Question about Gay Hate

[Farnhamia]

One of the interesting things I've noticed about this kind of hatred is people are very quick to keep their overarching ideals while making exceptions. I hear "Men are pigs!" and I respond, "Hey!" and my friends respond: "Well, not you, you don't count." I've heard "Christians are dicks!" and I say, "Hey!" and my friends respond: "Well, not you, you don't count." I wouldn't be too surprised to hear people who have issues with gay people making exceptions for their gay friends as well.

Oh, come on, you expect people to actually think about their prejudices? What are you, 10? Actually, a 10 y/o would probably understand sweeping generalizations better ("All girls have cooties," "I hate vegetables").

[Riseabove]

You don't hate them, and yet you want to hide them... self-contradiction.

Oh, not really. I mean, I don't hate those magazine ads with the pictures of the kids with cleft palates but I do want to hide them. The ads, I mean.

my view base on how people around me look at them, personally to me it is ok as long they don't make any huge uproar(this is joke of course), but i mean it. if i know i'm being hated, then don't show to them why i'm being hated.
don't misunderstood me.

[Demen 2]

Most racist people have barely met any minorities.

Most homophobes have never met any homosexuals.

Evidence?

He's making a broad generalization.


Oh, and I have no problem with Same Sex Marriage.

[Forsher]

It was, until you pulled it one way and then pushed way over the other way.

As I said, a bad example. It was full of holes, must have been swiss cheese.

I didn't pull it any way. I set out a hypothetical situation that is highly analogous to the topic at hand. Which is marriage discrimination.

If you would care to point out the specific holes, I'd be glad to show you exactly where you're wrong.

We return to the basic flaw. Getting married is a choice, one that you should be allowed to make, within reason. Therefore, the sandwich works in that instance as one doesn't have to buy it. However, you make it seem as though its the only food choice available so you do. It now works for one situation but not the other, same as before.

The basic premise of the exclusion from eating also doesn't work. Gluten allergies and dairy allergies don't mean you cannot eat cheese or bread as lactose and gluten free options are available. The worst is the case of the ham, as vegetarianism is a choice like marriage but unlike homosexuality (except in an incredible minority of cases, so small it can, for all intents and purposes be forgotten). Personally I don't want to be a matyr when I can just remove the ham and the cheese, not that I'd ever become a vegetarian.

Do you see?

[Forsher]

One of the interesting things I've noticed about this kind of hatred is people are very quick to keep their overarching ideals while making exceptions. I hear "Men are pigs!" and I respond, "Hey!" and my friends respond: "Well, not you, you don't count." I've heard "Christians are dicks!" and I say, "Hey!" and my friends respond: "Well, not you, you don't count." I wouldn't be too surprised to hear people who have issues with gay people making exceptions for their gay friends as well.

Oh, come on, you expect people to actually think about their prejudices? What are you, 10? Actually, a 10 y/o would probably understand sweeping generalizations better ("All girls have cooties," "I hate vegetables").

But I do hate vegetables. I can see them, watching me. Which is why I take great pleasure in eating them.

[Oliver the Mediocre]

One of the interesting things I've noticed about this kind of hatred is people are very quick to keep their overarching ideals while making exceptions. I hear "Men are pigs!" and I respond, "Hey!" and my friends respond: "Well, not you, you don't count." I've heard "Christians are dicks!" and I say, "Hey!" and my friends respond: "Well, not you, you don't count." I wouldn't be too surprised to hear people who have issues with gay people making exceptions for their gay friends as well.

Oh, come on, you expect people to actually think about their prejudices? What are you, 10? Actually, a 10 y/o would probably understand sweeping generalizations better ("All girls have cooties," "I hate vegetables").

Is it really so much to ask that people be at least aware about the sweeping generalizations they make? I am disappoint.

[Grenartia]

I didn't pull it any way. I set out a hypothetical situation that is highly analogous to the topic at hand. Which is marriage discrimination.

If you would care to point out the specific holes, I'd be glad to show you exactly where you're wrong.

We return to the basic flaw. Getting married is a choice, one that you should be allowed to make, within reason. Therefore, the sandwich works in that instance as one doesn't have to buy it. However, you make it seem as though its the only food choice available so you do. It now works for one situation but not the other, same as before.

The basic premise of the exclusion from eating also doesn't work. Gluten allergies and dairy allergies don't mean you cannot eat cheese or bread as lactose and gluten free options are available. The worst is the case of the ham, as vegetarianism is a choice like marriage but unlike homosexuality (except in an incredible minority of cases, so small it can, for all intents and purposes be forgotten). Personally I don't want to be a matyr when I can just remove the ham and the cheese, not that I'd ever become a vegetarian.

Do you see?

Marriage is a choice, just like buying a sandwich is. And, as I've said before, the only food that the restaurant is permitted to serve is ham and cheese sandwiches. It is not allowed to serve vegetarian/lactose-free/gluten-free options, because the majority of the islanders won't allow legislation allowing otherwise, because they feel that such options devalue their sandwiches (just as many anti-same sex marriage people feel that same-sex marriage would somehow devalue heterosexual marriages). The point of including vegetarianism in the example is to show that discriminating against LGBTs is wrong, even IF it was a choice.

[Bottle]

You had me at lesbian porn.

No, you can't watch.

Isn't it adorable when boys think that "lesbian porn" involves real lesbians? I bet they think the tits are real, too.

[Ifreann]

No, you can't watch.

Isn't it adorable when boys think that "lesbian porn" involves real lesbians? I bet they think the tits are real, too.

There are real lesbians?

[Buffett and Colbert]

No, you can't watch.

Isn't it adorable when boys think that "lesbian porn" involves real lesbians? I bet they think the tits are real, too.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think that's what they care about.

[Laerod]

Isn't it adorable when boys think that "lesbian porn" involves real lesbians? I bet they think the tits are real, too.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think that's what they care about. :p

Eh. Speak for yourself =P

[Buffett and Colbert]

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think that's what they care about.

Eh. Speak for yourself =P

Not sure if I can, here...

[Revolutionary Councils]

No, you can't watch.

Isn't it adorable when boys think that "lesbian porn" involves real lesbians? I bet they think the tits are real, too.

I find it more adorable when boys think lesbian porn is OMG HAWT but gays are icky.

[Raeyh]

Isn't it adorable when boys think that "lesbian porn" involves real lesbians? I bet they think the tits are real, too.

I find it more adorable when boys think lesbian porn is OMG HAWT but gays are icky.

They think that looking at porn with men in it makes them gay.

[Desperate Measures]

Isn't it adorable when boys think that "lesbian porn" involves real lesbians? I bet they think the tits are real, too.

I find it more adorable when boys think lesbian porn is OMG HAWT but gays are icky.

I wonder what would happen in these states where they are banning gay marriage if we hired lesbian porn stars to just kind of hang around at the polling places. I have a feeling it might nudge the vote the other way. And I'm not all that happy that I think it would work.

[Revolutionary Councils]

I wonder what would happen in these states where they are banning gay marriage if we hired lesbian porn stars to just kind of hang around at the polling places. I have a feeling it might nudge the vote the other way. And I'm not all that happy that I think it would work.

Probably more lesbian-porn loving homophobes would be drawn to show up to vote against same-sex marriage if fake hawt lesbians were at the polling places.

[Farnhamia]

I wonder what would happen in these states where they are banning gay marriage if we hired lesbian porn stars to just kind of hang around at the polling places. I have a feeling it might nudge the vote the other way. And I'm not all that happy that I think it would work.

Probably more lesbian-porn loving homophobes would be drawn to show up to vote against same-sex marriage if fake hawt lesbians were at the polling places.

A better idea is to announce auditions for the part of the Virile Straight Guy Who Reforms The Lesbians in a new movie, and schedule them on election day. That will keep those guys away from the polls.

[Raeyh]

A better idea is to announce auditions for the part of the Virile Straight Guy Who Reforms The Lesbians in a new movie, and schedule them on election day. That will keep those guys away from the polls.

They are coming out with a new James Bond movie?

[Farnhamia]

A better idea is to announce auditions for the part of the Virile Straight Guy Who Reforms The Lesbians in a new movie, and schedule them on election day. That will keep those guys away from the polls.

They are coming out with a new James Bond movie?

They're always coming out with a new Bond movie.

[Desperate Measures]

Probably more lesbian-porn loving homophobes would be drawn to show up to vote against same-sex marriage if fake hawt lesbians were at the polling places.

A better idea is to announce auditions for the part of the Virile Straight Guy Who Reforms The Lesbians in a new movie, and schedule them on election day. That will keep those guys away from the polls.

This is why I'm not in charge of skewing voting results. I always put the lesbians in the wrong place.

[Ifreann]

Isn't it adorable when boys think that "lesbian porn" involves real lesbians? I bet they think the tits are real, too.

I find it more adorable when boys think lesbian porn is OMG HAWT but gays are icky.

It's pretty simple reasoning. One hot chick is good, two is better, zero is worse.

---

Probably more lesbian-porn loving homophobes would be drawn to show up to vote against same-sex marriage if fake hawt lesbians were at the polling places.

A better idea is to announce auditions for the part of the Virile Straight Guy Who Reforms The Lesbians in a new movie, and schedule them on election day. That will keep those guys away from the polls.

Damn it, but I wanted to vote!

[Farnhamia]

I find it more adorable when boys think lesbian porn is OMG HAWT but gays are icky.

It's pretty simple reasoning. One hot chick is good, two is better, zero is worse.

---

A better idea is to announce auditions for the part of the Virile Straight Guy Who Reforms The Lesbians in a new movie, and schedule them on election day. That will keep those guys away from the polls.

Damn it, but I wanted to vote!

And with lesbian porn, there's no uncomfortable comparisons to be made with the male actor. Do you think women came up with "Size doesn't count"?

[Lost Earth]

Hey NSG, I'm not sure if this was posted before, so I wanna say this now.

If you've never met a gay person before...

If you've never seen a gay marriage / married couple before...

If you've never talked to a gay person before...

If they have 0 impact on your life...

Then why are people banning gay marriage?

Also, I'm not gay, I do believe that if they want to do something, let them. They aren't doing anything harmful to you.

Also, any argument like "because the bible said so" "because its unnatural" "because think of the children" "because they roonin da fewtur of amerikaaaa" will be ignored.

I am starkly against homosexuality as an immoral action. I suppose you might consider this homophobia. However, I do not qualify for any of your criterion. I have met many homosexual persons, have a homosexual couple in my extended family, know moderately well/am friends with several self proclaimed homsexual persons, and have seriously talked with them. And yes, they have had more than 0 impact on my life. I am against homosexual marriage because I believe marriage to be steped in religious background. Marriage ought to be religious in nature. The secularization of marriage sickens me. However, simply because I believe/know homosexuality to be immoral does not mean it is my right as a human to block it from society. Society is a corrupt place, and homosexuality will be a part of it, just like overt drinking, sexualization of women and men, lying, and many other immoral things which end up being legal. It is not the place of the government to block homosexuality from occuring, and this is why civil unions made to be legally equivalent in all ways to marriage should exist and be backed by the government.

After stating all of this, I must go on to inform you that I am a religious person, and that though I will not go after/attempt to seriously condemn a secular homosexual person, I will do so for a homosexual person who aspires to the same faith as I. Also, in your Opening Post, it is intriguing to note that you will not accept and will ignore any arguments based on anything but a completely scientific/secular position in this thread. This makes it virtually impossible for you to understand the position those who disagree with you will come from, and forces them away from joining a serious debate. Hence, you are losing your audience and the chance to argue your point to the ones who actually disagree with you.

[Revolutionary Councils]

It's pretty simple reasoning. One hot chick is good, two is better, zero is worse.

Those poor heteros are missing out on half the fun.

Also, in your Opening Post, it is intriguing to note that you will not accept and will ignore any arguments based on anything but a completely scientific/secular position in this thread. This makes it virtually impossible for you to understand the position those who disagree with you will come from, and forces them away from joining a serious debate..

Should policies that affect everyone be based on anything but scientific facts?

[Desperate Measures]

Hey NSG, I'm not sure if this was posted before, so I wanna say this now.

If you've never met a gay person before...

If you've never seen a gay marriage / married couple before...

If you've never talked to a gay person before...

If they have 0 impact on your life...

Then why are people banning gay marriage?

Also, I'm not gay, I do believe that if they want to do something, let them. They aren't doing anything harmful to you.

Also, any argument like "because the bible said so" "because its unnatural" "because think of the children" "because they roonin da fewtur of amerikaaaa" will be ignored.

I am starkly against homosexuality as an immoral action. I suppose you might consider this homophobia. However, I do not qualify for any of your criterion. I have met many homosexual persons, have a homosexual couple in my extended family, know moderately well/am friends with several self proclaimed homsexual persons, and have seriously talked with them. And yes, they have had more than 0 impact on my life. I am against homosexual marriage because I believe marriage to be steped in religious background. Marriage ought to be religious in nature. The secularization of marriage sickens me. However, simply because I believe/know homosexuality to be immoral does not mean it is my right as a human to block it from society. Society is a corrupt place, and homosexuality will be a part of it, just like overt drinking, sexualization of women and men, lying, and many other immoral things which end up being legal. It is not the place of the government to block homosexuality from occuring, and this is why civil unions made to be legally equivalent in all ways to marriage should exist and be backed by the government.

After stating all of this, I must go on to inform you that I am a religious person, and that though I will not go after/attempt to seriously condemn a secular homosexual person, I will do so for a homosexual person who aspires to the same faith as I. Also, in your Opening Post, it is intriguing to note that you will not accept and will ignore any arguments based on anything but a completely scientific/secular position in this thread. This makes it virtually impossible for you to understand the position those who disagree with you will come from, and forces them away from joining a serious debate. Hence, you are losing your audience and the chance to argue your point to the ones who actually disagree with you.

It's a secular problem, not a religious one.