But I'm Not A Homophobe!

[Ostroeuropa]

Then i'd argue that one is a sexual liberation parade. The problem is, because it's rhetoric is all about gay people, it's unjustifiably focusing it's good press on that group as opposed to the sexual liberation of all persons, the benefits of that parade are unjustifiable being siphoned.
That's a heterophobic outcome.

Now, I might be fully prepared to believe that that is the medias fault and not the parades fault. I wouldn't necessarily know. The cardiff parade however is pretty explicitly an event for the liberation of gays.

That's idiotic. The parade is about pride in one's self (especially in terms of a refusal to be ashamed of one's sexual identity), a rejection of anti-LGBT attitudes and oppression, and a celebration of the culture that managed to defiantly thrive in the face of said oppression. It isn't against anything but intolerance and bigotry.

Here's some straight people marching. Note that a couple of the photos are from the very first pride parades, showing that straight allies have been marching in the parades since the beginning.

Explain to me the rationale of LGBT'ers rallying together, but refusing to invite the furries , BDSMers, etc. to join their group.
As i've previously pointed out;
Imagine an alternate universe where furries and people who use equipment during sex all rallied together before the LGBTers and had marches to oppose the stigma they face. It's a parade of refusing to be ashamed of ones sexual identity, a rejection of anti-equipment attitudes, and a celebration of the culture that managed to defiantly thrive in the face of said oppression. (A culture that in our universe is explicitly only formed of this group of people, and rejects Heterosexual people who are also sexually oppressed because of...you know, their heterophobia.)

If LGBTers asked "Hey, how come you guys keep taking all the press and progress from these sexual pride marches? Why not us?" They' blather on nonsensically about how LGBTers aren't a "Type of equipment user" and are merely a "Type of sexuality" as though that answers the question.

The reason that the LGBTers rally together but refuse to invite other heterosexual minorities to join the coallition and culture is that they have latent heterophobia and are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that prejudice occurs on both sides of the fence.

[Greater Femocracy]

Not all of us do

My rationale to have separate bathroom though is mostly common courtesy: I don't want a woman looking at my penis while I'm peeing, I expect a woman would not want me to see their vaginas in the bathroom.

I know that not all men piss out of the cup.
But is it enough that do it some of they, and the damage is done.
I don't understand how it is possible to see the penis or vagina, although in the same bathroom: bathrooms have doors, and common area is only one of the faucets.
Usually women don't see the vagina of other women when they go to the bathroom.

[Shilya]

I don't understand how it is possible to see the penis or vagina, although in the same bathroom: bathrooms have doors, and common area is only one of the faucets.
Usually women don't see the vagina of other women when they go to the bathroom.

Well, one simple difference is the urinals present in male bathrooms.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I know that not all men piss out of the cup.
But is it enough that do it some of they, and the damage is done.
I don't understand how it is possible to see the penis or vagina, although in the same bathroom: bathrooms have doors, and common area is only one of the faucets.
Usually women don't see the vagina of other women when they go to the bathroom.

I was just making an exaggerated example for the sake of humor. I just think it's common courtesy to leave some space for women and some space for men to do their necessities, really. Although I just don't like to be with anyone else in the bathroom while I am taking either a piss or a shit, so I prefer private restrooms to public ones.

[Ostroeuropa]

Guys, i'm sorry I brought it up. Take it to another thread. (The bathroom stuff.)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Guys, i'm sorry I brought it up. Take it to another thread. (The bathroom stuff.)

We'll try to tone it down

[The Liberated Territories]

not familiar with DHL.

UPS is ultimately controlled by the government, regardless the leeway that it is allowed.

And FEDex...really? You do not see "Fed" right in their name?

What a terrible choice. So I leave the US and wait to become a legal immigrant of another country (another way of the government trying to protect the economy that is bs) and still believe that the social contract is valid? Or move my business over seas and have to put up with all the regulations on that? Wow. Such freedom. So fair.

Whoever said life was fair?

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DHL_Express

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Parcel_Service

They don't say "government owned" do they? So your argument about the USPS having monopoly over the postal service is absolute bullshit. Knock it off.

Type: Public

[Greater Femocracy]

Well, one simple difference is the urinals present in male bathrooms.

Right. I hadn't thought to this.
I think if I were a heterosexual woman, then I would very appreciate mixed baths: urinals for men and bathrooms with doors for women. So I see all merchandise every time I go to the bathroom, and they cannot see me.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Whoever said life was fair?

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DHL_Express

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Parcel_Service

They don't say "government owned" do they? So your argument about the USPS having monopoly over the postal service is absolute bullshit. Knock it off.

Type: Public

Publicly owned just means they share and invest in the stock market. Not that they are owned by the government.

[Ostroeuropa]

Right. I hadn't thought to this.
I think if I were a heterosexual woman, then I would very appreciate mixed baths: urinals for men and bathrooms with doors for women. So I see all merchandise every time I go to the bathroom, and they cannot see me.

This is an incredibly telling syntax by the way.

Specifically this bit:

I think if I were a heterosexual woman

Nobody who is a woman talks like that.
They would say "If I were a heterosexual"
given that we've already """Established""" that you are apparently female.

So yeh. Busted I guess. The adding of woman at the end here is basically you saying "If I were a woman."

[Greater Femocracy]

Guys, i'm sorry I brought it up. Take it to another thread. (The bathroom stuff.)

OK. Stop talking about bathrooms.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Right. I hadn't thought to this.
I think if I were a heterosexual woman, then I would very appreciate mixed baths: urinals for men and bathrooms with doors for women. So I see all merchandise every time I go to the bathroom, and they cannot see me.

And hence why I would think it awkward

Although if I do get out of it with a girl just because they have seen my "merchandise" I would really not mind it

[Greater Femocracy]

Right. I hadn't thought to this.
I think if I were a heterosexual woman, then I would very appreciate mixed baths: urinals for men and bathrooms with doors for women. So I see all merchandise every time I go to the bathroom, and they cannot see me.

This is an incredibly telling syntax by the way.

Specifically this bit:

I think if I were a heterosexual woman

Nobody who is a woman talks like that.
They would say "If I were a heterosexual"
given that we've already """Established""" that you are apparently female.

So yeh. Busted I guess. The adding of woman at the end here is basically you saying "If I were a woman."

Always make sure that the thing was not done on purpose.
I'm not a straight guy.
And that's all what I tell about myself.

[Sjovenia]

Just because you don't believe in marriage equality or not supporting LGBY doesn't mean you are homophobic. I don't mind gay people as long as they don't hit on me (and by that I mean multiple times when I say no the first time) or if they don't touch me in an inappropriate way. My religious beliefs do not condone gay marriage. That's my religious freedom. I don't support LGBT because I'm a Catholic, I don't have the time, nor do I really care to join any political movement unless it's revamping the whole system. Once again I am not a homophobe, I do not care to support LGBT and I know people who are gay and are friends with them. Don't see a problem here but God forbid I don't support them I'm practically Al Qaeda.

I saw this picture on Facebook the other day and it said something like this "Saying gay marriage offends your beliefs is like saying some one eating a donut offends you because you are on a diet."

What? My beliefs are my beliefs if it is against my churches doctrine then it isn't necessarily offensive but it is frowned upon/not condoned by that church or religion. I don't know that's how I deciphered the message. Just me. Any one who calls me a homophobe because of what I believe is either stupid, ignorant, or both.

then why not be OK with gay people getting married outside the catholic church? or not believing in getting gay married yourself but being OK with it for other people just like you are OK with ..... straight people getting divorced outside the catholic church?

Because Christians are not okay with it as well. I'm not gong to say hey your gay and Christian don't get married I'm going to say "your religion disapproves of it but a God gave us free will" I'm perfectly fine with people doing it. Fine and okay however are not an approval or disapproval. I'm tolerant of them and I respect them for who they are but even if you aren't a Catholic if your religion disapproves then that would be my answer but in the same token God gave us free will. So to answer you yes I am okay with it outside of my church but that doesn't mean they don't have their own religion to worry about. If religious at all.

[Greater Femocracy]

And hence why I would think it awkward

Although if I do get out of it with a girl just because they have seen my "merchandise" I would really not mind it

That's right.
If she is interested to see your "merchandise" is a very good thing, for you.

[The Liberated Territories]

Type: Public

Publicly owned just means they share and invest in the stock market. Not that they are owned by the government.

I concede on that point.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Just because you don't believe in marriage equality or not supporting LGBY doesn't mean you are homophobic. I don't mind gay people as long as they don't hit on me (and by that I mean multiple times when I say no the first time) or if they don't touch me in an inappropriate way.

That's not hating gay people, or even discriminating against them in a negative way. That's disliking rude people.

My religious beliefs do not condone gay marriage. That's my religious freedom. I don't support LGBT because I'm a Catholic, I don't have the time, nor do I really care to join any political movement unless it's revamping the whole system. Once again I am not a homophobe, I do not care to support LGBT and I know people who are gay and are friends with them. Don't see a problem here but God forbid I don't support them I'm practically Al Qaeda.

Well, let's take this a step at a time. Your religious beliefs don't condone gay marriage. That's fine. You don't support LGBT. That's also fine. But if you're buying into the Catholic belief system, then you're buying into one that sees gay relationships as being unequal and even morally wrong, which is homophobic. You can be friends with people and still have bigoted attitudes towards them. Hell, I've been friends with Nazis despite finding their belief system to be downright evil. You can like a person and still be bigoted regarding a group that they belong to. You can also be bigoted towards a group and still be a very nice person. I made that abundantly clear in the OP when discussing my woefully racist-yet-lovable grandparents. That's actually the point that I was driving at all along. You can be a nice person, you can have gay friends, and yet if you agree with discriminatory practices or legislation regarding them, then you're homophobic (or, if you dislike those connotations, bigoted against gay people).

I saw this picture on Facebook the other day and it said something like this "Saying gay marriage offends your beliefs is like saying some one eating a donut offends you because you are on a diet."

What? My beliefs are my beliefs if it is against my churches doctrine then it isn't necessarily offensive but it is frowned upon/not condoned by that church or religion. I don't know that's how I deciphered the message. Just me. Any one who calls me a homophobe because of what I believe is either stupid, ignorant, or both.

I hate to break it to you again, but your church, for all of the good that it does, and all of the beauty and mystery of it, is inherently bigoted against gay folks. That's just how it is. If you believe for any reason that gay people are not entitled to their full share of rights, or that their relationships are of lesser value, or sinful, then you are homophobic. That's not stupid. That's simply going by the definition as laid out in the OP, and in Merriam-Webster.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

then why not be OK with gay people getting married outside the catholic church? or not believing in getting gay married yourself but being OK with it for other people just like you are OK with ..... straight people getting divorced outside the catholic church?

Because Christians are not okay with it as well. I'm not gong to say hey your gay and Christian don't get married I'm going to say "your religion disapproves of it but a God gave us free will" I'm perfectly fine with people doing it. Fine and okay however are not an approval or disapproval. I'm tolerant of them and I respect them for who they are but even if you aren't a Catholic if your religion disapproves then that would be my answer but in the same token God gave us free will. So to answer you yes I am okay with it outside of my church but that doesn't mean they don't have their own religion to worry about. If religious at all.

You seem to not be aware that there are several religions out there (including my own) that have no issue with performing wedding ceremonies for gay people

[Avenio]

Because Christians are not okay with it as well. I'm not gong to say hey your gay and Christian don't get married I'm going to say "your religion disapproves of it but a God gave us free will" I'm perfectly fine with people doing it. Fine and okay however are not an approval or disapproval. I'm tolerant of them and I respect them for who they are but even if you aren't a Catholic if your religion disapproves then that would be my answer but in the same token God gave us free will. So to answer you yes I am okay with it outside of my church but that doesn't mean they don't have their own religion to worry about. If religious at all.

You seem to not be aware that there are several religions out there (including my own) that have no issue with performing wedding ceremonies for gay people

If he acknowledged that, then he would have to admit that he's not speaking with the authority of every Christian on Earth.

And then what would his argument be?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You seem to not be aware that there are several religions out there (including my own) that have no issue with performing wedding ceremonies for gay people

If he acknowledged that, then he would have to admit that he's not speaking with the authority of every Christian on Earth.

And then what would his argument be?

Well, my church isn't technically Christian, though there are members who lean that way, and it is rooted in the Christian tradition. But there are Christian denominations who have, after much internal discussion and dissension, decided to solemnize same-sex marriages.

[Ostroeuropa]

You seem to not be aware that there are several religions out there (including my own) that have no issue with performing wedding ceremonies for gay people

If he acknowledged that, then he would have to admit that he's not speaking with the authority of every Christian on Earth.

And then what would his argument be?

He could say his feelings are being hurt by the words some people say. Then maybe he'd be taken seriously, though i've no idea why.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

If he acknowledged that, then he would have to admit that he's not speaking with the authority of every Christian on Earth.

And then what would his argument be?

He could say his feelings are being hurt by the words some people say. Then maybe he'd be taken seriously, though i've no idea why.

You seem to be harping on this point quite a bit, even when it's not the subject being discussed. One would almost think that you're offended by the fact that others express offense.

[Avenio]

If he acknowledged that, then he would have to admit that he's not speaking with the authority of every Christian on Earth.

And then what would his argument be?

Well, my church isn't technically Christian, though there are members who lean that way, and it is rooted in the Christian tradition. But there are Christian denominations who have, after much internal discussion and dissension, decided to solemnize same-sex marriages.

Oh yes, and there are even good doctrinal and theological explanations for that position. Sjovenia doesn't care, though. The doctrinal stuff is just a convenient deflection. The fact that his first objection to LGTB people was going on about them hitting on him and touching him is proof positive of that. He's using all this 'love the sinner, hate the sin' and 'don't blame me, it's a church doctrine' stuff as a cover for the fact that he has a deep, gut revulsion towards LGTB people.

It's the equivalent of the racist Southerner who has no problem with black people voting and Civil Rights and otherwise them carrying on their lives away from his nice white neighbourhood, but he finds the idea of his daughter dating - or worse, marrying - a black man utterly and completely repulsive, for reasons he can't really articulate.

[Ostroeuropa]

He could say his feelings are being hurt by the words some people say. Then maybe he'd be taken seriously, though i've no idea why.

You seem to be harping on this point quite a bit, even when it's not the subject being discussed. One would almost think that you're offended by the fact that others express offense.

I know the difference between annoyance, outrage, and offence. The fact that you people keep trying to enforce a social censorship code on society is just completely baffling considering you are the same people who keep arguing that social coercion into sex is tantamount to rape.

So it's forcing someone into sex if you threaten them with social ridicule or loss of reputation. (I'm inclined to agree.)
But it ISN'T forcing someone to shut the fuck up if you do the same as regards words?

Well is it force or isn't it?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You seem to be harping on this point quite a bit, even when it's not the subject being discussed. One would almost think that you're offended by the fact that others express offense.

I know the difference between annoyance, outrage, and offence.

Let me guess: when it's you, it's annoyance. When others do it, it's offense.

The fact that you people keep trying to enforce a social censorship code on society is just completely baffling considering you are the same people who keep arguing that social coercion into sex is tantamount to rape.

That's actually two different types of situation entirely, and I don't recall personally arguing that, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. It's also far off-topic.

So it's forcing someone into sex if you threaten them with social ridicule or loss of reputation. (I'm inclined to agree.)
But it ISN'T forcing someone to shut the fuck up if you do the same as regards words?

Well is it force or isn't it?

I'm sorry, are you attempting to debate points that I haven't raised? That's not just deflection. It isn't just intellectually dishonest deflection. It's lazy and intellectually dishonest deflection.