Curious...do homophobes think they're going to "bring it all back"?

RightToLife - ever heard of one Jerry Sandusky? If he had been a Scout leader he wouldn't have been affected by a ban on openly gay people, as he was married to a woman. In fact the majority of men who have abused underage males identify as heterosexual according to surveys, so a ban on openly gay people is unlikely to do much to affect the numbers. And let's face it - any gay person wanting to molest children badly enough would simply lie about their sexuality. Lifting the ban won't affect a damn thing.

 

Who decides to WANT to be of a particular sexual-orientation? Even bi-sexual people don't have control over that (desire). I agree that 'actions' are controllable.

But I surely would not expect some gay/straight guy to put on some masquerade their entire life. So do that, and they often become miserable, mentally sick people.

I agree. For now, there are going to be some bumps in the road; homosexual people have been hated ACTIVELY and OPENLY for a very long time in this society. Homosexuals and their advocates are HUMAN; the friction set up by centuries of homophobia won't lose its effect overnight. There will be various types of contentious behavior from all sides.

See the above. It will take 'time' for extremes on all sides to significantly subside.

I don't like it either (as a gay person). But keep in mind, that intolerance isn't a one-way proposition. People are 'human'. I've had many friends gay/straight who are generally 'radical' in their way; they will go all-out... UNLESS there are helpful people around them to suggest they 'mitigate' themselves. Straight people do rowdy and radical things just as gays do; I've seen it thousands of times.

Of course, and YOU aren't the only person who realizes that. If you looked at me, my way and even my life... you would probably see a conservative heterosexual. If you got to know me, you'd probably only 'wonder' if I was gay. I treat people the way I want to be treated... and it works. I swear, it works.

Sometimes, human expression only serves to bolster the spirits of those participating in that expression.

Ever hear a form of music that sounds like garbage to you, yet there are thousands hopping around and raving over the same? Try living as a gay person in this society (all of your life), and you might understand what the big deal is. For example, in this forum, I am radically against homophobic remarks. Well... that is merely a form of expression; I'm expressing to others how that BS makes me feel. It may at time seem radical and ugly (I know)... but it is never my goal to dehumanize them as individuals; it is to show how the homophobia make me think/feel. People are human.

I love and work with many homophobic people (in the military). I understand it, but I don't have good reasons for accepting it. I always gently nudge back at homophobia; but I do regard the humanity of those who are homophobic. I've seen many people change over time.

I disagree overall. Even so, what would you have them do? Seek 2nd Amendment solutions to the hatred and discrimination? Or is it better that people find annoying, yet non-violent ways of expressing themselves?

After seeing what WAR is close up... I'll go for the pink pants and rainbow flags any day.

Again, I'm telling you that certain people express themselves in radical ways. Dancing/prancing in the streets isn't MY thing as a gay man... but I CAN see how some people might want to do that (even once or a few times) to 'express' themselves.

I was one of those too. I was more radical as an evangelical Christian, than I ever was as a gay man. Now, I'm about moderation overall.

I understand. I admit I like looking at the "male" body a lot, so I'm not as repulsed as some would be by erotic clothing. Even so, I would not advocate for people dressing that way in public (unless it was a 'beach', where people wear even less).

As I suggested above, some people are more radical than others; not ALL are so.

I know exactly what you mean.

I'm a career military man... I can respect that.

 

Giving the heterophobes "enough rope to hang themselves" is a coward's answer. Give them enough rope and they will hang us, strangling our throats so we can't answer their already-established political correctness. Because we gave them an inch and they took a mile, we must not only take the inch back but assess punitive damages. Roll back any gains they've made and then some. Take away the pedkids they've adopted or got through turkey basters. Do TV Public Service announcements against homosexuality. Teach "homophobia" in schools, which contrary to their demands to teach the opposite, has never been done before, just against pedophilia. Imitate other countries that have suppressed this malignancy. And end the monopoly of Christians being the only ones opposing this. There are many secular reasons to do so, and they will convert far more people to wake up to this menace.

 

You are making little sense. if any.

 

Chalk up still another of your cult's silly arguments that can also be used in favor of tolerating pedophilia. The only one that can't
is "consenting adults." Pedophiles will have to come up with a similarly stupid excuse, such as "Why do they have to be adults if the act is harmless?"

 

lie...

 

There are some who are in it for the social acceptance of a small group. These same people are vulnerable to cult's influence as well. Not saying that being gay is a cult, but some people bend like a reed in the wind, very easily swayed by social trends. This applies to fraternities, religions, and sexuality. These people are best kept at an arm's length in my experience. Some people are simply low born, possessing simple minds that must be governed by another because it is what makes them happy.

They don't have to skulk in caves and darkness, just please be courteous to others is all. I don't do overt public displays of affection out of concern for others viewing. Homosexuals could do the same. And some do mind this, and for it I am thankful.

Well we haven't exactly seen them rounded up and gassed like some undesirables in the past. At least in this country the USA. Certainly there were a few loons who took their will too far and inflicted truly vicious crimes against innocent homosexuals. This isn't right in any degree. But the friction isn't so much against them as it is their actions that others find uncomfortable. This isn't Iran, we don't execute them for being gay. While there is a certain stigma which cannot be denied, I don't think it is as bad as you say on the mass scale. But then again, I'm not gay, and I don't worry about such things. I could be completely wrong.

But we've since put legislation into play to reduce this, and it is working. Too well in some instances, to the point of being afraid to not hire someone who is openly gay out of terror of lawsuit. This weirdness needs to end. I have found that if you don't want to be judged all the time it helps to adopt the mindset that not everyone is judging you. But yes, as you say there will be bumps along the road.

I sincerely hope you are right.

Agreed, a mediator is a grand thing to have. I have gone on a 'gay hating' spree way of thinking before in my life and then I woke up to just how unproductive it was. I prefer persuasion to be the order of the day now. As for straight people getting rowdy? When they get rowdy and crazy do what normally needs to be done and call the authorities if need be. Rowdiness is not a discriminator as you mentioned.

If only everybody could figure that out. But people do have lapses in judgement. The key is to not read too much into it, as these lapses of judgement can be inflamed beyond repair if allowed to.

I have been a scared white boy in a black neighborhood with all the joys and pains it can offer. I can totally empathize. At the same time, I didn't bring my bag pipes and start blaring Scottish folk music to prove how happy I am about life. To do so would be fairly obnoxious and unwelcome, and likely dangerous to be honest.

Now I know the analogy isn't perfect, but I think you'll see what I'm trying to say. I am not trying to make myself a nuisance is all. While expression is a right, it can be tempered with common sense and ought to be. And other times there is a point to make yourself as obnoxious as legally possible - the problem is what one considers reasonable, the other may consider anathema. And then the problems come to a head, even if it was a small one to begin with.

Yes. If they want to prevent violence and obtain equal rights, not special privileges or exclusive perks, but rights, than yes. Pack weaponry accordingly. I've wondered why they haven't done this for years now. Protesting is super, but protesting with weaponry sends a much stronger message.

Here is the heart of the issue, when one dresses in a radical way, or expresses, or writes, or whatever. The intent is to create irritation, shock and awe, or some other radical emotion/response. To these people I would suggest nonviolent and courteous persuasion. It is tough for me to garner my wrath towards somebody parading wearing a decent set of pants and a collared shirt demanding equal rights - I'm totally down with that. Same scene, only you add attitude with what amounts to a costume designed to irritate and disgust? You're not really looking for rights, you're baiting a fight. While it is lawful, it is hardly persuasive. Rather such displays remind them what they don't like about them even more.

In addition this display also ruins the reputation of the more rational thinking types as well and paints a stereotype which is false which only creates more friction. And it just bad strategy long term, because if things get out of hand and heteros with a chip on their shoulder decide to take unlawful action - ultimately the gays are going to lose, they have been a minority and will always be a minority because of who they are. It isn't right, it isn't fair, but that is just how it is. Can't polish a turd.

In contrast, I would think more social policing should be in order to trim potential conflicts. For example, when I was in the Corps and I saw a fellow marine doing something spectacularly stupid in public I would call him out on it. Because it makes the whole Corps look bad having "another jarhead on the loose in Oceanside...". At the same time, as a Mormon, if I see another Mormon castigating someone using religion as their basis I shut them down as swiftly as I can - because it makes Mormons look bad regardless of now nice and cheery the bulk of us are. We get a bad rap a lot of times either due to blatant fabrication or something blown way out of proportion.

Policing one's own is a great way to keep the peace. And the more it is done the more focus on the individual is easily obtained. That way if someone is acting like a "zealot" or a "(*)(*)(*)" we can let it roll off of our backs more easily because we know they aren't all like that. It also allows a little more leeway for lapses in judgement which are going to occur on both sides.

 

OK, other than trying to explain why you think that's 'common sense'... Do you have any proof, evidence or ANY reference point whatsoever for that?

 

Yeah, I know what you mean. But try to understand that I'm a quiet, personally-conservative, socially-liberal individual. I really don't get out here as a gay person, policing other people.

The gay people I know, aren't into street displays. We are radical in other more sophisticated ways. We cannot police all of the "gays" and would not attempt to. On the military side of my life, I have MANY times reeled my fellow servicemen in. So, I can relate to what you're saying there.

There are millions of gay people. You can be sure that the number of homosexuals doing the street-expressions, are a relatively low number. Then again, the idea in the minds of people doing that (kind of thing), is akin to what shock-jocks try to do... GET ATTENTION.

What I would tell people who don't like it to do (and it is what I do), avoid or ignore it. There is nothing to the idea that "gays" are all like that... and reasonable people should know that (in this day and age).

 

What you say is sound advice. But lapses of judgement are common when this sort of thing comes up. And the turd keep swirling...

Ah well, cheers. Good discussion.

 

Yes. Thanks for the discussion.

 

sure. there will be more and more gays, more homolestations. thats what we know, there could be much much more.

 

Why you're wrong:

- There are already lots and lots of gays in the Scouts, since most join before they usually realise they're gay/bi and aren't going to simply drop out because of it. Expulsions are actually relatively rare despite media hyperbole.

- Most men who molest boys identify as straight, as with Jerry Sandusky.

- Anyone wanting to molest children who was in fact gay could EASILY lie about their sexuality.

 

What do you "cain?"

Well I'm going to assume you meant "gain."

You gain credibility. If you can't form a fully developed sentence, why would I take you seriously in the least?

 

So then you're "gay couples can't have kids, so they shouldn't get extra rights" argument falls apart, doesn't it???

 

Two points on RighttoLife

1. On another thread he admitted the reason he hates gays is because a gay friend in school was "already hitting on me". If he is 18, that means it had to have been in the very recent past. So his bigotry against gays is either anger at his friend.....or anger at himself for...maybe considering it.

2. You'll notice NONE of the opponents (including RTL) can answer my question in the OP. Because they know the answer, but admitting defeat goes against social con protocols.

 

good advice and words which should be heeded by both sides. Just because one does not support govt marriage between gays does not mean one has a deathly fear of homosexuals

 

Then what does it mean?

 

they do not support govt marriage between gay people or the expansion of the role of govt.

There are not demons lurking behind every door.

 

your statement was of course not accurate. your argument remains refuted and invalid.

 

the abject ignorance and utter stupidity of fringe anti gay bigots is amazing.

 

So why would they not support civil marriage between gay people?

 

Let's start with homophobia and bigotry.

 

You're completely right here...and calling someone "homophobic" is just an attempt to label those who oppose gay marriage as "fraidy cats", or afraid of their own latent homosexual desires. When most often people oppose gay marriage for religious or political reasons...under the guise of "protection of tradition"...

 

Really? You don't think they use those reasons as excuses for their own prejudices? Really?