Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

why is homophobia commonplace?


  • Please log in to reply
415 replies to this topic

#391    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,661 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 25 March 2013 - 08:43 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 24 March 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

If your kid was openly intolerent in front of you, would you shrug it off and go 'oh they're just being a kid' or would you point out to them 'no that's not how we behave'.
Happens all the time, and I, personnally, evaluate each situation as to if I was in the wrong or not. But, yes, in general I would correct my kids to follow my idea of what is correct behavior.

But I also recognize that this is going to happen and make allowances for it. That I think is my point that gays need to make allowances for those who are having basically instinctive  (or learned... whatever) responses that are not appropriate. You can't be filing Hate Speech against every 12 year old that goes "OHMYGOSH! Those two men are kissing... YUCKY!!!"

Quote

Then I think there's a lot of people who are complete morons who don't know how to behave around other human beings.
Yep...

Quote

Ahh the American way. Reason won't work, so we'll just sue eeveryone until they get the message.
If it works.....

Quote

I think your whole attitude shows their's still a long way to go. Look at what you've said. You've said that gay people should 'resist' the urge to be gay to be 'normal'. You've acted like the expectation of being treated equally is too much for the average human to actually handle. Most of your arguements seem to hinge on the eww factor along with an inability for straight people to manage to treat others as human beings. You've said you want scientific proof that homosexuality isn't a choice and in the next breath said you'd reject it.

Now I look at that attitude with absolute despair because it is just absolutely ridiculous and it shows that there is still a massive problem because you hold those things so well.
Well, it is no wonder that you are Angry if that is what you got out of our discussion. Those are almost all baseless misrepresentations of what I posted.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#392    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,956 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 25 March 2013 - 10:16 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 25 March 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

That is an assumption. You have no reason to think I'm that hard headed.

Or maybe you mean Conservatives in general? Perhaps many would dismiss evidence, but perhaps not.

An assumption it may be, but it's going by what you yourself has said. You say I've 'no reason to think you're that had headed, but I'm going by what you said in this post.

In said post you comment on the possibility of homosexuality being a genetic trait. In the last part of it you say (and I quote)

Quote

that despite a possible genetic factor, that gays Chose to follow that trait

So given one possibility of homosexuality being an inborn trait, you can still turn it into a 'choice', which means you can ignore the proof.

My problem with the 'cause of homosexuality' being found is twofold. First opponents would have your attitude, in that it wouldn't matter they'd still make it so it was a choice. In which case the proof does not matter. The second is that since some opponents see homosexuality as a disease, they'd see any cause as being something they could use to develop an actual 'cure'.

View PostDieChecker, on 25 March 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

Happens all the time, and I, personnally, evaluate each situation as to if I was in the wrong or not. But, yes, in general I would correct my kids to follow my idea of what is correct behavior.

But I also recognize that this is going to happen and make allowances for it. That I think is my point that gays need to make allowances for those who are having basically instinctive  (or learned... whatever) responses that are not appropriate. You can't be filing Hate Speech against every 12 year old that goes "OHMYGOSH! Those two men are kissing... YUCKY!!!"

That's good.

No one is saying that 'hate speech' should be flung at 12 year olds. Kids have a built in excuse in that they don't know any better. However, if an adult acted like that I'd deem it as being inappropriate at best. Such behaviour would be rude at the very least and certainly shouldn't be considered acceptable for an adult to do. Maybe it's not quite hate speech, but it's certainly not the sort of think we should be shrugging off as acceptable.

Quote

Yep...

Pity.

Quote

If it works.....

Is it really the best way though?

Quote

Well, it is no wonder that you are Angry if that is what you got out of our discussion. Those are almost all baseless misrepresentations of what I posted.

That's the thing though isn't it? They're not baseless. I'm not pulling those things out of thin air, I'm pulling them right out of the things you actually have posted. So I wouldn't say they were 'baseless misrepresentations' when it's just putting togetehr things you've said in black and white several times. If you believe they are, then by all means, prove me wrong. But just saying that without trying to back it up isn't proving anything.

It's not anger, not exactly. It's more frustration that an attitude such as the one you're displaying is considered socially acceptable, even though it's at best not solving anything at worst contributing to the problems gay people actual face.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#393    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,661 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 25 March 2013 - 11:51 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 25 March 2013 - 10:16 PM, said:

So given one possibility of homosexuality being an inborn trait, you can still turn it into a 'choice', which means you can ignore the proof.

My problem with the 'cause of homosexuality' being found is twofold. First opponents would have your attitude, in that it wouldn't matter they'd still make it so it was a choice. In which case the proof does not matter. The second is that since some opponents see homosexuality as a disease, they'd see any cause as being something they could use to develop an actual 'cure'.
That is where science comes in. If science said to me that 85% (or whatever %) of practicing homosexuals had this genetic trait, I'd say... Yes sir that is direct evidence of genetic disposition. But if they came back from studies and said 33% of gays had the genetic trait, I'd say that those other 66% of gays made a choice to be gay. That is basically what I was trying to say. The proof directly relates to if it is a choice or not.

I also posted that criminals, violent people and many types of addictions appear to have some genetic link. Yet those people are expected to Chose to not follow those traits. True, gays are not distructive or harmful, but the point is the same, that in many instances, genetic pre-disposition can be resisted. I'm not saying that gay must resist... I've never said that, but they could if they felt they needed to. No one is forcing them, right?

Theoretically being gay could be "cured" but it is a process that is probably not worth figuring out. Probably would require extensive counciling. It would basically have to wipe the persona and start over.

Quote

No one is saying that 'hate speech' should be flung at 12 year olds. Kids have a built in excuse in that they don't know any better. However, if an adult acted like that I'd deem it as being inappropriate at best. Such behaviour would be rude at the very least and certainly shouldn't be considered acceptable for an adult to do. Maybe it's not quite hate speech, but it's certainly not the sort of think we should be shrugging off as acceptable.
Agree. I don't thing anyone deserves hateful speech or violence.

Quote

Is it really the best way though?
No. But I don't think we live in a perfect society. I think way to many unthinking idiots exist and have financial and political power.

Quote

That's the thing though isn't it? They're not baseless. I'm not pulling those things out of thin air, I'm pulling them right out of the things you actually have posted. So I wouldn't say they were 'baseless misrepresentations' when it's just putting togetehr things you've said in black and white several times. If you believe they are, then by all means, prove me wrong. But just saying that without trying to back it up isn't proving anything.

It's not anger, not exactly. It's more frustration that an attitude such as the one you're displaying is considered socially acceptable, even though it's at best not solving anything at worst contributing to the problems gay people actual face.
But we don't live in a Black and White world. And your opinion is based on your individual version of Black and White, which apparently, I think misrepresents what I wrote.

I've never made trouble for a single gay person. My attitude is under my control and edited by logic, not emotion. If you are saying that because I'm not going out and putting up gay tolerance posters and speaking up on street corners that I am contributing to the problems of gays, then I will say that what you say is true. I personnally don't think that doing nothing is the same as contributing to the problem.

Perhaps posting here is contributing to the ptoblem? Perhaps... But I really doubt that many people would be swayed by my posts unless there was something to them.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#394    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,956 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 26 March 2013 - 12:43 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 25 March 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

That is where science comes in. If science said to me that 85% (or whatever %) of practicing homosexuals had this genetic trait, I'd say... Yes sir that is direct evidence of genetic disposition. But if they came back from studies and said 33% of gays had the genetic trait, I'd say that those other 66% of gays made a choice to be gay. That is basically what I was trying to say. The proof directly relates to if it is a choice or not.

I also posted that criminals, violent people and many types of addictions appear to have some genetic link. Yet those people are expected to Chose to not follow those traits. True, gays are not distructive or harmful, but the point is the same, that in many instances, genetic pre-disposition can be resisted. I'm not saying that gay must resist... I've never said that, but they could if they felt they needed to. No one is forcing them, right?

Theoretically being gay could be "cured" but it is a process that is probably not worth figuring out. Probably would require extensive counciling. It would basically have to wipe the persona and start over.

See my issue there is twofold. First, you are comparing being gay to those other behaviours. You have chosen to compare a person's sexuality with things that are destructive not just to the person but to others. You have also said it could be resisted if they 'could'. Again, that line leads to the expection and people that force them to be straight.

Now secondly is, does it matter? Let's look at the numbers you used. Right in the first instance 85% have the genetic trait, but 15% don't. In the second 33% did and 67% don't. What would either of these numbers mean in the real world? Well if you met a gay person in life there'd be a chance (either way) that they'd have the genetic trait and also a chance that they didn't. There's no way for you to know (unless you go around testing every gay person you met which, let's face it wouldn't go down well) so the best you could do is treat them like you would do anyone else. You can't treat every gay person as if they make a choice if there's even the slightest chance it's not.

That wouldn't stop the religious nutjobs from trying. They're already doing it now. Sadly the only way to stop them seems to be lawsuits and legislation. Sad that it's neessary.

Quote

Agree. I don't thing anyone deserves hateful speech or violence.

At least we agree on something.

Quote

No. But I don't think we live in a perfect society. I think way to many unthinking idiots exist and have financial and political power.

It's sad, but it's true. I see it a lot, especially in stuff about America that there's a lot of people like that trying to rig the system.

Quote

But we don't live in a Black and White world. And your opinion is based on your individual version of Black and White, which apparently, I think misrepresents what I wrote.

I've never made trouble for a single gay person. My attitude is under my control and edited by logic, not emotion. If you are saying that because I'm not going out and putting up gay tolerance posters and speaking up on street corners that I am contributing to the problems of gays, then I will say that what you say is true. I personnally don't think that doing nothing is the same as contributing to the problem.

Perhaps posting here is contributing to the ptoblem? Perhaps... But I really doubt that many people would be swayed by my posts unless there was something to them.

No, we don't like in a black and whte world. However, that doesn't mean some things aren't black or white (or at least near enough that they might as well be). I think some of what you said does come across as being like that.

Am I saying not doing anything is contributing to the problem? No, that's not what I said. I go by what's said in your posts and I can't really do much more than that. It's good that you don't make trouble for gay people, at least there's that.


What my issue is, is with the attitude. How many times have you said that homosexualy can or should be reisted? You've said it again in just that post. Now to me, that comes off as a rather malicious thing. You may think it's harmless, but I think that in itself is a problem. There seems to be the expectation from your posts that you want gay people to be 'normal' or that you think they should be, which comes off as rather, well, troubling. That's one of the points, but I see it as a rather major one.

I wonder, why should people be normal in the first place? Normal is, after all, a non-existant concept to begin with.

My point has always been that keeping such an attitude, that homosexuality should be 'resisted' or that thinking it is 'eww' is an acceptable reason to treat people badly, is part of the problem. Why? Well let's say you tell those things to your children (not saying you do). At school they meet a kid who is gay or bi (or has same sex parents) now because of you saying that attitude is ok, you've handed those children ammunition and given them an excuse to bully that kid. Kids are impressionable and have a habit of using any such things their parents tell them in such a manner. Unfortunate, but true.

Now again, I'm not saying you teach your children those views but hopefully you can see what I'm saying. It's the unfortunate truth that because that attitude isn't tackled, because it's not nipped in the bud, parents are teaching it to kids (or pastors to people) and they go out and use that attitude as an excuse to bully. So I very much believe that attitude is something we humans need to get rid of completely.

I don't knw if any contributions by any of us here real makee a difference (and if it does it's only to the people we're directly responding to).

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#395    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,661 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:23 AM

View Postshadowhive, on 26 March 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

Again, that line leads to the expection and people that force them to be straight.
My point was that even with a genetic background a person can chose to go against their urges. I specifically said I don't expect them to. I just am pointing out that it could be done. There is precedent.

Quote

Now secondly is, does it matter? Let's look at the numbers you used. Right in the first instance 85% have the genetic trait, but 15% don't. In the second 33% did and 67% don't. What would either of these numbers mean in the real world? Well if you met a gay person in life there'd be a chance (either way) that they'd have the genetic trait and also a chance that they didn't. There's no way for you to know (unless you go around testing every gay person you met which, let's face it wouldn't go down well) so the best you could do is treat them like you would do anyone else. You can't treat every gay person as if they make a choice if there's even the slightest chance it's not.
I think it actually will matter. If it is genetic, then it will be a much more realized status for Protection. You simply can't discriminate based on genetics. But if it is environmental, or choice, that is more slippery.

If someone seeks protection as a Muslim, at work and in their public life, don't you think that there should be some way to show they are actually a Muslim. Otherwise isn't that fraud?

So the determinabilty of if someone is gay by some kind of medical/scientific test, like a genetic test, or a CT scan, or by MRI, or however, would greatly speed protections being applied to tested individuals.

Would it matter in the sense that those who identify as gay, but didn't have the genetically marker, receiving protections? I don't think so. But such claims might be slightly harder to enforce. Just as if someone was 1/4 Native American and someone was offending them with Indian jokes. If that person is not visibly Native American, it will be hard to pursue Hostile Workplace allegations.

Quote

What my issue is, is with the attitude. How many times have you said that homosexualy can or should be reisted? You've said it again in just that post. Now to me, that comes off as a rather malicious thing. You may think it's harmless, but I think that in itself is a problem. There seems to be the expectation from your posts that you want gay people to be 'normal' or that you think they should be, which comes off as rather, well, troubling. That's one of the points, but I see it as a rather major one.
Saying that it "could" be resisted is a lot different, to me, then saying it "Should" be resisted. One is a fact, one is a personnal opinion.

I don't want gay people to be anything. I'm simply saying that they could contiously chose to be Normal if they wanted. They are not shackled into being gay. I don't mean that as malicious. I mean it as a simple fact. If someone else wants to use those facts maliciously that is not my fault.

If they simply want to be gay, fine... be gay. Just don't say that you have no choice in the matter.

Quote

My point has always been that keeping such an attitude, that homosexuality should be 'resisted' or that thinking it is 'eww' is an acceptable reason to treat people badly, is part of the problem.
I don't believe that I said it was acceptable. I believe I said that it has Happened, is Happening and will Happen in the future. Only time will reduce the "eww" factor.

Quote

Now again, I'm not saying you teach your children those views but hopefully you can see what I'm saying. It's the unfortunate truth that because that attitude isn't tackled, because it's not nipped in the bud, parents are teaching it to kids (or pastors to people) and they go out and use that attitude as an excuse to bully. So I very much believe that attitude is something we humans need to get rid of completely.
I can see what you're saying. I don't condone bullying of anyone. And I will strongly impress that on my kids. Hopefully even if they have negative feelings toward any group, they will be able to stop themselves from bullying or acting inappropriate.

I do believe though that not everyone teachs their kids to respect others. Some prize being a bully in their families. Bullys are going to bully regardless of if there is a gay kid, a nerdy kid, an Eskimo kid, a Japanese kid, a redhaired kid, a small kid, and on and on. Teaching respecting gays is only a small part of stopping bullys. And I believe that goes to adults also. The idiots (mostly anyway) who are rabidly anti-gay, are also those likely to go after any differences or weakness they see in anyone. You don't see (at least where I've been) many people who are only against gays, and fine with Mexicans, Muslims, Russians, Native Americans, etc....

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#396    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,830 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:55 AM

View Postshadowhive, on 21 March 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

I've not seen that film but that does sound about right really. I think people need to make an effort to try and understand (although really, I don't htink it's terribly difficult to do so).

I think the situations are very comparable and I do find it sad that such a thing was common place so recently. I'm glad we've grown past that (and that I didn't have any of that when I was growing up myself). Not taking notice of a prejudice is hard when you're surrounded by it. I had an example myself.

The member of my family I was closest to was my grandmother and she was scared of snakes. As such, I was too. But one day when I was out somewhere, there was this guy and he was handling snakes. It was the first time I'd seen one up close and I quickly realised that while my grandmother was afraid of them, I wasn't. So yeah, I do see how prejudice can be easily spread like that which is a shame as we should be able to decide these things for ourselves.

I would think prejudice is something that will eventually be bred out to be quite honest, and I think that is already beginning. We still have the small groups of KKK and the like hiding in the shadows, and the gay community will always have the opposition, but I do feel that with so many questioning religion these days, which even 30 years ago was considered unethical and barbaric, that people are coming into a new age, one where hiding behind innocence and ignorance is no longer an excuse. In our cases, we were certainly influenced by elders, however, I do feel every person has that twitch of rebel inside of them that makes one want to search out answers for themselves. As the myths of afterlife and heaven and such begin to slip away, the hole is filled with a greater understanding, which at time is a little depressing, but hard hitting. We are not going to see loved ones when we die, we turn to dust, so people are becoming more and more interested in making today count, heck 50 is the new 30 these days. I saw a Miss 50's swimsuit comp on the net, and great scott, was I impressed. People are living and working longer, we only have one life, and some are starting to take it seriously.

View Postshadowhive, on 21 March 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

I've never heard that before, but that is amusing.

I quite like it, feel free to use that LOL.

View Postshadowhive, on 21 March 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

I dunno, sometimes I think such things have to bypass the majority for the greater good. Most civil rights probably wouldn't hve passed a general vote and e'd be living in a different orld if e'd gone down that route.

I think the way that rights have been approached over a period of decades has helped soften the blow. Social order is important or we will have chaos I feel. I do not think the last couple of decades of movements pushing forward have been in vain, I think they have softened some very stony ground.

View Postshadowhive, on 21 March 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

The thing I always find odd about this is not everyone is the same. While a straight man (or lesbian) is a attracted to women, they're not attracted to all women. By the same token women/gay men aren't attracted to all men and bisexual aren't attracted to everyone. (Case in point, I'm bi and looking at those pictures none of them do it for me!)

My point is that everyone is attracted to different things and often even they don't understand it. Looking at myself what I find attractive in women is different than what I'm attracted for in men and I have no real explanation why I'm attracted to either (and there's no real set template for either since I'm so all over the place with it).

I think you have to look at it generally. If you saw a woman you weren't attarcted to you'd probably think 'I'd not sleep with her and don't see why anyone would' which everyone feels about someone. But you just have to shrug and not care. You might not find her attractive and wouldnt sleep with her, but to someone else she's the most beautiful creature on earth. I think in terms of gay relationships you have to look at it in the same way as that. After all, it doesn't make much difference to you who someone else find's attractive and sleeps with. (Speaking generally of course.)


Well done, you got the point 100%!! That is indeed how I was portraying my personal view of what a "man" and a "woman" looks like to me in general. Not every woman looks like a young Susan Sarandon (that pic might not do anything for you, but listen to her smouldering voice in The Rocky Horror Picture Show and get back to me would ya! :w00t: ) and not every man looks like the cast from dumb and dumber, but when I look at sexes, that is what I see, and why I think the claim that 50% of people will be gay in the future was highly exaggerated. I do feel that whatever the figure is now (I think we discussed something like 8 to 12% once, but it was agreed that was really a stab in the dark) is what it will remain. It might go up a couple of percent as people "come out of the closet" but that's about it. I do not see a huge shift into gay relationships. Heck, I prefer to have a beer with my mates than my missus, but I would dead set throw up if I had to kiss one of them for a bet or something. I could not bring myself to do it. Like eating a big lump of raw liver or something. To me there has to be some sort of physical attraction for sex to happen, I do not think 50% of people are that sexually flexible.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#397    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,830 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:59 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 23 March 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

Personally, I think the "revulsion" people feel is similar to that felt when you see a brother French kissing his sister, or a grown man groping his mother. It has little to do with logical mental processes and comes directly from our "Eeewwww" reptile brain. It has nothing to do with two gay men or women living together. It is entirely a bias against the direct sexual activity. Just as I would Eeewwww at two male dogs getting it on.

You see brothers kissing sisters and sons groping mothers??

And after all these years! Why didn't you say you were from Tasmania earlier?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#398    Aus Der Box Skeptisch

Aus Der Box Skeptisch

    Unknown title error

  • Member
  • 2,925 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona (originally the wisconsin/minnesota area eh!)

  • Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.

Posted 26 March 2013 - 06:36 AM

Same love by macklemore.....look it up. He says what I'm thinking. Watch the video. If it doesn't make you think I'm not sure much else will.

"Though I stand in opposition to you, I am not opposed to you. Night and Day stand in opposition to each other, but they are not opposed to each other -they are merely two halves of the same coin."

#399    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,363 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 26 March 2013 - 06:50 AM

Everybody shruggs off evidence that contradicts what they believe.  That is what is wrong with belief.  We should have nothing stronger than opinions.


#400    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,956 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 26 March 2013 - 10:30 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 26 March 2013 - 03:23 AM, said:

My point was that even with a genetic background a person can chose to go against their urges. I specifically said I don't expect them to. I just am pointing out that it could be done. There is precedent.

And like I said, such a precedent will be used to both expect and force vulnerable people to do so. You might not expect them to do so, but the fact is there are people out there that do.

Quote

I think it actually will matter. If it is genetic, then it will be a much more realized status for Protection. You simply can't discriminate based on genetics. But if it is environmental, or choice, that is more slippery.

If someone seeks protection as a Muslim, at work and in their public life, don't you think that there should be some way to show they are actually a Muslim. Otherwise isn't that fraud?

So the determinabilty of if someone is gay by some kind of medical/scientific test, like a genetic test, or a CT scan, or by MRI, or however, would greatly speed protections being applied to tested individuals.

Would it matter in the sense that those who identify as gay, but didn't have the genetically marker, receiving protections? I don't think so. But such claims might be slightly harder to enforce. Just as if someone was 1/4 Native American and someone was offending them with Indian jokes. If that person is not visibly Native American, it will be hard to pursue Hostile Workplace allegations.

I think it needs protection anyway. It shouldn't need 'proof' to be protected in such a manner. After all we know religion isn't a genetic trait and yet it gets so much protection it borders on the insane sometimes.

How do you 'prove' you're a Muslim? And why should you have to? There's nothing genetic that can 'prove' you are a muslim and (like christians) there is variation so you can't go by behaviour. You have to largely take them at their word.

With sexuality, why do you need proof? If you said to me your straight, that's enough for me. I wouldn't need you to prove it and proof can become exceedingly invasive. Should I only take your word if you provide me pictures of you having sex with a woman? Or the results of tests that prove your sexuality? If you said you were straight and I asked for those things I somehow doubt you'd take it very well. Yet a gay person is expected to what? Smile and shrug it off?

What if people don't want to be tested? And what if there's a gay person that doesn't have that trait but is still gay? Should they not recieve protections?

A person's sexuality isn't visible, so you could argue that it's hard to pursue as a hostile workplace thing regardless of if there's a genetic marker or not., because you can't tell if a person is gay or not visually either way.

Quote

Saying that it "could" be resisted is a lot different, to me, then saying it "Should" be resisted. One is a fact, one is a personnal opinion.

I don't want gay people to be anything. I'm simply saying that they could contiously chose to be Normal if they wanted. They are not shackled into being gay. I don't mean that as malicious. I mean it as a simple fact. If someone else wants to use those facts maliciously that is not my fault.

If they simply want to be gay, fine... be gay. Just don't say that you have no choice in the matter.

It's not that different from where I'm sitting.

Sorry, but that does come off as malicious from where I'm sitting. The expectation to be someone's idea of normal is extremely foolish because (as I've said) what is 'normal' anyway? In this case, I'd say normal isn't the right word to use. The word you're looking for is herosexual. You want gay people to choose to be hetrosexual. But why? Does that belief make you feel good? Superior? Do you want everyone else to be just like you?

I'll ask you a simple question. Did you choose to be straight?

Quote

I don't believe that I said it was acceptable. I believe I said that it has Happened, is Happening and will Happen in the future. Only time will reduce the "eww" factor.

You seemed to say it in such a way to try and excuse it.

Quote

I can see what you're saying. I don't condone bullying of anyone. And I will strongly impress that on my kids. Hopefully even if they have negative feelings toward any group, they will be able to stop themselves from bullying or acting inappropriate.

I do believe though that not everyone teachs their kids to respect others. Some prize being a bully in their families. Bullys are going to bully regardless of if there is a gay kid, a nerdy kid, an Eskimo kid, a Japanese kid, a redhaired kid, a small kid, and on and on. Teaching respecting gays is only a small part of stopping bullys. And I believe that goes to adults also. The idiots (mostly anyway) who are rabidly anti-gay, are also those likely to go after any differences or weakness they see in anyone. You don't see (at least where I've been) many people who are only against gays, and fine with Mexicans, Muslims, Russians, Native Americans, etc....

Glad that you get it. And it's good you do that.

Unfortunately, I think you're right. However I do think that bully in is something that should be tackled. I think a lot of people seem to have the attitude of just shrugging and saying 'they'll be bullies anyway' but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and diminish it.

I think you're right, that they are people that'll go against any weakness and difference. But the problem is that the human race as a whole is full of difference and people have to realise they're in a real world and such difference exist.

I think that's one of the things I have a problem with your 'normal' attitude, because it comes off as being of the mentality that 'gay people are different than me, but they could choose to be the same as me'. It's not the kind of attitude you'd find acceptable if it was direct it at any of those other groups (or many others) yet it's acceptable there.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#401    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,956 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 26 March 2013 - 11:02 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 26 March 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

I would think prejudice is something that will eventually be bred out to be quite honest, and I think that is already beginning. We still have the small groups of KKK and the like hiding in the shadows, and the gay community will always have the opposition, but I do feel that with so many questioning religion these days, which even 30 years ago was considered unethical and barbaric, that people are coming into a new age, one where hiding behind innocence and ignorance is no longer an excuse. In our cases, we were certainly influenced by elders, however, I do feel every person has that twitch of rebel inside of them that makes one want to search out answers for themselves. As the myths of afterlife and heaven and such begin to slip away, the hole is filled with a greater understanding, which at time is a little depressing, but hard hitting. We are not going to see loved ones when we die, we turn to dust, so people are becoming more and more interested in making today count, heck 50 is the new 30 these days. I saw a Miss 50's swimsuit comp on the net, and great scott, was I impressed. People are living and working longer, we only have one life, and some are starting to take it seriously.

I thik your right that prejudice will be bred out. I think that's why racism is frequently bought up, because that's a prejudice that pretty much everyone had not too long ago and now it's just unthinkable.

You know, that was incredibly well put and I agree so much with it. (Well, apart from the afterlife thing because I'd like to believe there's something just not tied to a religion.) But really, that was very well said :tu:  I do think you're right and we are moving into a better time. What was unthinkable is now commona nd I think that trend will continue.


Quote

I quite like it, feel free to use that LOL.

Heheh I'll keep that in mind.

Quote

I think the way that rights have been approached over a period of decades has helped soften the blow. Social order is important or we will have chaos I feel. I do not think the last couple of decades of movements pushing forward have been in vain, I think they have softened some very stony ground.

You're right. I think we have come a very long way over this period. But I think we're at a point now where we have to say 'ok we have to do this' and ignore the detrators and their ludicrous arguements. I think social order is important but using it as an excuse to keep dragging it out isn't doing anyone any favors.

Quote

Well done, you got the point 100%!! That is indeed how I was portraying my personal view of what a "man" and a "woman" looks like to me in general. Not every woman looks like a young Susan Sarandon (that pic might not do anything for you, but listen to her smouldering voice in The Rocky Horror Picture Show and get back to me would ya! :w00t: ) and not every man looks like the cast from dumb and dumber, but when I look at sexes, that is what I see, and why I think the claim that 50% of people will be gay in the future was highly exaggerated. I do feel that whatever the figure is now (I think we discussed something like 8 to 12% once, but it was agreed that was really a stab in the dark) is what it will remain. It might go up a couple of percent as people "come out of the closet" but that's about it. I do not see a huge shift into gay relationships. Heck, I prefer to have a beer with my mates than my missus, but I would dead set throw up if I had to kiss one of them for a bet or something. I could not bring myself to do it. Like eating a big lump of raw liver or something. To me there has to be some sort of physical attraction for sex to happen, I do not think 50% of people are that sexually flexible.

Wow that's her? She looks so different! You know I got send Rocky Horror by a friend awhile back and I've not found the time to actually watch it yet. I'll have to find where it is and have a watch (though if pictures are anything to go by I think I may end up distracted by things other than her voice v:P)

Anyway, onto the main part of the comment.

I agree, saying 50% of people will be gay in the future seems highly exagerated (unless a lot of people die which seems unlikely). I agree the figure we have may go up as people feel more comfortable but not going up by that much.

I agree, there has to be some sort of attraction for sex to happen. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I think, however that people need to start using the same sort of thinking they do with other people. Like if you saw a straight guy kissing a girl you didn't find attractive, you'd not throw a fit over it and I think that's the right attitude to have and what people need to start applying to gay people. I mea it just comes off as rude and stupid you know?

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#402    goodconversations

goodconversations

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 123 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:A human body

  • We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are. Anais Nin

Posted 26 March 2013 - 06:39 PM

Quote

Why is homophobia so commonplace?


because being straight is the norm.


Quote

Why in our society is homosexuality hated and frowned upon. The same with Bisexuality regarding men.
But lesbianism and Bisexuality regarding women is thought as fine.



Because the world is still a patriarchal place.
Homo/bisexality is against the norm (being straight). This makes homo/bisexuality a shameful and degrading act. Thus it's more shameful and degrading when done by the superior sex (males) than when done by the inferior sex (females). Also, all homosexual males are stereotyped as tender and soft in their feelings which are qualities associated with the weak sex (females) unlike the strong sex (males) which exhibits better judgment and thinking abilities making it a tough sex.

I guess the answer is: stereotyping


Posted Image
There's nothing more
erotic than a good
conversation

#403    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,661 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 26 March 2013 - 07:01 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 26 March 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

You have to largely take them at their word.
One example I like to use is college scholarships. Suppose a gay rights group gets together and creates a 20,000 dollars a year scholarship. How do you ensure it goes to a gay student?

Quote

With sexuality, why do you need proof?
Gay is a protected class. Straight is not. The protected class should have some way to be identified.

Quote

Should they not recieve protections?
I said they should. The difference would be that in the case of those who tested positive, they would likely be protected quicker and any legalities would be covered automatically, whereas in the non-tested they would probably have more of a wait in all cases and more paperwork.

Quote

A person's sexuality isn't visible, so you could argue that it's hard to pursue as a hostile workplace thing regardless of if there's a genetic marker or not., because you can't tell if a person is gay or not visually either way.
That is true.....

Quote

You want gay people to choose to be hetrosexual. But why? Does that belief make you feel good? Superior? Do you want everyone else to be just like you?
Like goodconversations just posted, straight is "Normal" because it is the majority. I never said I wanted homosexuals to become heterosexuals. I'm saying that if they wanted to act "Normal" they have that ability. Simple as that. You are the one saying that to even SUGGEST gays might chose to act straight for ANY reason is an attack on gays.

Quote

I'll ask you a simple question. Did you choose to be straight?
I Chose to live a straight lifestyle. But, have always been attracted to women.

Quote

I think you're right, that they are people that'll go against any weakness and difference. But the problem is that the human race as a whole is full of difference and people have to realise they're in a real world and such difference exist.

I think that's one of the things I have a problem with your 'normal' attitude, because it comes off as being of the mentality that 'gay people are different than me, but they could choose to be the same as me'. It's not the kind of attitude you'd find acceptable if it was direct it at any of those other groups (or many others) yet it's acceptable there.
Every group of people is frightened of any other different group of people. It must be instinctive to distrust those you don't readily understand. If aliens ever do come to Earth, they will have a hard time of living here with us.

It is not acceptable to direct that attitude at any group other then the Majority group. In the USA it is OK to be bias against Whites, Christians and Males. Because that is where the majority of power lies.

Edited by DieChecker, 26 March 2013 - 07:17 PM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#404    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,956 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:52 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 26 March 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

One example I like to use is college scholarships. Suppose a gay rights group gets together and creates a 20,000 dollars a year scholarship. How do you ensure it goes to a gay student?

Obviously, they would have some criterea, but again it comes down to how would exactly can you tell? Does a gay person have to be in a relationship to 'prove' their gayness? In which case isn't that thusly disciriminating against gay people that aren't because of relationship status? Proving your sexuality is a very sticky area.

Quote

Gay is a protected class. Straight is not. The protected class should have some way to be identified.

Ah yes, like the little pink trianles a certain group used in the 40's to identify gay people?

Quote

I said they should. The difference would be that in the case of those who tested positive, they would likely be protected quicker and any legalities would be covered automatically, whereas in the non-tested they would probably have more of a wait in all cases and more paperwork.

Of course the relies on a genetic link to be found and be of a high enough percentage to warrant it being used in such a way. And even then there'd likely still be leeway and technicalities.

To top it off I somehow doubt gay people would want to be tested in such a manner in the first place.

Quote

That is true.....

Exactly.

Quote

Like goodconversations just posted, straight is "Normal" because it is the majority. I never said I wanted homosexuals to become heterosexuals. I'm saying that if they wanted to act "Normal" they have that ability. Simple as that. You are the one saying that to even SUGGEST gays might chose to act straight for ANY reason is an attack on gays.

That's because it is isn't it? You want one group to act 'normal' to what? Satisfy yourself? Why should people act like the majority?

As I have said repeatedly. Normal doesn't exist and everyone is different in a variety of ways. Why is it that this is a difference that seems to be one that you're ok with eliminating?

Let's take another thing that's not normal. Creativity. Anyone with a natural artistic or musical ability is in the minority. Should we encourage them to act 'normal'? What about people that are naturally good with numbers or languages? Or how about something more noticable. Eye, hair and skin colour. We can very easily find out which one of those is the most 'normal', should there be an expectation that those with a 'abnormal' eye/hair/skin colour to conceal them?

And what about the myriad like and dislikes people have. Should people only like or dislike something because the majority does? Why should they?

My point is everyone has something that makes them not 'normal' and yet we don't beat that thing out of them or even suggest it. So yes, I take the suggestion as being an attack, because that's exactly what it is. The fact that it's something that can still be seen as not being an attack baffles me. If you said to a black person that they could choose to wear something to make their skin appear normal would you be surprised that it was labelled as an attack?

Quote

I Chose to live a straight lifestyle. But, have always been attracted to women.

What exactly is the 'straight lifestyle'?

Quote

Every group of people is frightened of any other different group of people. It must be instinctive to distrust those you don't readily understand. If aliens ever do come to Earth, they will have a hard time of living here with us.

It is not acceptable to direct that attitude at any group other then the Majority group. In the USA it is OK to be bias against Whites, Christians and Males. Because that is where the majority of power lies.

I'm hoping we're learning to get out of that. It's a habit that keeps being used as a fallback excuse. I hope aliens don't comeanytime soon because chances are some moron would evil try and kill them label them as the antichrist/demons or just in general act like idiotic *******s. Which is behaviour we shouldn't have excuses for in the first place and certainly not somethin that would be wise when dealing with an alien species who probably had the technology to erase us.

Perhaps. Obviously I can't really say specfics about the US (you're there 24/7 the most I've been there is two weeks when I was 11).

Edited by shadowhive, 26 March 2013 - 09:03 PM.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#405    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,661 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 27 March 2013 - 04:23 AM

View Postshadowhive, on 26 March 2013 - 08:52 PM, said:

Obviously, they would have some criterea, but again it comes down to how would exactly can you tell? Does a gay person have to be in a relationship to 'prove' their gayness? In which case isn't that thusly disciriminating against gay people that aren't because of relationship status? Proving your sexuality is a very sticky area.
I will admit that. It is a hard thing to prove if you want to keep your private life private.

Quote

Ah yes, like the little pink trianles a certain group used in the 40's to identify gay people?
That would be a down side of a Test. Gays would essentially be Registered, numbered and on a list.

Quote

To top it off I somehow doubt gay people would want to be tested in such a manner in the first place.
I bet you are right. I'd bet that mostly straight people would take the test to be sure they are not "secretly gay". (out of ignorance??)

Quote

Why should people act like the majority?
It is a basic human desire to be accepted... Some people want to belong to the Majority, because it is "safe".

Quote

So yes, I take the suggestion as being an attack, because that's exactly what it is. The fact that it's something that can still be seen as not being an attack baffles me. If you said to a black person that they could choose to wear something to make their skin appear normal would you be surprised that it was labelled as an attack?
I don't see those two situations as very similar. A better analogy in my mind would be suggesting to the black person, that if they wanted to be white, they could chose a long and potentially harmful treatment to do so. But simply suggesting something is a possibility is not an attack.

Quote

What exactly is the 'straight lifestyle'?
That is a good question. I suppose there is as many straight lifestyles as there are straight subcultures. Just as there are probably multiple gay subcultures.

I think "lifestyle" reflects what you Actually do in your life. If you are only in hetero relationships, you're living a hetero lifestyle. Regardless of if you are gay, transgender, straight, bisexual, etc... A bisexual person might live as one lifestyle then the other.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users