• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A question for those opposed to homosexuality

rathi said:
Parents have the right to protect their kids from things that will cause them trauma. I do not support the war in Iraq. However, waving a picture of bloodied in a kids face against the parents will is not acceptable. Personally, I toured a meatpacking plant while eating a steak sandwich as a kid, no problems their. However, some kids might get nightmares or start vomiting after viewing said images. I support the right for parents to control what kind of content their kids see, provided that the enforce their wishes themselves
Click to expand...

I agree that parents have the right to 'protect' their children in any way they see fit, but it is the PARENTS job to do that. If anti-war protesters are showing bloody posters, it is certainly not their fault if it upsets someone's child. That is the duty of each parent, if they notice something they feel is unfit. However, I think in most cases and certainly in the case of the 'unhappy meal', it sounds to me like the PARENT was the one who was the most affected by it, and since the parent made such a big deal of it by going and assaulting someone over such a petty thing, the child was taught to hate and attack those with a different opinion. I think that the result described by Jallman is 100 times more abusive for the child than the 'unhappy meal'. I would have called CPS and reported an unruly parent who would break into violent hysterics over a Peta flier.


rathi said:
While, I'd agree that such festivals may indeed create an incorrect image of homosexuality, most of their actions are not against the law. While city ordinance laws may vary, profanity, vulgarity and simulating sex acts are not against the law. Indecent exposure is, but that is fairly limited in gay pride parades. It certainly happens, but its more symptom of having so many people in the same space than anything else. Flashing is hardly a tradition in the same way it is in other festivals.
Click to expand...

It is not my job to oversee the gay community's 'image' whether it is 'correct' or 'incorrect'. If people don't like the image that pride festivals produce, then perhaps they should create their own image, or do something other than whine and complain like so many do over gay pride festivals. I do agree with you though, profanity and vulgarity are part of EVERY community. I'm sick of uncle tom homos who feel that they have a 'duty' to be a 'good fagg0t' at all times instead of being themselves. Why should the gay community continue to present this sick kind of apologetic front? I think that kind of thinking is the epitome of the playing the 'victim' card by posing to be something that you really aren't.
 
QueerNation said:
While it may not be appropriate for a 4 year old, that is debatable, putting your hands on someone and assaulting them is UNCALLED FOR. I hope the PETA volunteer sued your kid's mom and won.
Click to expand...

She smacked that dredlocked hippy to the ground and then smashed as many of those "Unhappy Meals" as she could before her partner pulled her off. It was kind of funny if you knew the girl...she is one of the most soft spoken and kind women you'll ever meet. I guess you just don't mess with her kid, which I am all for. And no, the PETA member didn't sue because the city leveraged a public nuisance charge against her and K leveraged a some kind of harassment charge against PETA. In the end, everyone decided to drop everything and call it a day. Like I had said, the city helped us out a lot.

FYI: Public indecency is only considered a 'crime' if someone makes a complaint. I would hope that if people were offended at 'simulated sex' that they either left so they didn't have to see it, or snitched. That is their right as an American. I've been to MANY gay pride celebrations over the years, and the kind of activity that I hear RELENTLESSLY from people is usually a very RARE case -- a good example is the video that has been going around for YEARS among Christian anti-gay sites pictures one or two cases that they bring up over and over from years gone past. If someone is so freaked out by the human body, I suggest they move to another planet or perhaps an uninhabited island. Any such 'indecent behavior' should be dealt with as it happens, but labeling the entire pride festival upon the actions of a very small minority is at the BOTTOM of my list of things to worry about.



I don't think I've ever attended the type of parade you're describing and I can't say I've ever attended an event that even remotely feels like 'bedroom activities on display'. I think you're exaggerating about an event that is about MUCH MORE than what you claim above. And though you're correct that it is not the entire gay community represented, EVERY LGBT person is invited and encouraged to attend. If you still feel 'shame' about what a very small percentage of the gay population does, then I guess all I can do is pray for you that you'll overcome that very obvious bigotry you hold towards those who are visibly queer.
Click to expand...

For the last time, I have no problem with people who are "visibly queer", whatever that means. I do, however, have a problem with those (gay or straight) who hijack a city square and perform lewd acts in broad daylight. You can deny that it happens all you want but you and I both know better. Besides, your honesty phobia has expressed itself more than once and I have called you to task for it.

That's not what a lot of 'Christian' groups have reported.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that matters. Christian groups and social/mental health professionals often disagree.

The radical right is trying to take your child away from you by passing unconstitutional amendments in attempts to vilify the entire gay community. That is, as long as you are not a 'practicing' LGBT member.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but unconstitutional amendments don't get passed. And the religious right's vilification of gays is not a new thing...why are you worried?

In fact, as recently as this last Saturday, I was out protesting Focus on the Family's 'ex-gay workshop', that they call 'Love won out'. And you and I know that 'ex gay' is a delusional exercise in futile self-denial. In fact that is what my sign read.
Click to expand...

I have mixed feeling about the whole 'ex-gay' thing. I know and you know and anyone with half an ounce of intellectual honest knows that the ex-gay thing is total bollocks. However, if any gay person wants to subject him/herself to that kind of insanity, I suppose they have the right to.
 
QueerNation said:
I agree that parents have the right to 'protect' their children in any way they see fit, but it is the PARENTS job to do that. If anti-war protesters are showing bloody posters, it is certainly not their fault if it upsets someone's child. That is the duty of each parent, if they notice something they feel is unfit. However, I think in most cases and certainly in the case of the 'unhappy meal', it sounds to me like the PARENT was the one who was the most affected by it, and since the parent made such a big deal of it by going and assaulting someone over such a petty thing, the child was taught to hate and attack those with a different opinion. I think that the result described by Jallman is 100 times more abusive for the child than the 'unhappy meal'. I would have called CPS and reported an unruly parent who would break into violent hysterics over a Peta flier.
Click to expand...

Here we go with that truth phobia again...as I described, it was much more than a "PETA flier" and the city of Raleigh obviously thought so too since they pressed a public disorderly (or something like that) against that PETA group. But here again, you mitigate the circumstances in an attempt to magnify the disparity. You keep proving yourself, over and over, to be a hysterical liar.


It is not my job to oversee the gay community's 'image' whether it is 'correct' or 'incorrect'. If people don't like the image that pride festivals produce, then perhaps they should create their own image, or do something other than whine and complain like so many do over gay pride festivals. I do agree with you though, profanity and vulgarity are part of EVERY community. I'm sick of uncle tom homos who feel that they have a 'duty' to be a 'good fagg0t' at all times instead of being themselves. Why should the gay community continue to present this sick kind of apologetic front? I think that kind of thinking is the epitome of the playing the 'victim' card by posing to be something that you really aren't.
Click to expand...

Okay, I was really trying to maintain a bit of civility here but you just had to go and call me an "uncle tom". Does it ever occur to you "shock queens" and "gutter fagg0ts" that the majority of us are pretty normal people and that our sexual attractions don't define who we are? Look at how judgmental you are because I don't agree with some aspects of gay culture. You accuse me of being an internalized homophobe, not comfortable with myself, not being myself, presenting a sick apologetic front, and an uncle tom. I guess unless I am working at some cabaret and fluttering up and down the street flapping my limp wrist and yelling "HAAAAY MARY" to everybody that comes by, I'm just not a good homo in your eyes, huh?

Well it takes giving up any self respect to make myself more acceptable to a bunch of half men, then no thanks. I like where I am...I like having the respect of my community and peers. I enjoy having pull and clout and I enjoy having privacy where my intimate activities are concerned. I never hide my significant other nor do I make any apology for my sexuality. However, I was raised to treat others with respect and courtesy and to have some discretion about what I offer in conversation. Perhaps I was just raised better...
Click to expand...
 
jallman said:
QueerNation said:
Here we go with that truth phobia again...as I described, it was much more than a "PETA flier" and the city of Raleigh obviously thought so too since they pressed a public disorderly (or something like that) against that PETA group. But here again, you mitigate the circumstances in an attempt to magnify the disparity. You keep proving yourself, over and over, to be a hysterical liar.




Okay, I was really trying to maintain a bit of civility here but you just had to go and call me an "uncle tom". Does it ever occur to you "shock queens" and "gutter fagg0ts" that the majority of us are pretty normal people and that our sexual attractions don't define who we are? Look at how judgmental you are because I don't agree with some aspects of gay culture. You accuse me of being an internalized homophobe, not comfortable with myself, not being myself, presenting a sick apologetic front, and an uncle tom. I guess unless I am working at some cabaret and fluttering up and down the street flapping my limp wrist and yelling "HAAAAY MARY" to everybody that comes by, I'm just not a good homo in your eyes, huh?

Well it takes giving up any self respect to make myself more acceptable to a bunch of half men, then no thanks. I like where I am...I like having the respect of my community and peers. I enjoy having pull and clout and I enjoy having privacy where my intimate activities are concerned. I never hide my significant other nor do I make any apology for my sexuality. However, I was raised to treat others with respect and courtesy and to have some discretion about what I offer in conversation. Perhaps I was just raised better...
Click to expand...

It doesn't appear to me that you are criticizing these people for simply being inappropriate. It appears to me that you are criticizing them for being inappropriate while being gay. It seems like you are cringing more because they are gay. Why should their behavior reflect on you? It seems like you feel that they do, though you may think that they don't.

What does "a bunch of half men" mean?
Why would you, personally, have to 'work in a cabaret' and 'run down the street yelling "HAAAY MARY"' in order to fulfill a request for tolerance of those who do?
Click to expand...
 
Dezaad said:
jallman said:
It doesn't appear to me that you are criticizing these people for simply being inappropriate. It appears to me that you are criticizing them for being inappropriate while being gay. It seems like you are cringing more because they are gay. Why should their behavior reflect on you? It seems like you feel that they do, though you may think that they don't.

What does "a bunch of half men" mean?
Why would you, personally, have to 'work in a cabaret' and 'run down the street yelling "HAAAY MARY"' in order to fulfill a request for tolerance of those who do?
Click to expand...

My problem isn't with people who are gay. It is with people who are inappropriate. However, right now we are talking about gay people and to assert that by involving myself in the conversation I have a problem with gay people specifically is a bit shady at best.

QN seems to have this idea that unless a gay man fits every stereotype and relinquishes his masculinity AND (more importantly) his sense of decency without reservation, then he is "an uncle tom gay". What is funny is that the majority of gay men and women really wish these militants would STFU because they represent a very small minority within our ranks. They do not represent us as a whole and most of the time serve only as an embarrassment to the rest of us.
Click to expand...
 
jallman said:
Dezaad said:
My problem isn't with people who are gay. It is with people who are inappropriate. However, right now we are talking about gay people and to assert that by involving myself in the conversation I have a problem with gay people specifically is a bit shady at best.

QN seems to have this idea that unless a gay man fits every stereotype and relinquishes his masculinity AND (more importantly) his sense of decency without reservation, then he is "an uncle tom gay". What is funny is that the majority of gay men and women really wish these militants would STFU because they represent a very small minority within our ranks. They do not represent us as a whole and most of the time serve only as an embarrassment to the rest of us.
Click to expand...

I have tried to follow this thread, but it is difficult to keep track of everything. I have gone back through, in an attempt to find where QN was asking you to be 'stereotypical'. I can find where he seems to be asking to to tolerate the stereotypical.

I agree with you that the parades should be held to the same decency that all people are held to in other parades and activities. I would be right there with you if: 1) Someone complained and 2) Someone was charged for indecency. I have seen things that could cause charges to be brought. I also agree that you should advocate, everyone should advocate, that the activities remain within the law. In the matter of things that the law does not prohibit, outlandishness mixed with the mainstream is entirely enjoyable, and should not be a cause for embarrassment.

I agree that some people are outlandish solely for attention. This is not the whole story. Some are outlandish as a byproduct of self-expression and creativity. This is entirely legitimate, and is a cause for celebration. Some of these also derive additional pleasure at the attention. It is hard to separate the two, and big deal anyway.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom