Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I had it implied to me today on this forum that being gay is as defining as the race or ethnic group you come from. I disagreed with this. The poster implied this was due to similar intollerance faced by both - I agreed both suffered from this, but I did not see sexuality as defining in the way culture is.

So is being gay the same as being black, indian, jewish, gypsy etc

I would say most def yes simply due to taboos and intolerance because of religion. I think its sad cuz I really care less if you are homosexual or Indian but society as a whole tsk tsk narrow narrow minded

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I had it implied to me today on this forum that being gay is as defining as the race or ethnic group you come from. I disagreed with this. The poster implied this was due to similar intollerance faced by both - I agreed both suffered from this, but I did not see sexuality as defining in the way culture is.

So is being gay the same as being black, indian, jewish, gypsy etc


No, being gay is less tolerated and met with far more open a blatant prejudice and idiocy then being black or mexican or etc is these days. Racism is still there, but at least black people can marry white people. Gay prejudice is the last socially acceptable form of prejudice left it seems.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, being gay is less tolerated and met with far more open a blatant prejudice and idiocy then being black or mexican or etc is these days. Racism is still there, but at least black people can marry white people. Gay prejudice is the last socially acceptable form of prejudice left it seems.

You're smoke'n crack... no2


A gay person can pretend to not be gay and get a job that would be 'straights-only'.

I can't pretend to not be black and people be like, "That dude must be Irish or sumthin."

Originally posted by D-Double
You're smoke'n crack... no2


A gay person can pretend to not be gay and get a job that would ordinarily be exclusive to straights.

I can't pretend to not be black and people be like, "That dude must be Irish or sumthin."

The fact that you recognize that some employers won't hire homosexuals only futhers my statement that homosexuals experience more open prejudice then racial minorities right now.

The question wasn't "can gay people hide who they are". It's an irrelivent point you just made.

No, you can't tell a homosexual from a straight by first glance. There's no denying a black or a Middle-Eastern when they walk by. That's the simple truth. Yes, both get ridiculed, but then again so does everybody. I bet some blonde haired, blue eyed, rich white kid got picked on in school too. But because he's "the man" you're not going to show sympathy for him, and that is what we call hypocrisy.

Everybody has problems. Just learn to deal with your's..

Originally posted by BackFire
The fact that you recognize that some employers won't hire homosexuals only futhers my statement that homosexuals experience more open prejudice then racial minorities right now.

The question wasn't "can gay people hide who they are". It's an irrelevant point you just made.

Wrong. Good ol fashion color-prejudice is alive and stronger than any other. I recognize that homosexuals may experience a large amount of prejudice, but it's not as deep-rooted, and 'right off the bat' as racism. but that's just my opinion.


my point was not irrelevant, and 'damn you, sir' for saying so...

Originally posted by D-Double
Wrong. Good ol fashion color-prejudice is alive and stronger than any other. I recognize that homosexuals may experience a large amount of prejudice, but it's not as deep-rooted, and 'right off the bat' as racism. but that's just my opinion.


my point was not irrelevant, and 'damn you, sir' for saying so...

Never denied color prejudice still existing, I said it isn't as open or socially acceptable these days as homosexual prejudice.

Take this for example.

Say you're walking down the street and you see someone who looks gay, and your friend next to you jokingly says "Gee, look at that ***".

Now, if someone of a different color is walking by, and your friend says "Gee, look at that *insert racial slur here*. Whic do you think is going to be more frowned upon by bystandards who over heard? The racial slur, most likely.

And your point was irrelevent in the sense that you made a point in reference to mine that had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.

Originally posted by BackFire
Never denied color prejudice still existing, I said it isn't as open or socially acceptable these days as homosexual prejudice.

I know that. never said you did.



Take this for example.

Say a straight black man and a white gay man are walking together. I think statistically the black man is in more danger of hate (just being) than the gay man.



My point was, if you're a good actor, being gay won't effect you. Being of color, you don't have a choice. From my point of view it's all about living and succeeding in a 'white man's world'. Whether that white man be gay or not.

I'd like to continue this discussion but I have to go. No hard feelings.

Once again, this is not relevent to the point I'm making. While what you say may very well be true, racial bigotry is far less acceptable to most normal people then homosexual bigotry - That is my only point, simple as that.



Even again, not relevent to the point I'm making. While it's relevant to the thread, I don't know why you're posting it in retort to something I said. It has nothing to do with the point I've made and doesn't disprove it in anyway.

By definition yes.
A minority is someone who simply doesn't fit in to what the mean amount of people are.
Is the majority of the populaion Homosexual?
No
Therefore, Homosexuality IS an minority. In the same way that haveing a curly Fro (while awesome) is still a minority.

It's not as bad as old school racism, but it's by far worse than modern racism, which in most places is just "racial profiling" which we're all guilty of at some point and time. Gays still get beat up for being gay. I don't know about where you live but down here it's not very often that a racial minority gets beat up/killed for being a minority. I can say personally that I see kids who are suspected of being gay get treated worse than any ethnic group in my school, and they even deny being gay. Gays can blend in with the crowd better, but so what, that means that as long as they hide who they are, they're fine. If they weren't victims of bigotry they wouldn't have to hide who they are in the first place.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
By definition yes.
A minority is someone who simply doesn't fit in to what the mean amount of people are.
Is the majority of the populaion Homosexual?
No
Therefore, Homosexuality IS an minority. In the same way that haveing a curly Fro (while awesome) is still a minority.

*pats the fro*



I know around where I live, there's a lot more discrimination against gays than there are against different races.

At any rate, I completely agree with what both Tpt and Afro Cheese said.

you humans are weird

Originally posted by BackFire
Once again, this is not relevent to the point I'm making. While what you say may very well be true, racial bigotry is far less acceptable to most normal people then homosexual bigotry - That is my only point, simple as that.

I feel that the only reason now-a-days that you don't hear as much racial slurs is simply the fear that has been put into racists. It doesn't mean they're not racist anymore. And the silent racism is what keeps people of color poor, in ghettos, underpaid, and under-respected. It spreads from the most remote farm in the middle of nowhere to the highest level of government. It is there and it's strong. It's talked about behind closed doors... or sometimes not at all.... just acted out as a racist reflex that blankets the world.

Acceptance means nothing to me. Change does. And it's happening slowly but surely. I feel homosexual prejudice greatly pales in comparison and although relevant and unacceptable to me, it is not the same.

Yes, It's true you can hear someone say 'f@ggot' more freely than 'n!gger'. I believe this is because homosexuals are in a struggle for respect, validation, understanding, and 'acceptance' in a world the has them on the tip of the tongue. People of color have gone through this in unbelievable volume already, have gained a foothold, and have a hundred years more to go... if not more. I sympathise, but do not feel the gay struggle is equal to the struggle of a person of color.... partially, because gays are in every family. you know what I mean?

Homosexuals simply are not, and will not be oppressed on the same massive level.



As I read back over the questions, answers, and comments, everything makes sense to me. Either I am not explaining myself clearly or we are on different wavelengths.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
By definition yes.
A minority is someone who simply doesn't fit in to what the mean amount of people are.
Is the majority of the populaion Homosexual?
No
Therefore, Homosexuality IS an minority. In the same way that haveing a curly Fro (while awesome) is still a minority.

When I see homosexuals grouped together, in poor neighborhoods all over the world, because of years of hatred and oppression from the majority, I'll agree with you totally.

Originally posted by D-Double
When I see homosexuals grouped together, in poor neighborhoods all over the world, because of years of hatred and oppression from the majority, I'll agree with you totally.

To be honest I don't see the point of the "my peoples form of oppression is worse then your peoples form of oppression." To me if a minority is being discriminated against for no good reason (and lets be honest there NEVER is a good reason) then it reprehensible regardless of whether it's because of race, creed, sexuality, gender, and it is still reprehensible regardless of severity. Discrimination is discrimination. There are simply different names for it in different contexts. Bigotry, racism and so forth aren't really that different.

So I would say that in a social way being gay is still equivalent to being from any other form of minority, including ethnic minorities. While the definition might be different they are still both minorities prone to pointless, unjust discrimination.

It of course is not the same...and the person ou are refering to never said it was the same....he said that being persecuted as a homosexual is the same as persecution towards race...makes no difference...it's the individual that is persecuted....Race, Sexuality, Gender are only the reasons.

Another fine example of how you turn around what a person says or just plain misunderstand it....

ermm..on the other side..
ethnic minorities do often expect to be treaten differently. (eg having extra things)
and I don't see why homosexual people should be treaten differently than the heterosexual ones. they are people. period. they shouldn't be treaten differently. so they shouldn't be considered as a minority.

if you are thinking this way you can as well count as a minoroty people who are so tall or so fat

Originally posted by Clovie
ermm..on the other side..
ethnic minorities do often expect to be treaten differently. (eg having extra things)
and I don't see why homosexual people should be treaten differently than the heterosexual ones. they are people. period. they shouldn't be treaten differently. so they shouldn't be considered as a minority.

if you are thinking this way you can as well count as a minoroty people who are so tall or so fat

But that's what I am saying...they are different things....although I don't see why one race should get special treatment towards another...

Originally posted by Bardock42
But that's what I am saying...they are different things....although I don't see why one race should get special treatment towards another... i wasn't aiming at you.
and of course one race shouldn't be treaten differently than the other.
i was thinking about ethnic minorities... that they are allowed to have schools where they're learning in their language and stuff like that.

Originally posted by Clovie
i wasn't aiming at you.
and of course one race shouldn't be treaten differently than the other.
i was thinking about ethnic minorities... that they are allowed to have schools where they're learning in their language and stuff like that.

I don't think they should demand to get that from the state....that's pretty stupid actually........

Originally posted by Clovie
ermm..on the other side..
ethnic minorities do often expect to be treaten differently. (eg having extra things)
and I don't see why homosexual people should be treaten differently than the heterosexual ones. they are people. period. they shouldn't be treaten differently. so they shouldn't be considered as a minority.

if you are thinking this way you can as well count as a minoroty people who are so tall or so fat Uh... which minorities exactly are you referring to when you make the blanket generalisation that "ethnic minorities expect to be treated differently"?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think they should demand to get that from the state....that's pretty stupid actually........ but they do, and they're getting that. and i don't see why can't they have own school or radio.


Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Uh... which minorities exactly are you referring to when you make the blanket generalisation that "ethnic minorities expect to be treated differently"? as i said above.
and it is a generailasion. when a group of people is registrated as a minority they expect special treatment,

Originally posted by Clovie
but they do, and they're getting that. and i don't see why can't they have own school or radio.


as i said above.
and it is a generailasion. when a group of people is registrated as a minority they expect special treatment,

They can have that if they want...but why should the state pay for their cultural ideas.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They can have that if they want...but why should the state pay for their cultural ideas. it shouldn't. but should allow them.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I had it implied to me today on this forum that being gay is as defining as the race or ethnic group you come from. I disagreed with this. The poster implied this was due to similar intollerance faced by both - I agreed both suffered from this, but I did not see sexuality as defining in the way culture is.

So is being gay the same as being black, indian, jewish, gypsy etc

No it isn't, in my opinion. Sexual orientation is different to ethnic minority, which is different to religious minority.

All different.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They can have that if they want...but why should the state pay for their cultural ideas. States subsidise secondary education institutions with religious foundations. Do you also oppose those?

Originally posted by Clovie
it shouldn't. but should allow them.
Well but then it's not special treatment...cause everyone has that right.....

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
States subsidise secondary education institutions with religious foundations. Do you also oppose those?

I don't know what exactly that means but I am against most things the State subsidises.....

Catholic (etc.) private schools receive partial government funding.

You're against everything states subsidise? Like hospital operations for the elderly and preschool education.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Catholic (etc.) private schools receive partial government funding.

You're against everything states subsidise? Like hospital operations for the elderly and preschool education.

Oh ok...yes, well the question would be does one have to pay to go there or is it open for everybody?

wait..

all schools has dotations from state. religious ones, with different language and the typical official lauguage public ones. all.
and all have this right.
and i don't see why some should get less money (and here private schools do get less ...what makes some sense on the other hand )

Private schools i.e. "user pays" schools.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Private schools i.e. "user pays" schools.

then of course they shouldn't get any money from the state.....no one should have an unfair advantage because of the state.....

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I had it implied to me today on this forum that being gay is as defining as the race or ethnic group you come from. I disagreed with this. The poster implied this was due to similar intollerance faced by both - I agreed both suffered from this, but I did not see sexuality as defining in the way culture is.

So is being gay the same as being black, indian, jewish, gypsy etc


It was never implied, your igorance made an assumption and you ran with it, despite the plain text on the screen proving you wrong. Let's look over a few of your posts...as well as my responses.

I want you to point out to me where 1) I said being gay was a race all unto itself? 2) Where anyone said that the holocaust was justified, outside the question posed in the holocaust thread. 3) Where I was a racist?

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
half right, What if a modern German says it can be justified and is not a Nazi?

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
agreed what if that same person said it was not an evil act - does it make it worse they are German?



Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Making the same stupid accusations in a new thread STILL doesn't make you right. Bardock, nor anyone who agreed with his statements, said the Germans were justified.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
As a romany, I would point out it was not just jews they considered inferior, I think many other ethnic groups would agree they were also turned in soap.


Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
As a gay man, I'd like to point out it wasn't just the jews they considered inferior, I think many other ethnic groups would agree they were also turned into soap.


Dude, neither of yo are going to tell me anything I don't know....unless you make it up. I've been a student of WWII history for years. But, your above post only proves the point I was making to the other guy.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
and your post only proves mine you cannot understand what its like for your race to be considered inferior. I respect your sexuality and feel that anyone who picks on you is wrong, but sexuality is really not the same as race.


Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You are talking out of your ass! I don't know what it's like to be considered inferior? I live in a country TODAY, where I am considered inferior, a freak, an aboration, a second-class citizen. As for crying about someone making soap out of you (which didn't actually happen, they never made soap out of people) I'm not worried about people picking on me. I'm worried about the rights of people in my position. I can deal with people picking on me, but whats going on in this country today is far beyond "picking" on gays.

And before someone makes the accusation that I am comparing teh holocaust to the fight for equal rights in the US, I'm not.


Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
OK now you've cleared that up - I gree with most of your post, except I still feel race and sexuality are different, persecution for any reason is wrong however, I am also sorry the US persecutes you for being gay, sadly I see a swing back inthis respect worldwide due to an upsurge in right wing views and its wrong. No I am definately not tlalking out of my arse.

Being and ethnic minority just mean you are a diferent race, being gay means your a sinner and mentally disturbed.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Being and ethnic minority just mean you are a diferent race, being gay means your a sinner and mentally disturbed.


Sinner? Most definately...

Disturbed? No more than you, it would seem.

But according to Christian belief...everyones a sinner....everyone...even over eating...gluttony is a sin.....Whoops...all going to hell now.

Oh god.....he's not kidding.......how bigot can one get?

Originally posted by debbiejo
But according to Christian belief...everyones a sinner....everyone...even over eating...gluttony is a sin.....Whoops...all going to hell now.

Gluttony is not the same as eating though.....

Being Homosexual does make you "mentally disturbed" where do people get this information

And anyway in Christianity just the simple act of being conceived and born is your first sin.......yahoo

Originally posted by soleran30
Being Homosexual does make you "mentally disturbed" where do people get this information

And anyway in Christianity just the simple act of being conceived and born is your first sin.......yahoo Did you post this in the wrong thread?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Being and ethnic minority just mean you are a diferent race, being gay means your a sinner and mentally disturbed.

Nope I was responding to this

Oh... why is there a sudden (relative) upsurge in threads about homosexuality?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Oh... why is there a sudden (relative) upsurge in threads about homosexuality?


Because Whirly started lying about what people said...and tried to get sympathy for being a gypsy, which just happens to be one of the dozen different racial/religious/sexual preferences/political differences the Nazis decided to toss into ovens. Whirly accused Bardock of saying teh holocaust was justified, which was a lie. Whirtly accused me of being a racist, which was a lie. Whirly accused me of sayiing that being "gay is a race", which again, is a lie. So, now he's acting like a child throwing a tantrum, and starting threads to...I dunno, get even or something.

So, it went: "Holocaust" thread > "should I forgive Germany" thread > "Is being gay the same as being an ethnic minority" thread. If you read those threads(which I woldn't do unless I was involved) in that order, you see where Whirly quickly descended into insanity and ignorance.

Distinguishing different 'types' of minority in the way suggested is intellectually void. It doesn't matter what the cause of your minority status is; the concept is identical. Be persecuted for being Asian, for being French, for being a Hindu, or for being bisexual, it doesn't matter.

Whirly says his sexual orientation does not define him but his race does. Bully for him. Some people, however, DO see themselves as defined by their orientation and could not give a toss about their country of birth or race.

Don't make the mistake of thinking your own narrow experiences are universal truth.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Distinguishing different 'types' of minority in the way suggested is intellectually void. It doesn't matter what the cause of your minority status is; the concept is identical. Be persecuted for being Asian, for being French, for being a Hindu, or for being bisexual, it doesn't matter.

Whirly says his sexual orientation does not define him but his race does. Bully for him. Some people, however, DO see themselves as defined by their orientation and could not give a toss about their country of birth or race.

Don't make the mistake of thinking your own narrow experiences are universal truth.


That's basically what I said to him in the holocaust thread. But, I still want him (Whirly) to point out to me where I said 'gay' was a race.

Well said Ushgarak, my thoughts exactly.

being gay is more like being a part of a counter-culture

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Because Whirly started lying about what people said...and tried to get sympathy for being a gypsy, which just happens to be one of the dozen different racial/religious/sexual preferences/political differences the Nazis decided to toss into ovens. Whirly accused Bardock of saying teh holocaust was justified, which was a lie. Whirtly accused me of being a racist, which was a lie. Whirly accused me of sayiing that being "gay is a race", which again, is a lie. So, now he's acting like a child throwing a tantrum, and starting threads to...I dunno, get even or something.

So, it went: "Holocaust" thread > "should I forgive Germany" thread > "Is being gay the same as being an ethnic minority" thread. If you read those threads(which I woldn't do unless I was involved) in that order, you see where Whirly quickly descended into insanity and ignorance.

I said you implied it was the same here - whose lying?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
As a gay man, I'd like to point out it wasn't just the jews they considered inferior, I think many other ethnic groups would agree they were also turned into soap.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I said you implied it was the same here - whose lying?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
As a gay man, I'd like to point out it wasn't just the jews they considered inferior, I think many other ethnic groups would agree they were also turned into soap.

I replaced your "gypsy" with my "gay man". How does that imply that "gay is a race"? If I had replaced it with "Jehovahs Witnesses" it would still have applied...unless you also think that that is a race.

It was a DIRECT word for word quote from your post. Your assumption is symantics.


Who's lying? It's still you.

Where in there does he state or imply that "homosexuality is an ethnicity"?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I replaced your "gypsy" with my "gay man". How does that imply that "gay is a race"? If I had replaced it with "Jehovahs Witnesses" it would still have applied...unless you also think that that is a race.


Who's lying? It's still you.

Perhaps it is your lack of clarity in the above sentence structure that caused a misunderstanding. I am willing to concede you might not be a racist having read some of your posts, however you are also guilty of making spurious judgements without the full facts.

If you are not a racist - why did you challenge me on something as pitiful as my own ethnicity due to an English variant of spelling?

This is the post of Bardocks that got my goat.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There are different approaches.....

By Law it can be justified.......by morals it can too...it actually goes either way....since I believe there is no superior force that lays down morals on us...one can actually say from some point of views the Holocaust was justified.....

The old following orders, history written by winners concept applied to my people by a descendant of those that carried it out - it went downhill from here.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Where in there does he state or imply that "homosexuality is an ethnicity"?


Whirly stated:
Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
As a romany, I would point out it was not just jews they considered inferior, I think many other ethnic groups would agree they were also turned in soap.

To which I responded:
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
As a gay man, I'd like to point out it wasn't just the jews they considered inferior, I think many other ethnic groups would agree they were also turned into soap.


I removed his "gypsy" and replaced it with "gay man" to point out that there are dozens of groups that could be substituted for his particualr racial group.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Whirly stated:


To which I responded:



I removed his "gypsy" and replaced it with "gay man" to point out that there are dozens of groups that could be substituted for his particualr racial group.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I replaced your "gypsy" with my "gay man". How does that imply that "gay is a race"? If I had replaced it with "Jehovahs Witnesses" it would still have applied...unless you also think that that is a race.


Who's lying? It's still you.

Perhaps it is your lack of clarity in the above sentence structure that caused a misunderstanding. I am willing to concede you might not be a racist having read some of your posts, however you are also guilty of making spurious judgements without the full facts.

If you are not a racist - why did you challenge me on something as pitiful as my own ethnicity due to an English variant of spelling?

This is the post of Bardocks that got my goat.

Originally posted by Bardock42
There are different approaches.....

By Law it can be justified.......by morals it can too...it actually goes either way....since I believe there is no superior force that lays down morals on us...one can actually say from some point of views the Holocaust was justified.....

The old following orders, history written by winners concept applied to my people by a descendant of those that carried it out - it went downhill from here.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
The old following orders, history written by winners concept applied to my people by a descendant of those that carried it out - it went downhill from here.

Bardock was actually expressing a belief that there is no such thing as 'justified' in the way you take it to mean. He is making out that man justifies his own actions, and that there is no such thing as a central moral core to base that on.

I very much doubt whether he actually THINKS it was justified, just that there is no external force that dictates that people should nto do so. This is simply subjective morality. I don't believe in that- I believe morals are objective- but he was in no way saying that the Holocaust was right. Simply that the Nazis justified it.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt

If you are not a racist - why did you challenge me on something as pitiful as my own ethnicity due to an English variant of spelling?



If I was a racist, I would have said that your people deserved what they got. Never did that.

I wasn't questioning your herritage, I was questioning your intelligence. ( Which isn't unreasonable, when you start a thread asking people if YOU, personally, shold forgive the whole of the german nation )

And, if you want to get into it, your search results returned, what?...220,000 matches, using your spelling. Mine retured over 3 million. But, thats just symantics. Even the page you referenced in your own posts didn't spell it the way you did.

Like I said, I never questioned your ethnicity.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Bardock was actually expressing a belief that there is no such thing as 'justified' in the way you take it to mean. He is making out that man justifies his own actions, and that there is no such thing as a central moral core to base that on.

I very much doubt whether he actually THINKS it was justified, just that there is no external force that dictates that people should nto do so. This is simply subjective morality. I don't believe in that- I believe morals are objective- but he was in no way saying that the Holocaust was right. Simply that the Nazis justified it.

I agree and think it was an illjudged thing to do, I consider it a flame as Bardock does know my ethnicity unlike Captain Fantastic. Although I doubt very much Bardock considered me when he made this comment. I also doubt the flame was intentional. HowevEr it was illjudged, I think pErhaps my response was OTT in reaction as I actually like Bardock 90% of the time and enjoy debating with him. HE and I have a problem with our conflicting views on right and wrong. I feel somethings cannot be justified. Perhaps experience does that to you.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
If I was a racist, I would have said that your people deserved what they got. Never did that.

I wasn't questioning your herritage, I was questioning your intelligence. ( Which isn't unreasonable, when you start a thread asking people if YOU, personally, shold forgive the whole of the german nation )

And, if you want to get into it, your search results returned, what?...220,000 matches, using your spelling. Mine retured over 3 million. But, thats just symantics. Even the page you referenced in your own posts didn't spell it the way you did.

Like I said, I never questioned your ethnicity.

however thE majority of UK sites did your point is. Colour and Color

Much of this post is a flame still and does little to mend bridges, Sad really.

I don't understand how that is a flame. The belief that morals are relative is a perfectly rational position to hold; it is simply the inevitable consequence of such logic that the Nazis lived with a different moral standard to we did, and that although modern Western society could not justify extermination, Nazi society clearly could.

He thinks justification is a matter of point of view. That is not even remotely a flame on yourself.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I don't understand how that is a flame. The belief that morals are relative is a perfectly rational position to hold; it is simply the inevitable consequence of such logic that the Nazis lived with a different moral standard to we did, and that although modern Western society could not justify extermination, Nazi society clearly could.

He thinks justification is a matter of point of view. That is not even remotely a flame on yourself.

again I kind of agree with you howevEr if you read the thread I was not alone in thEse feelings as he and fishy expandEd on thE is no evil idea, I think both you and backfire disagreed with them. I will admit though my response was to emotional. It probably was not aimEd at me at all.

Well, yes, I don't agree with him. But it is a matter of philsophical position- I cannot prove his position wrong in any way at all.

So sometimes you have to live and let live with people's beliefs. He's not advocating anyhting obviously wrong, he just espouses a point of view that, in certain respexts, makes you uncomfortable. That's just how it is! If things got more insulting after that, I am sure it was only because things got so emotional.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, yes, I don't agree with him. But it is a matter of philsophical position- I cannot prove his position wrong in any way at all.

So sometimes you have to live and let live with people's beliefs. He's not advocating anyhting obviously wrong, he just espouses a point of view that, in certain respexts, makes you uncomfortable. That's just how it is! If things got more insulting after that, I am sure it was only because things got so emotional.

I agree on rEflEction, somethings are touchy subjects, I really should avoid threads on those sort of things as my views are to fixed and my personal feelings to great.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
however thE majority of UK sites did your point is. Colour and Color

Much of this post is a flame still and does little to mend bridges, Sad really.

Don't be fooled, I'm not trying to "mend" any bridges.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Don't be fooled, I'm not trying to "mend" any bridges.

no your not and thats your problem.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
no your not and thats your problem.


My problem? Just how much influence on your life does this site have?

No, it isn't. One cannot help be what race they are. While many homosexuals will say they were born that way the jury is still out. Almost all species have members that exhibit homosexual behavior, but only humans have members who are exclusively homosexual. In evolutionary terms sex is basically for reproduction, which means homosexuality makes no sense. The evidence points towards it being learned behavior, meaning it sure doesn't fit the same criteria as an ethnic race where a person was born that way.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
No, it isn't. One cannot help be what race they are. While many homosexuals will say they were born that way the jury is still out. Almost all species have members that exhibit homosexual behavior, but only humans have members who are exclusively homosexual. In evolutionary terms sex is basically for reproduction, which means homosexuality makes no sense. The evidence points towards it being learned behavior, meaning it sure doesn't fit the same criteria as an ethnic race where a person was born that way.

There are many examples homosexuality in species other than human, mating for life.

Many of them are listed in this thread:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t309928.html

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
My problem? Just how much influence on your life does this site have?

almost 0, as usual I think you are lost.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
almost 0, as usual I think you are lost.

Well, as I pointed out in your "do gays have a purpose" thread...you're making an ass out of yourself.

considering this thread and the others is about or toward gays that last comment is f*ucking funny

Originally posted by finti
considering this thread and the others is about or toward gays that last comment is f*ucking funny


LOL, are you calling Whirly a bottom?

well he is a Millwall supporter and that is rock bottom

Originally posted by finti
well he is a Millwall supporter and that is rock bottom

We are not quite rock bottom yet although we may soon be. finti please, what do you think is being gay the same as being black?

consider the fact that you can be both, NO

Originally posted by finti
consider the fact that you can be both, NO

good answer so being gay is obviously not the same as coming from an ethnic minority.

This thread can be closed

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
good answer so being gay is obviously not the same as coming from an ethnic minority.

This thread can be closed


No one ever said it should be considered the same.


Except you.

why the hell are we talking about being GAY

Originally posted by darthvader_fan
why the hell are we talking about being GAY

I'm not

Capt Fantastic keeps bringing his Gayness up

RIGHT

Originally posted by finti
consider the fact that you can be both, NO Not really the best basis for an argument against "gay" being an "ethnic minority" since ethnic minorities aren't necessarily mutally exclusive, someone can be asian and black in racial heritage. (Although I'm in no way arguing that "gay" is an "ethnic minority".) Strange all this talk of difference between ethnic minorities and the gay minority considering Black isn't a racial minority in the African continent, and Asian isn't a racial minority in the Asian supercontinent, yet gay is a minority pretty much anywhere.

yeah and this doesnt support my argument of being both how?

Originally posted by finti
yeah and this doesnt support my argument of being both how? You said gay wasn't an ethnic minority because you can be both gay and black. In that case asian isn't an ethnic minority.

Is gay a phenotype then?
Campness might indicate it is.

what ever

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You said gay wasn't an ethnic minority because you can be both gay and black. In that case asian isn't an ethnic minority.

I think he was saying that a man can be both black and homosexual.

"" <- This got old a loooong time ago.

Anyway nowhere have I implied I even believe that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, but since it's becoming more and more apparent these days that there is a genetic basis for everything then yes "sexual attraction towards members of the same gender" can probably be considered a phenotype. "gay" and "camp" in the ways that you seem to be generalising are not.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"" <- This got old a loooong time ago.

Anyway nowhere have I implied I even believe that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, but since it's becoming more and more apparent these days that there is a genetic basis for everything then yes "sexual attraction towards members of the same gender" can probably be considered a phenotype. "gay" and "camp" in the ways that you seem to be generalising are not.

So we are back on topic and the verbal abuse has gone from this thread, one biologist to another X what purpose does this gay gene serve, is gayness in some way beneficial and in line with modern post Darwinian evolutionary theory.

why dont we close all of the threads that have anything to do about being gay.


This thread is so gay

First of all imo it wasn't verbal abuse it was statement of fact. You were talking sh*t. Secondly it was in the other thread "Let's talk about insults for gay men". Thirdly this isn't "(Leading question) Are homosexuals biologically redundant." this is "Are homosexuals the same as an ethnic minority?" to which the answer is obviously no. Do homosexuals face similar circumstances as any other minority, imo yes.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Strange all this talk of there being such gulfing differences between ethnic minorities and the gay minority considering Black isn't a racial minority in the e.g. Kenya, and Asian isn't a racial minority in e.g. China, yet homosexuals are a minority pretty much anywhere.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
First of all imo it wasn't verbal abuse it was statement of fact. You were talking sh*t. Secondly it was in the other thread "Let's talk about insults for gay men". Thirdly this isn't "(Leading question) Are homosexuals biologically redundant." this is "Are homosexuals the same as an ethnic minority?" to which the answer is obviously no. Do homosexuals face similar circumstances as any other minority, imo yes.

I am sorry you took that thread to mean "lets insult gay men" that was not its title So lets ask the question you propose above are Homosexulas biologically redundant.

It's not my question. It's yours unveiled. And no I don't take the view to generalise a large group of people into a category and then to label them biologically redundant.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It's not my question. It's yours unveiled. And no I don't take the view to generalise a large group of people into a category and then to label them biologically redundant.

unveiled that sounds sinister X - I actually Wonder if gays have a socially biological role to play, rather than a reproductively biological role.

no actually I said that gay and being black aint the same , never said anything about gay not being a minority.
Black and Asian aint the same either (when it comes to how they look) yet you can be both.

SORRY TO EVERYONE THAT I POSSIBLY OFFENED. MY RELIGION STATES THAT BEING GAY IS A SIN HATED MUCH BY GOD. SORRY TO EVERYONE

Originally posted by darthvader_fan
SORRY TO EVERYONE THAT I POSSIBLY OFFENED. MY RELIGION STATES THAT BEING GAY IS A SIN HATED MUCH BY GOD. SORRY TO EVERYONE

But it also states that disliking your parents is a sin, thinking aboot other peoples property and wishing it was yours is a sin and sleeping with a women during her period is a sin...of course that is all in the OT and if you are not jewish you should maybe listen to this guy jesus a little more who said you should love everyone...but of course I am sure you are the person that should cast the first stone.....

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I had it implied to me today on this forum that being gay is as defining as the race or ethnic group you come from. I disagreed with this. The poster implied this was due to similar intollerance faced by both - I agreed both suffered from this, but I did not see sexuality as defining in the way culture is.

So is being gay the same as being black, indian, jewish, gypsy etc Well, nowadays race is taken very seriously,and people have yet to adapt to homosexuality yet, as this board has shown.

Now on another note, I saw more negative consequences for the Fa##ot word, than for Ni$$er (a) word. Overseas, school, and everything.

But thats just me.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Well, nowadays race is taken very seriously,and people have yet to adapt to homosexuality yet, as this board has shown.

Now on another note, I saw more negative consequences for the Fa##ot word, than for Ni$$er (a) word. Overseas, school, and everything.

But thats just me.

I think ****** like the one people use for me pikey is very offensive. I also think ****** is offensive. Interesting pikey is the only word it allows. It just shows how much people care about Gypsies.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I think ****** like the one people use for me pikey is very offensive. I also think ****** is offensive. Interesting

Another thing that is interesting is that both words have the same amount of letters........

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I think ****** like the one people use for me pikey is very offensive. I also think ****** is offensive. Interesting pikey is the only word it allows. It just shows how much people care about Gypsies. People can bash christians, because they are the majority.

Feel better now, because thats what its all about.

On another side, its okay to make "white people jokes", even on tv.


A white guy wore an afro and got arrested.

Thats just the way it is.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
People can bash christians, because they are the majority.

Feel better now, because thats what its all about.

On another side, its okay to make "white people jokes", even on tv.


A white guy wore an afro and got arrested.

Thats just the way it is.

no it means the program has not heard of the word "pikey", Roms came from india although many are white.

Which is why "creed" and stuff used for stereotypes (especially comedy) should be dismissed.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Which is why "creed" and stuff used for stereotypes (especially comedy) should be dismissed.
In think that depends on the context though

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
In think that depends on the context though Well an insult is how WE take it.

I got in trouble for sexual harassment at school for telling a girl she was pretty, a long time ago. She was harrased, but I didn't mean it that way.

But a girl can do the same thing, or even insult and not get in trouble, happens all the time.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Well an insult is how WE take it.

I got in trouble for sexual harassment at school for telling a girl she was pretty, a long time ago. She was harrased, but I didn't mean it that way.

But a girl can do the same thing, or even insult and not get in trouble, happens all the time.

doen's make it right though - injustice must be fought

So in the end being gay is as bad or worse then being an ethnic minority.....

Originally posted by soleran30
So in the end being gay is as bad or worse then being an ethnic minority.....

From an intolerance point of view almost certainly.

Originally posted by soleran30
So in the end being gay is as bad or worse then being an ethnic minority..... Blasphemy. How dare you even suggest that gays are as marginalised in society as ethnic minorities.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Blasphemy. How dare you even suggest that gays are as marginalised in society as ethnic minorities.

I never said they were not - your still missing the point

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
doen's make it right though - injustice must be fought

How and when do you consider something an insult?

Snide remarks are bad, so there is a degree to everything.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
How and when do you consider something an insult?

Snide remarks are bad, so there is a degree to everything.

exactly context is the key - but the use of some terms are always bad.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Blasphemy. How dare you even suggest that gays are as marginalised in society as ethnic minorities.


Uh huh Word

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I never said they were not - your still missing the point Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
people complain about me all the time on here, I am arguing with the whole GDF at the moment because a gay guy said being gay was like being part of an ethnic group. I am part of an ethnic group what my anus is for exit only, know what I mean. Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Cpatain Fantastic will not speak to me now which is no loss as he dared say that being gay was like being from an ethnic minority. He also complained about me and I got another warning. They are funny in the GDF fortunately Ush was moderating most of the day and he is a decent guy I'd call you out on lying. But then I'd be accused of "flaming" you now wouldn't I.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I had it implied to me today on this forum that being gay is as defining as the race or ethnic group you come from. I disagreed with this. The poster implied this was due to similar intollerance faced by both - I agreed both suffered from this, but I did not see sexuality as defining in the way culture is.

So is being gay the same as being black, indian, jewish, gypsy etc

Of course not.

Originally posted by Otaku
Of course not.

I'm glad you agree

i dont agree i think you know that enough

I think a huge misconception that this thread has run with, is that I DO believe that being gay is LIKE being a member of an ethnic minority. At least it is here in the United States. So, the title of the thread is accurate, while being purposely deceptive. In reality, being gay is NOT an ethnic minority. But it IS like an ethnic minority. Equal rights are up for debate, mocked by society, and the recipient of disdain from a huge portion of the population.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I think a huge misconception that this thread has run with, is that I DO believe that being gay is LIKE being a member of an ethnic minority. At least it is here in the United States. So, the title of the thread is accurate, while being purposely deceptive. In reality, being gay is NOT an ethnic minority. But it IS like an ethnic minority. Equal rights are up for debate, mocked by society, and the recipient of disdain from a huge portion of the population.

and in this respect I agree with you, and throughout my posts always have - its the cultural connotation I did not agree with and still do not.

my 2 cents: if the thread starter is saying what I think they're saying, then I agree....homosexuals may be under some of the same negative experiences as ethnic minorities but they are not themselves ethnic minorities

What's with all the damn homo threads?! Jesus, don't you people have something else to talk about? My infected belly button that creates puss and is stinky is more interesting then this..

I wouldn't complain, but after the third topic enough's enough.. It's just gay people..

Hehe. Maybe you could start a thread about it in the vain of other threads of late - "Is my infected belly button the same as being from an ethnic minority?"

"Is my infected belly button chosen or genetic?" Although that one has actually been around for a while.

Gays are not an equivalent to an ethnic minority. Ethnic minorities share a common history, culture, and religion.

Gays don't have that luxury. The only thing in common with all gays is that they like their own gender. That's it. They're composed of completely different people of different races of different religions of different cultures and different personalities.

Homosexuality not a lifestyle or culture contrary to popular belief. It's an element of life. An element that simply determines who you f*** and who you don't f***.

That's it. End of discussion.

Originally posted by Draco69
Gays are not an equivalent to an ethnic minority. Ethnic minorities share a common history, culture, and religion.

Gays don't have that luxury. The only thing in common with all gays is that they like their own gender. That's it. They're composed of completely different people of different races of different religions of different cultures and different personalities.

Homosexuality not a lifestyle or culture contrary to popular belief. It's an element of life. An element that simply determines who you f*** and who you don't f***.

That's it. End of discussion.


This is one area where we disagree. Yes, I know we both agree that there is no such thing as "gay culture", as we have both expressed our disdain for the idea.

But, I don't think that it is out of line to ascribe certain qualities of an ethnic minority to homosexuals. Remeber, the only difference between an ethnic minority, and a minority...it the word ethnic.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic


But, I don't think that it is out of line to ascribe certain qualities of an ethnic minority to homosexuals. Remeber, the only difference between an ethnic minority, and a minority...it the word ethnic.

The word "ethnic" however refers to common history. A lineage so to speak.

The Irish for example. Common history. Common culture. Common accent/language. And more importantly that really makes my case: common LAND.

Ethnicity refers to a COUNTRY or a common AREA. Irish from Ireland. British from Britain. Italian from Italy.

Gays don't have a ancestral land. They come from all over the globe. Hell we may even have gay Eskimos.

In a perfect world we would not need any such thing as a minority status. But in this world there are those people who will hate and discriminate against others who are different. The problem with the idea of a minority status is it smacks of special rights. The focus should be place upon the potential perpetrators not the potential victims. However, this is also a perfect world idea and as long as the potential perpetrators are among the majority, we as a people need to protect any potential victims. So, homosexuals should be protected from potential discrimination until such time that any potential perpetrators have been eliminated from our society.

Originally posted by Draco69
The word "ethnic" however refers to common history. A lineage so to speak.

The Irish for example. Common history. Common culture. Common accent/language. And more importantly that really makes my case: common LAND.

Ethnicity refers to a COUNTRY or a common AREA. Irish from Ireland. British from Britain. Italian from Italy.

Gays don't have a ancestral land. They come from all over the globe. Hell we may even have gay Eskimos.

LOL, I know what the word ethnic means.

But any group can be a minority, based on teh reaction of those around them to whatever characteristic they want to pick out.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In a perfect world we would not need any such thing as a minority status. But in this world there are those people who will hate and discriminate against others who are different. The problem with the idea of a minority status is it smacks of special rights. The focus should be place upon the potential perpetrators not the potential victims. However, this is also a perfect world idea and as long as the potential perpetrators are among the majority, we as a people need to protect any potential victims. So, homosexuals should be protected from potential discrimination until such time that any potential perpetrators have been eliminated from our society.

Well said. The only part I do not agree with, is that gays should never have special rights. It only severes to further their exemption from society, as a whole.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
LOL, I know what the word ethnic means.

But any group can be a minority, based on teh reaction of those around them to whatever characteristic they want to pick out.

A minority sure. But not an ETHNIC minority. That's complete in a league of its own.

Gays are a minority in the sense like that of left-handed people.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Well said. The only part I do not agree with, is that gays should never have special rights. It only severes to further their exemption from society, as a whole.

Any special right would exempt homosexuals from the common society and that would lead to resentment. I feel that no one should have special rights, but that all rights should be common and inclusive of the differences that made society strong. So, when I say, smacks of special rights, I mean to say that all homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal and should be afforded the same rights.

Originally posted by Draco69
A minority sure. But not an ETHNIC minority. That's complete in a league of its own.

Gays are a minority in the sense like that of left-handed people.

However left-handed people are not harmed or killed for being left-handed.

Well no, but cultures can change... Give it time.. It was accepted before its accepted in some country's the rest of the world will follow someday.. It might take some time though because well the rest of the world is filled with idiots. But its going to happen.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However left-handed people are not harmed or killed for being left-handed.

That'S not the point though.......he'S basically right...

Originally posted by Bardock42
That'S not the point though.......he'S basically right...

I don't understand.

Please explain...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However left-handed people are not harmed or killed for being left-handed.

They used to be. Back in medival times. Thought they were witchs.

And that's not my point.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't understand.

Please explain...

Simple. Gays are a minority. But not an ETHNIC minority.

Originally posted by Draco69
They used to be. Back in medival times. Thought they were witchs.

And that's not my point.

I'm sorry, I wasn't following your point, I haven't done any back reading because I'm on such a tight time table.

Originally posted by Draco69
A minority sure. But not an ETHNIC minority. That's complete in a league of its own.

Gays are a minority in the sense like that of left-handed people.

I have never said they were.

Have you been talking to Whirlysplatt?

Originally posted by Draco69
Simple. Gays are a minority. But not an ETHNIC minority.

Yes, that is true. They are a sexual orientation minority.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't understand.

Please explain...
Yes Homosexuals are discriminated more than Left-Handed people...but just looking at how it occurs the two things are similar....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes Homosexuals are discriminated more than Left-Handed people...but just looking at how it occurs the two things are similar....

Yes, there are a lot of similarities. Even if it isn't your fight, if we do not stand against discrimination, tomorrow it could be you that is discriminated against.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, there are a lot of similarities. Even if it isn't your fight, if we do not stand against discrimination, tomorrow it could be you that is discriminated against.

Not sure what you are aiming at....but yes Discrimination sucks.....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not sure what you are aiming at....but yes Discrimination sucks.....

It all depends on how you take the title of this thread. If you put height on the word ethnic, then I am off topic. But, if you put the height on the word minority, then you should see where I am going.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, there are a lot of similarities. Even if it isn't your fight, if we do not stand against discrimination, tomorrow it could be you that is discriminated against.
Who says he isn't?

We're all discriminated against, we can't help everyone.

I was discriminated against because I have a limp in my leg and am sortof homely. Guess what I was dubbed? Quasimodo..

Someone else discriminated against cause they were black..
Have red hair..
Were gay..
Were poor..
Were rich..
Were Republican..
Were Christian..
Were Muslim..
Were blind..

The list go's on and on..

You can't help everybody. And the left is destroying America by pouring large amounts of money into this stupid-ass project to "end discrimination" when you can't end it. Hate knows no bounds and doesn't follow logic or reasoning. The best thing to do is to move on, and use that money for better things.. Like healthcare, social security, free college programmings, things that would actually be USEFUL to society..

Instead of spending OUR money trying to stop people from not letting Hispanics into a campus.. (Which by the way Hispanics tend to get the sloppy seconds of any affirmative action project..)

maybe if you used that money to allow free college education, you wouldn't have to in the first place.. just a thought..

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on how you take the title of this thread. If you put height on the word ethnic, then I am off topic. But, if you put the height on the word minority, then you should see where I am going.

Well teh Thread is aboot neither...it'S a question if they are the same......

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well teh Thread is aboot neither...it'S a question if they are the same......

In my opinion, it's a bad question.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In my opinion, it's a bad question.

Well it came from Whirly...he's like a pro in making Bad Threads.

Originally posted by Spelljammer
Who says he isn't?

We're all discriminated against, we can't help everyone.

I was discriminated against because I have a limp in my leg and am sortof homely. Guess what I was dubbed? Quasimodo..

Someone else discriminated against cause they were black..
Have red hair..
Were gay..
Were poor..
Were rich..
Were Republican..
Were Christian..
Were Muslim..
Were blind..

The list go's on and on..

You can't help everybody. And the left is destroying America by pouring large amounts of money into this stupid-ass project to "end discrimination" when you can't end it. Hate knows no bounds and doesn't follow logic or reasoning. The best thing to do is to move on, and use that money for better things.. Like healthcare, social security, free college programmings, things that would actually be USEFUL to society..

Instead of spending OUR money trying to stop people from not letting Hispanics into a campus.. (Which by the way Hispanics tend to get the sloppy seconds of any affirmative action project..)

maybe if you used that money to allow free college education, you wouldn't have to in the first place.. just a thought..

Yes, throwing money at the problem will not work (never). I am for making consequences for peoples actions and enforcing penalties for wrong doing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, throwing money at the problem will not work (never). I am for making consequences for peoples actions and enforcing penalties for wrong doing.
I think that's kickass and tottaly agree with you that more force should be applied with laws.

However, you ARE aware it's only a matter of time before that backfires on us and then they go overboard with it? Remember, we as Americans have yet to know "moderation"..

Originally posted by Spelljammer
I think that's kickass and tottaly agree with you that more force should be applied with laws.

However, you ARE aware it's only a matter of time before that backfires on us and then they go overboard with it? Remember, we as Americans have yet to know "moderation"..

Balance is harder than we think. All things swing from one side to the next. But now we are off topic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well it came from Whirly...he's like a pro in making Bad Threads.


I think the question is a good one