idea how his life could have been behind the scenes. Someone turning gay by choice can easily happen, it all depends on how they grew up. You don't know, you didn't live his life.

 

[chuboy]

I think on a biophysical level gay people cannot achieve the same level of arousal or sexual image given an image of a person of the opposite sex no matter how hard they try/want to, and vice-versa.

Unfortunately I can't find the link to that study.

 

[Razor Xtreme]

See that's the thing though, studies can only get you so far, the only way anyone could know would be to get an honest answer out of every homosexual in the world and then make some sort of assumption, which still wouldn't be accurate.

 

[chuboy]

If done correctly, studies can be extrapolated to be representative of the whole population. That is the idea behind statistics and the scientific method.

Either way it shouldn't matter whether someone chooses to be gay or not. I don't believe it is a choice. If it were then frankly I don't understand why gays in places like Africa and the Middle East don't choose to be straight rather than endure the torture and mistreatment afforded to homosexuals there.

 

[CSolarstorm]

See that's the thing though, studies can only get you so far, the only way anyone could know would be to get an honest answer out of every homosexual in the world and then make some sort of assumption, which still wouldn't be accurate.

And that's the problem with anecdotal evidence; you can present it, and then when people doubt it, you can say 'but you don't know anything about him/her' and make it irrefutable while not really giving anyone any details. That's why anecdotal evidence isn't really reliable.

We can't throw out a possibility that it is not different for everyone. As I recall, the theory that homosexuality can be caused by rape is not really proved.

There are two times when people usually experiment with homosexuality: as teenagers in middle or high school, where they learn that homosexuality exists so they want to know about it, and during their 40's in menopause (?) and andropause (male menopause), or in other words, when they first get their hormones, and then when they start losing them. In that category I put all the middle aged women men and women that expiriment with homosexuality. That's different than being 'gay' as we know it for their entire life. It's possible your friend 'chose to be gay' because he thinks he can choose.

On the other hand, there is the Kinsey Scale, which is based on a principle that says everyone is gay to some degree.

 

[Razor Xtreme]

If done correctly, studies can be extrapolated to be representative of the whole population. That is the idea behind statistics and the scientific method.

Either way it shouldn't matter whether someone chooses to be gay or not. I don't believe it is a choice. If it were then frankly I don't understand why gays in places like Africa and the Middle East don't choose to be straight rather than endure the torture and mistreatment afforded to homosexuals there.

For all you know, there could be in-the-closet people in the Middle East or Africa, I never said ALL gays choose to. I said it's a combination of the three possibly. Some are born gay, some choose to be, some grow into it with time.

 

[chuboy]

In any case it doesn't matter. There really is no valid argument for homosexual inequality.

 

[mattj]

That's not how becoming gay works.

I'm sure you would know from first hand experience.

What's the point of telling you anything? You have such a deranged view on life that nothing will change your mind.

Same could be said about you sunshine.

I want women to be treated equally with men, and that somehow makes me sexist? You may want women to have authority and to be quiet like Timothy 2:12, but that's not how the world works.

I'm sorry. I can't tell if this is another one of your terribly worded posts, or if it really just doesn't make any sense. But I don't have any idea what you're trying to say. If it wasn't completely off topic (like 99% of your posts) I'd ask you to elaborate.

 

[The Dark Titan]

I agree with Chuboy; however it may be that people became gay, it does not make them unequal.

Also, Razor, I'm pretty sure that what Chuboy meant was that, if people choose to be gay, why would they choose to be it, knowing that they will be criticized, riducled and hated amon a lot of social circles?

I'm sure you would know from first hand experience.Same could be said about you sunshine.I'm sorry.
I can't tell if this is another one of your terribly worded posts, or if it really just doesn't make any sense. But I don't have any idea what you're trying to say. If it wasn't completely off topic (like 99% of your posts) I'd ask you to elaborate.

I can tell from first-hand experience that that is not know becoming gay works. Problem?

About Mario's post, you called him a sexist person on your last post, when he had not said anything sexist at all, so he's defending himself by using a biblical reference, which seems is the only way you are able to understand things.

 

[CSolarstorm]

I think mattj was being sarcastic when he called marioguy sexist. He was trying to agree with marioguy saying that feminists want women to be superior and compared it to gay people wanting to be superior, so he wrote 'you homophobe' and then crossed it out and put 'you sexist' instead to make a point of comparing two labels used way too much to describe those who criticize overly victimized groups. At least, that is what I understood.