NationStates

Nakena wrote:You forgot Alexander the Great and Yukio Mishima.

Goatmoon wrote:Also , what's up with the majority of gays subscribing to Marxist/Communist beliefs? Maybe if you were more like Frederick The Great, Ernst Röhm, or Jack Donovan, less people would have complaints.

Loeje wrote:I don't personally think that there is much of a difference. The only difference is sexual orientation, and nothing else.

Esalia wrote:

Goatmoon wrote:Also , what's up with the majority of gays subscribing to Marxist/Communist beliefs? Maybe if you were more like Frederick The Great, Ernst Röhm, or Jack Donovan, less people would have complaints.

Probably because a significant amount of the hate gay people have faced has came from the right wing in recent times.

If you want more gay right wingers and less gay lefties, consider getting the right wing to not be so homophobic.

Daarwyrth wrote:

Goatmoon wrote:Also , what's up with the majority of gays subscribing to Marxist/Communist beliefs? Maybe if you were more like Frederick The Great, Ernst Röhm, or Jack Donovan, less people would have complaints.

Source? Still, leftist ideologies espouse equality, unlike the conservative/right wing ideologies that tell us we're abominations? Like, I don't want to follow an ideology that tells me I am sinful/unnatural. I want to follow an ideology that tells me I am equal to others, worthy like others, that I deserve the same rights as others.

Maybe if conservatives/the right wing became more progressive and open to diversity, more LGBTQ people would join them. But until they're calling us wrong/unnatural/evil, they're literally pushing us towards the left, which actually accepts us.

New Astri wrote:

SD_Film Artists wrote:
You said ' a history distinct from straight people and that gay people are different from straight people both culturally and by simple definition.' This implies an otherness, that straight people cannot 'own' Turing's legacy in the same way that a gay person can; in a way this is true as the gay person would have a more personal understanding of what Turing went through, but the gay person may also be of a totally different ethnicity and profession whereas the straight person could be a British programmar/mathematician who's parents may have worked with Turing.

It implies an otherness because there is an otherness. Gay people are different than straight people. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that. It's not progressive to pretend that difference isn't there. It's progressive to acknowledge, respect, embrace, and value that difference--as well as all of the other differences people have.

I don't think anyone really "owns" Turing's legacy, but gay people can certainly relate to his struggles with homophobia more than straight people. And perhaps a straight person could relate to his job experience more than some gay people. Once again--there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that different groups of people have differences, and that those differences impact how they interact with others.

Daarwyrth wrote:

SD_Film Artists wrote:
You said ' a history distinct from straight people and that gay people are different from straight people both culturally and by simple definition.' This implies an otherness, that straight people cannot 'own' Turing's legacy in the same way that a gay person can; in a way this is true as the gay person would have a more personal understanding of what Turing went through, but the gay person may also be of a totally different ethnicity and profession whereas the straight person could be a British programmar/mathematician who's parents may have worked with Turing.

I believe that if people started to think of one another more as humans rather than nationalities, it would help with creating a society wherein the intertwining of diversity can become truly possible. Because all the experience we go through, based on our sexual orientations, our skin colour, or any other characteristic, we form one human history with that. So while I believe we should all view one another as humans, as one people, as one species, I see so much room for diversity and the celebration of diversity to flourish within that human identity.

What does it mean to be human? It means to be straight, to be gay, to be asexual, to be agender. It means to be a man, it means to be a woman, it means to be conservative, it means to be progressive. It means to be black, it means to be white, it means to be American, it means to be Chinese, it means to be Russian. It means to be Christian, it means to be atheist, it means to Muslim, it means to be Buddhist. To be human means to be diverse, yet equal in our diversity. To be human means to be one people, but a beautifully diverse people with a myriad of cultures, histories, experiences, languages and religions. To be human means all these things, and I sincerely hope that is a viewpoint we can work towards as a civilization. Equal, but diverse.

Those are my own views mixed with how what I think Astri means. Please correct me if I am wrong!

Nakena wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:Source? Still, leftist ideologies espouse equality, unlike the conservative/right wing ideologies that tell us we're abominations? Like, I don't want to follow an ideology that tells me I am sinful/unnatural. I want to follow an ideology that tells me I am equal to others, worthy like others, that I deserve the same rights as others.

Maybe if conservatives/the right wing became more progressive and open to diversity, more LGBTQ people would join them. But until they're calling us wrong/unnatural/evil, they're literally pushing us towards the left, which actually accepts us.

I believe the reason for that is that most right-wing movements and "conservative" parties and movements in the western worlds are somewhat tied to christianity and associated "christian moral" values and the likes.

New Astri wrote:

Loeje wrote:I don't personally think that there is much of a difference. The only difference is sexual orientation, and nothing else.

It'd be nice if that was the only difference. However, straight people have ostracized gay people for a very long time. That ostracization is still ongoing in many countries. Gay people were, and still are, forced to withdraw from mainstream heterosexual culture. As a result, we've developed our own distinct culture with its own distinct history. I think the end goal should be integrating LGBT people with straight people without ignoring our past and how it has made us different. Different cultures are beautiful in their own ways. I want to celebrate my sexuality's culture while being given respect from straight people, not pretend that straight people and I are effectively identical.

Respect for differences feels so much more truthful and fulfilling than treating humans like a monolith.

SD_Film Artists wrote:Graham Norton (an openly gay TV presenter if you're not familier with British/Irish TV) said- "I don't want there to be 'gay news', but rather 'the news''; meaning that while he'd like there to be gay news presenters he doesn't want them to be seperated or treated differently as being special 'gay presenters', but rather simply being a news presenter who happens to be gay. Not hiding homosexuality yet not seperating it either. Wouldn't 'otherness' go against that?

Daarwyrth wrote:

Esalia wrote:
Probably because a significant amount of the hate gay people have faced has came from the right wing in recent times.

If you want more gay right wingers and less gay lefties, consider getting the right wing to not be so homophobic.

The right wing is literally pushing LGBTQ'ers towards the left, because of their hatred and bigotry towards them, yes. It actually baffles me why that's so difficult to understand, because when you want to follow something, you want that something to be accepting and kind to you. I'd never follow an ideology that would consider me an abomination/sinful just because I am gay.

The New California Republic wrote:

SD_Film Artists wrote:Graham Norton (an openly gay TV presenter if you're not familier with British/Irish TV) said- "I don't want there to be 'gay news', but rather 'the news''; meaning that while he'd like there to be gay news presenters he doesn't want them to be seperated or treated differently as being special 'gay presenters', but rather simply being a news presenter who happens to be gay. Not hiding homosexuality yet not seperating it either. Wouldn't 'otherness' go against that?

Mandatory viewing.

SD_Film Artists wrote:That's a good ideal to live by. I like the idea of big states because it promotes unity rather than tribalism. Do you think that more in a 'world without boarders' way?

SD_Film Artists wrote:

New Astri wrote:
It implies an otherness because there is an otherness. Gay people are different than straight people. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that. It's not progressive to pretend that difference isn't there. It's progressive to acknowledge, respect, embrace, and value that difference--as well as all of the other differences people have.

I don't think anyone really "owns" Turing's legacy, but gay people can certainly relate to his struggles with homophobia more than straight people. And perhaps a straight person could relate to his job experience more than some gay people. Once again--there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that different groups of people have differences, and that those differences impact how they interact with others.

Graham Norton (an openly gay TV presenter if you're not familier with British/Irish TV) said- "I don't want there to be 'gay news', but rather 'the news''; meaning that while he'd like there to be gay news presenters he doesn't want them to be seperated or treated differently as being special 'gay presenters', but rather simply being a news presenter who happens to be gay. Not hiding homosexuality yet not seperating it either. Wouldn't 'otherness' go against that?

Daarwyrth wrote:I believe that if people started to think of one another more as humans rather than nationalities, it would help with creating a society wherein the intertwining of diversity can become truly possible. Because all the experience we go through, based on our sexual orientations, our skin colour, or any other characteristic, we form one human history with that. So while I believe we should all view one another as humans, as one people, as one species, I see so much room for diversity and the celebration of diversity to flourish within that human identity.

What does it mean to be human? It means to be straight, to be gay, to be asexual, to be agender. It means to be a man, it means to be a woman, it means to be conservative, it means to be progressive. It means to be black, it means to be white, it means to be American, it means to be Chinese, it means to be Russian. It means to be Christian, it means to be atheist, it means to Muslim, it means to be Buddhist. To be human means to be diverse, yet equal in our diversity. To be human means to be one people, but a beautifully diverse people with a myriad of cultures, histories, experiences, languages and religions. To be human means all these things, and I sincerely hope that is a viewpoint we can work towards as a civilization. Equal, but diverse.

Those are my own views mixed with how what I think Astri means. Please correct me if I am wrong!

That's a good ideal to live by. I like the idea of big states because it promotes unity rather than tribalism. Do you think that more in a 'world without boarders' way?

Daarwyrth wrote:

Nakena wrote:
I believe the reason for that is that most right-wing movements and "conservative" parties and movements in the western worlds are somewhat tied to christianity and associated "christian moral" values and the likes.

Yep, there's a reason why I committed apostasy and turned to atheism and science instead of Christianity, breaking ties with it. And I was a very religious person, deeply devout. Yet Christianity itself pushed me away, pushed me towards atheism instead. Now, I am at peace, following my intuition and believing in myself.

Daarwyrth wrote:

SD_Film Artists wrote:That's a good ideal to live by. I like the idea of big states because it promotes unity rather than tribalism. Do you think that more in a 'world without boarders' way?

My hope for the future is that one day, national boundaries will indeed cease to exist. All of humanity united in one federation, wherein each state retains some level of autonomy, but is united under a global, federal, democratic government. The Federation of the United Nations of Earth, perhaps? Either way, that's the kind of global unity I am very much in favour of. National identities are nice, but they breed division when manifesting through sovereign nations. Peoples and cultures could still retain their identities, histories and languages, their experiences and beings, but they'd be united as humans under this global Federation. Perhaps it sounds a bit dreamy and utopian, but I would gladly work towards such an ideal

Unity in diversity, I think that is a beautiful concept that I heartily support!

Nakena wrote:I am glad you found your way and place in life.

SD_Film Artists wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:My hope for the future is that one day, national boundaries will indeed cease to exist. All of humanity united in one federation, wherein each state retains some level of autonomy, but is united under a global, federal, democratic government. The Federation of the United Nations of Earth, perhaps? Either way, that's the kind of global unity I am very much in favour of. National identities are nice, but they breed division when manifesting through sovereign nations. Peoples and cultures could still retain their identities, histories and languages, their experiences and beings, but they'd be united as humans under this global Federation. Perhaps it sounds a bit dreamy and utopian, but I would gladly work towards such an ideal

Unity in diversity, I think that is a beautiful concept that I heartily support!

Indeed, I think a federal approuch could be best as it allows for a single unity while still protecting smaller regions from the bureaucracy and apathy that can come with over-centralised systems.

New Astri wrote:

SD_Film Artists wrote:
Graham Norton (an openly gay TV presenter if you're not familier with British/Irish TV) said- "I don't want there to be 'gay news', but rather 'the news''; meaning that while he'd like there to be gay news presenters he doesn't want them to be seperated or treated differently as being special 'gay presenters', but rather simply being a news presenter who happens to be gay. Not hiding homosexuality yet not seperating it either. Wouldn't 'otherness' go against that?



That's a good ideal to live by. I like the idea of big states because it promotes unity rather than tribalism. Do you think that more in a 'world without boarders' way?

Being different doesn't have to lead to separation. Being treated differently isn't inherently bad. For example, it's reasonable for a gay men to be treated differently by being picked to talk over a segment about gay history. Or a Muslim worker might be given a prayer break where an Atheist isn't. But being different doesn't have to result in being treated differently in a negative way.

I dislike your assumption that being different means you have to be separate. People can coexist with differences. We can all be different together.

The solution isn't to completely isolate different groups, nor is it to seek to erase all differences. We should be like Daarwyrth said: Equal but diverse.

New Astri wrote:Y'all ever notice how cishets portraying their relationships ubiquitously in all forms of media and treating those relationships as the default and norm isn't "shoving their relationship in our faces," but the second gay people have the audacity to exist in public, we're shoving our relationship in THEIR faces? For many straight people, even just remembering that we exist is too much to bear.

Nakena wrote:A lot of homophobia is really fear of one's own sexuality and homosexual tendencies. A lot of homophobes are closeted or self-repressed in denial.

Kannap wrote:

New Astri wrote:Y'all ever notice how cishets portraying their relationships ubiquitously in all forms of media and treating those relationships as the default and norm isn't "shoving their relationship in our faces," but the second gay people have the audacity to exist in public, we're shoving our relationship in THEIR faces? For many straight people, even just remembering that we exist is too much to bear.

Yeah, so many shows and movies I've seen basically have soft porn scenes of hetero couples having sex but heaven forbid a single movie/TV show display a gay couple holding hands or kissing.

Kannap wrote:

Nakena wrote:A lot of homophobia is really fear of one's own sexuality and homosexual tendencies. A lot of homophobes are closeted or self-repressed in denial.

I don't understand why people push this idea that homophobes are secretly gay. It's always turned me off how that feeds into some sense that LGBT people are oppressing themselves when, in reality, its straight people who have systemically oppressed LGBT people.

Sure, some people who are gay/closeted act straight/homophobic, but I wouldn't say it's enough people to even be considered "a lot"

I mean, you wouldn't say the same thing about racists, anti-semites, islamaphobes, or misogynists, why does it apply to homophobes?

Goatmoon wrote:Also , what's up with the majority of gays subscribing to Marxist/Communist beliefs? Maybe if you were more like Frederick The Great, Ernst Röhm, or Jack Donovan, less people would have complaints.

Miku the Based wrote:There's a few homosexuals I respect because of their achievements such as Alan Turing and vehemently disagree with the UK government in instituting trangender procedure on the poor man. But at the end of the day homosexuals are not allowed on our nation because all of the other baggage they bring along with them, their nature, etc. The reasoning of which I already explained earlier in the thread.
If there is a country which does not forcibly femminize them I would send them there instead. Any ex pats are all going to be paid by the national endowment of democracy to spread falsehoods about our nation anyways so it doesn't matter what their opinions are. Maybe people would wisen up if they saw the cruise liner the gays walked off of.