• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are we obsessed with people's sexuality?

Do you think coming out announcements are overkill

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 31.3%
  • No

    Votes: 6 18.8%
  • I love it when I hear of others coming out

    Votes: 1 3.1%
  • It should not be news worthy

    Votes: 11 34.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 12.5%

  • Total voters
    32
Exactly. When I was at Marine Corps. recruit training one of my best friends there was gay. He was a squad leader and the only recruit in my platoon physically stronger than me. He was cool as hell and there was *zero* indication that he was gay, unlike others who ogled during showers.

This might be an unpopular view or against political correctness, but my friend was a respectable homosexual. He didn't have that ****ing annoying high-pitched voice, didn't flaunt it and didn't eye-**** dudes during showers. I would have taken a bullet or endless IT for the guy.

With the exception of the eye-****ing (which would be impolite no matter who was doing it), I don't see where anything in your definition of "respectable" that means anything other than "undetectable."
 
A restraining order is only good inthe US.

Follow here when she goes back to Colombia.

It could work.

Risk murder and kidnapping from the FARC and drug cartels for a shot at Shakira.

I'll debate it.
 
The whole idea of announcing that one identifies with any subset of the population, whether that be based on race, gender preference, disability or ethnicity, is odd indeed. To celebrate (elevate?) someone because they have (declare?) some trait about themselves that makes them special is ridiculous. Having one leg makes "normal" life harder, yet we do not have press announcements when someone attains that special status unless they climb a mountain or win a marathon. Noting that a person has accomplished something special is one thing, but simply celebrating their otherwise normal accomplishments because they have some "special" trait is foolish. Does anyone really care if Mary the burger flipper, or Joe the hairdresser is gay (or has one leg)?
 
Why should homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) force themselves into not being themselves just for your comfort

Or anyone's comfort

Can you please explain your question?

Why would somebody force themselves into not being who they are for people they don't know?
 
Please expalin how it is necessary.

I already have.

You need to be able to comprehend the written word and be able to follow a coherent agument to be able to understand, however.
 
The whole idea of announcing that one identifies with any subset of the population, whether that be based on race, gender preference, disability or ethnicity, is odd indeed. To celebrate (elevate?) someone because they have (declare?) some trait about themselves that makes them special is ridiculous. Having one leg makes "normal" life harder, yet we do not have press announcements when someone attains that special status unless they climb a mountain or win a marathon. Noting that a person has accomplished something special is one thing, but simply celebrating their otherwise normal accomplishments because they have some "special" trait is foolish. Does anyone really care if Mary the burger flipper, or Joe the hairdresser is gay (or has one leg)?

C'mon twtt. You can't really believe that being disabled is just like being gay?

People can't be fired for being disabled. A landlord can't refuse to rent to them. They can marry.

In a lot of places, that isn't true about LGBT's
 
With the exception of the eye-****ing (which would be impolite no matter who was doing it), I don't see where anything in your definition of "respectable" that means anything other than "undetectable."

It's fine that people are gay, but when they turn the dial to eleven it is offsetting. They should focus on being like the rest of us: normal. They don't need to dress as provocatively as Goths, emos, etc to say, "Hey! I'm gay!" They can just as easily say the same thing in a normal voice wearing blue jeans and a button up shirt.
 
Yes, pictures like that give gays a bad reputation, but pictures like the ones below do not give straight people a bad reputation

No, those do too. I, like many, don't approve of slutinization of women or women who adore being sluts and slut culture.
 
Risk murder and kidnapping from the FARC and drug cartels for a shot at Shakira.

I'll debate it.

You have to take the good with the bad.
 
I already have.

You need to be able to comprehend the written word and be able to follow a coherent agument to be able to understand, however.

No you haven't. It is not necessary. The world would go on just fine if nobody knew who was gay and who was not.

Please focus on the Word necessary.
 
No, those do too. I, like many, don't approve of slutinization of women or women who adore being sluts and slut culture.

Actually, they don't. Your own response demonstrates that

The pictures of the straight people cause you to disapprove of those specific straight women who engage in that sort of behavior but you don't generalize that to all straight women. IOW, they don't affect the "general perception" of straight women.

But you argue that the pictures of those gay men cause straight people to think that all gay men are like the men in the pictures you posted.

It is the fault of the homosexuals that the general perception about them that they are like this:
 
Having one leg makes "normal" life harder, yet we do not have press announcements when someone attains that special status unless they climb a mountain or win a marathon. Noting that a person has accomplished something special is one thing, but simply celebrating their otherwise normal accomplishments because they have some "special" trait is foolish. Does anyone really care if Mary the burger flipper, or Joe the hairdresser is gay (or has one leg)?

Last I checked, the United States didn't have a history of murdering, beating, harassing, waving declamatory signs at, preaching about the sinfulness of, discriminating against or accusing one-legged people (or heck, even legless people) of being child molesters. Do the Boy Scouts of America prohibit one-legged people from being members or Scoutmasters? Do we feel we are entitled to have an opinion about the lifestyle of the one-legged man? Do we even bother to have such an opinion?
 
No you haven't. It is not necessary. The world would go on just fine if nobody knew who was gay and who was not.

Please focus on the Word necessary.

It is necessary within the context I laid out.

If you lack the ability to comprehend the written word,I would say that is your problem,not mine.
 
Sure -- I'm with you there. They areas damaging to the image of gay people as black thugs are to the African-American community, money grubbing Jews to the Jewish community, Lazy Mexicans for the latino community or snotty, effete French to the image of the French. The difference between a person's innate sexuality and their ethnicity or national origin, however, is that nobody know a person is gay unless they are told, whereas all the others are generally known. Now,there will certainly be bigots abounding just as always, but at least in the case of ethnicity or national origin, people can experience that wide range of behavior to which you alluded. They can see the hard working Mexicans or altruistic Jews, etc. With Gay people, they can't, and so they are more prone to adhering to those stereotypes they CAN see.

That is why it is so important for people like Sam to come out of the closet. If his announcement created a firestorm, I would say that has more to do with the reaction than his need for attention. Until thereare plenty more like him, I'm sure the announcements will create controversy and attention. When such a time comes when there is no need for such an announcement, there will be no firerstorm.

Ok.

So we both agree to the destination of where the public image of the homosexuals should be in order for there to be no more disharmony and such... but we just don't agree on the effect of the big coming out statements from public figures have on reaching that point. You think they're good, I think they're harmful... ah well, to each his own. I have no idea how we can, today, prove that you or I am right so I suggest that we agree to disagree on the effectiveness of the coming out spectacles in harmonizing social tensions.
 
It is necessary within the context I laid out.

If you lack the ability to comprehend the written word,I would say thatis your problem,not mine.

Your assumption that I am intellectually inferior to you is greatly misplaced.
 
It's fine that people are gay, but when they turn the dial to eleven it is offsetting. They should focus on being like the rest of us: normal. They don't need to dress as provocatively as Goths, emos, etc to say, "Hey! I'm gay!" They can just as easily say the same thing in a normal voice wearing blue jeans and a button up shirt.

Nobody needs to dress provocatively or be openly anything, they choose to do so. That doesn't change the fact that "undetectable" and "respectable" are not synonymous. Nobody has an obligation to blend in so long as they're not disrupting anyone else's ability to live their lives. Dressing provocatively doesn't constitute such a disruption.
 
Actually, they don't. Your own response demonstrates that

The pictures of the straight people cause you to disapprove of those specific straight women who engage in that sort of behavior but you don't generalize that to all straight women. IOW, they don't affect the "general perception" of straight women.

But you argue that the pictures of those gay men cause straight people to think that all gay men are like the men in the pictures you posted.

Ah, I don't know if those women were straight. I thought they were lesbos. Either way, gay or not, slut culture is harmful to women.


And I wouldn't say that sluts don't affect the general perception of straight women. How many men think all women are sluts? Enough to have stories in the media about how women are mistreated or have all that stupidity about the club dating culture. You go to the club, pick up a chick, bang her and leave and repeat the process periodically. It's why clubs exist to begin with because shallow people with no moral or respect standards who don't care about engaging in risky sexual behavior love to go there. It's why "the club" changed it's meaning from the victorian era where it was a place of intellectual conversation and model behavior to a pathetic display of the most base of human interactions. Again, it's just enough to have this sort of thing take place. It's not prevalent.. .or maybe it is, I don't know how we can test for this... but it exists.

So your argument falls flat on its ass. And it's not like you need to think about it for long to understand why it is a fail argument. The reason why I posted the pictures of men is because when I googled "homosexual" that's what popped up among the first page of images.

EDIT: how do you know those women in your pictures are straight?
 
C'mon twtt. You can't really believe that being disabled is just like being gay?

People can't be fired for being disabled. A landlord can't refuse to rent to them. They can marry.

In a lot of places, that isn't true about LGBT's

Then report those stories; (proven) discrimination is news but simply having a trait is not. No one ponders why athletes that did better in the combine and are physically bigger/stronger than Michael Sam were not drafted. The White House even chimed in that this is somehow very important and historic simply because he is "openly" gay.
 
Ah, I don't know if those women were straight. I thought they were lesbos. Either way, gay or not, slut culture is harmful to women.


And I wouldn't say that sluts don't affect the general perception of straight women. How many men think all women are sluts? Enough to have stories in the media about how women are mistreated or have all that stupidity about the club dating culture. You go to the club, pick up a chick, bang her and leave and repeat the process periodically. It's why clubs exist to begin with because shallow people with no moral or respect standards who don't care about engaging in risky sexual behavior love to go there. It's why "the club" changed it's meaning from the victorian era where it was a place of intellectual conversation and model behavior to a pathetic display of the most base of human interactions. Again, it's just enough to have this sort of thing take place. It's not prevalent.. .or maybe it is, I don't know how we can test for this... but it exists.

So your argument falls flat on its ass. And it's not like you need to think about it for long to understand why it is a fail argument. The reason why I posted the pictures of men is because when I googled "homosexual" that's what popped up among the first page of images.

EDIT: how do you know those women in your pictures are straight?

How do you know those men were gay?

Those pictures of presumably straight women do not cause people to want to ban straight marriages, fire straight people, refuse to rent apartments to straight people, etc
 
It's fine that people are gay, but when they turn the dial to eleven it is offsetting. They should focus on being like the rest of us: normal. They don't need to dress as provocatively as Goths, emos, etc to say, "Hey! I'm gay!" They can just as easily say the same thing in a normal voice wearing blue jeans and a button up shirt.

Come one, that dude that looks like a clown a few pages ago was worth a laugh. Just how stupid do you have to be to dress like a clown and think it's cool? lol.
 
I think that not only is the public in general far too interested in what people do in bed, the celebrities are only too happy to tell everyone what's going on. Sexual orientation shouldn't matter, it's nobody's business what two consenting adults do and it shouldn't be news. People who announce it ought to be reviled as low-class.
 
How do you know those men were gay?

Those pictures of presumably straight women do not cause people to want to ban straight marriages, fire straight people, refuse to rent apartments to straight people, etc

Because I told you, I googled "homosexual" and that's what came up on the front page. So it's a pretty safe bet that they're gay. They're at a gay pride parade and wearing the rainbow colors.

The 2nd part of your comment... what??
 
Lately it seems that everyone who comes out gets a grandiose platform. Someone comes out and it's talked about for days. Many have called them heroes while giving them a virtual standing ovation. I don't care if someone is gay or not, but it just bugs me when people call them heroes or tear others down for having a difference of opinion. The definition of hero for me is someone going into a burning building to save someone, or a person taking a bullet for someone. It's Just starting to seem like this is becoming a bit of an obsession.

Because that is the left gameplan PUSH homosexual behavior down the throats of everyone.
 
Back
Top Bottom