It's A Gay Life 2.0

[Tmutarakhan]

It's not always clear whether or not people like like each other. Some people show it more than others. Especially when the object of their affections is the same sex as them, people can also be very reserved about it.

I kind of see what you're getting at, but knowing somebody is attracted to your gender doesn't automatically mean you like them/they like you. You STILL have to go through the messy process of finding out if the other person likes you or not.

But trying to go through that messy process when it was entirely a waste of time from the beginning is a bad idea. Not just because it wastes time you could have spent trying to feel out someone that might have loved you back, but because in the process you may kill what could at least have been a friendship.

[Dreporia]

Certainly. I don't have a problem with you knowing somebody's preferences at all, I just have a problem with giving humans broad labels.

Why?

Discrimination, stereotypes, and assumptions based off of these labels. Do you disagree? Should there be more instead of less? Should blue-eyed people be given a name as well? And brown-eyed people?

Labeling allows for comparison and comparison breeds contempt. It's a depressing part of human nature.

[Dreporia]

I kind of see what you're getting at, but knowing somebody is attracted to your gender doesn't automatically mean you like them/they like you. You STILL have to go through the messy process of finding out if the other person likes you or not.

But trying to go through that messy process when it was entirely a waste of time from the beginning is a bad idea. Not just because it wastes time you could have spent trying to feel out someone that might have loved you back, but because in the process you may kill what could at least have been a friendship.

Maybe, but you never will know it's a waste of time until you try. People often lie about their sexuality....

Of course, knowing it's possible based off sexual preference right from the start is a lot easier, but I'm not arguing against recognizing sexual preferences.

[Jormengand]

Why?

Discrimination, stereotypes, and assumptions based off of these labels. Do you disagree? Should there be more instead of less? Should blue-eyed people be given a name as well? And brown-eyed people?

Labeling allows for comparison and comparison breeds contempt. It's a depressing part of human nature.

That's not the fault of labelling. That's the fault of people being dicks.

And people with different eye colours do have names, you just said them. Sure, they're slightly unwieldy compound nouns, but that's because they're not as useful as sexuality-based ones.

[Zottistan]

Why?

Discrimination, stereotypes, and assumptions based off of these labels. Do you disagree? Should there be more instead of less? Should blue-eyed people be given a name as well? And brown-eyed people?

Blue-eyed and brown-eyed people have labels. Blue-eyed and brown-eyed. Heterosexuals and homosexuals have labels. Heterosexual and homosexual.

Labeling allows for comparison and comparison breeds contempt. It's a depressing part of human nature.

No, difference allows for comparison, and difference will be around without labeling. If we don't call a black guy black, white guys will still notice that he's different. Labeling just makes difference that much more efficient to deal with.

[Dreporia]

Discrimination, stereotypes, and assumptions based off of these labels. Do you disagree? Should there be more instead of less? Should blue-eyed people be given a name as well? And brown-eyed people?

Labeling allows for comparison and comparison breeds contempt. It's a depressing part of human nature.

That's not the fault of labelling. That's the fault of people being dicks.

And people with different eye colours do have names, you just said them. Sure, they're slightly unwieldy compound nouns, but that's because they're not as useful as sexuality-based ones.

Maybe if you'd look more into it you'd realize how much labeling really just does.

And saying someone has blue eyes isn't a label. Saying someone has black skin or is of african origin isn't labeing either, but saying someone is black or is gay is labeling.


"Labeling just makes difference that much more efficient to deal with."

Deal with or abuse?

[Zottistan]

That's not the fault of labelling. That's the fault of people being dicks.

And people with different eye colours do have names, you just said them. Sure, they're slightly unwieldy compound nouns, but that's because they're not as useful as sexuality-based ones.

Maybe if you'd look more into it you'd realize how much labeling really just does.

And saying someone has blue eyes isn't a label. Saying someone has black skin or is of african origin isn't labeing either, but saying someone is black or is gay is labeling.

How is that labeling? Black people are black, yes? Gay people are gay? If by labeling, you mean stereotyping (blacks are violents, gays are camp, etc), then I wholeheartedly agree. But a categorisation is not a stereotype.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

As an ally, I would like to state that I don't really need to be in there. In fact, it kind of cheapens it to have me in the alphabet soup.

Thank you.

See, I like allies, I'm grateful for them, blah blah blah - but they're being decent people and that's basically it. I'm not going to give anyone a cookie for that.

Hold on.

While I don't need to be included in the acronym mix, I do want a cookie.

[Dreporia]

Maybe if you'd look more into it you'd realize how much labeling really just does.

And saying someone has blue eyes isn't a label. Saying someone has black skin or is of african origin isn't labeing either, but saying someone is black or is gay is labeling.

How is that labeling? Black people are black, yes? Gay people are gay? If by labeling, you mean stereotyping (blacks are violents, gays are camp, etc), then I wholeheartedly agree. But a categorisation is not a stereotype.

Assigning single attributes to someone is not a label.

e.g. You have blue eyes. You are attracted to men. You have black skin.

Labeling requires you to attribute someone TO a group.

e.g. You are black. You are gay.

[Jormengand]

Thank you.

See, I like allies, I'm grateful for them, blah blah blah - but they're being decent people and that's basically it. I'm not going to give anyone a cookie for that.

Hold on.

While I don't need to be included in the acronym mix, I do want a cookie.

*Gives monomolecular cookie.*

[Zottistan]

How is that labeling? Black people are black, yes? Gay people are gay? If by labeling, you mean stereotyping (blacks are violents, gays are camp, etc), then I wholeheartedly agree. But a categorisation is not a stereotype.

Assigning single attributes to someone is not a label.

e.g. You have blue eyes. You are attracted to men. You have black skin.

Labeling requires you to attribute someone TO a group.

e.g. You are black. You are gay.

Assigning single attributes to somebody puts them in a group. You have blue eyes, ergo you belong to the demographic of people with blue eyes. Categorisation and subcategorisation makes the world a neater, more efficient place, and as long as we don't forcefeed these categories to people. Also, assigning a group to somebody is the same as giving them an attribute. "You're gay" is the same as "you are in the demographic of men who are sexually attracted to other men".

[Dreporia]

Assigning single attributes to someone is not a label.

e.g. You have blue eyes. You are attracted to men. You have black skin.

Labeling requires you to attribute someone TO a group.

e.g. You are black. You are gay.

Assigning single attributes to somebody puts them in a group. You have blue eyes, ergo you belong to the demographic of people with blue eyes. Categorisation and subcategorisation makes the world a neater, more efficient place, and as long as we don't forcefeed these categories to people. Also, assigning a group to somebody is the same as giving them an attribute. "You're gay" is the same as "you are in the demographic of men who are sexually attracted to other men".

I almost agree. People with the same attributes do belong to the same demographic, but some demographics do not have a label (such as blue-eyed people) while others such as men attracted to other men do have a label (gay).

I hope you at least agree with that.

Now, I'm saying that giving humans broad labels makes it much easier to target groups for stereotyping and misrepresentation of individuals within the group. Can you give me an instance where a label doesn't include extraneous ideas (e.g. gay people are flamboyant or have higher sexual drives) or compare it to another group without some negativity?

(also i have class bbl)

[Zottistan]

Assigning single attributes to somebody puts them in a group. You have blue eyes, ergo you belong to the demographic of people with blue eyes. Categorisation and subcategorisation makes the world a neater, more efficient place, and as long as we don't forcefeed these categories to people. Also, assigning a group to somebody is the same as giving them an attribute. "You're gay" is the same as "you are in the demographic of men who are sexually attracted to other men".

I almost agree. People with the same attributes do belong to the same demographic, but some demographics do not have a label (such as blue-eyed people) while others such as men attracted to other men do have a label (gay).

I hope you at least agree with that.

Now, I'm saying that giving humans broad labels makes it much easier to target groups for stereotyping and misrepresentation of individuals within the group. Can you give me an instance where a label doesn't include extraneous ideas (e.g. gay people are flamboyant or have higher sexual drives) or compare it to another group without some negativity?

(also i have class bbl)

So, by a label, you do mean a stereotype? Because, I'll agree, stereotypes are bad. But, bear in mind, any negative stereotypes bound to "gay" or "fag" is also bound to "homosexual". Any negative attributes associated with "nigger" or "black" is also associated with any other term for black people. Stereotyping stems from groups, not the names of those groups.
As for insulting titles (like fag and nigger), those are made to reinforce a stereotype already in place. The "label" comes from the stereotype, and not the other way around. Any insulting names for a Russian? None that I can think of. Any negative stereotypes of Russians? Yeah. A lot.
Division and predjudice will occur anyway, no matter what you "label" somebody. As long as people are different, they'll hate eachother.

[Jormengand]

-snip-

As I said, and you conveniently ignored, prejudice is not the fault of labelling. It's the fault of people being dicks.

[Oneracon]

I'm a gay man, out to everyone, and I will marry my boyfriend next year. I live in Quebec, Canada

Ah, La Belle Province.

So what are your plans (small or big ceremony, inside or outside, etc.)?

[Vellosia]

Well, I guess this is the right thread to reveal some kind of old news; that is to say, I will be getting a Civil Partnership in March next year (not quite a marriage yet, I'm afraid).

[Jormengand]

Well, I guess this is the right thread to reveal some kind of old news; that is to say, I will be getting a Civil Partnership in March next year (not quite a marriage yet, I'm afraid).

[San Pellegrino Romana]

Well, I guess this is the right thread to reveal some kind of old news; that is to say, I will be getting a Civil Partnership in March next year (not quite a marriage yet, I'm afraid).

Yay, congrats!

[Cycloneland]

I'm a gay man, out to everyone, and I will marry my boyfriend next year. I live in Quebec, Canada

Ah, La Belle Province.

So what are your plans (small or big ceremony, inside or outside, etc.)?

Relatively small, about 60 guests. Just friends and family. We have the date set, the place we'll marry etc. Only need to send the formal invitations now.

[Oneracon]

Ah, La Belle Province.

So what are your plans (small or big ceremony, inside or outside, etc.)?

Relatively small, about 60 guests. Just friends and family. We have the date set, the place we'll marry etc. Only need to send the formal invitations now.

Well that's lovely

Even though it's a ways off, I hope your special day is amazing.

---

Is it bad that I'm such a hopeless romantic that I'm planning where I'd get married already?

[Cycloneland]

When it'll be time to plan your wedding, it'll be a bit quicker to plan!

[Vellosia]

Is it bad that I'm such a hopeless romantic that I'm planning where I'd get married already?

I'm leaving the details of that to James; he's better at it them me.

[Oneracon]

When it'll be time to plan your wedding, it'll be a bit quicker to plan!

It'll be at this great Conservation Area north of Toronto, and it'll be outside in what they call the "Forest Cathedral" (a clearing surrounded by tall trees that arch over you).

Plus it'll be completely green

[Cycloneland]

Very nice!! My boyfriend and I aren't the romantic type, so we just rented a small reception room.

[Oneracon]

Very nice!! My boyfriend and I aren't the romantic type, so we just rented a small reception room.

Well it's your day, so it's not like I can tell you that you can't do that

I want it to be fairly small, though