Originally posted by lil bitchiness
But Qu'ran speaks of it! shock
Then that book is EVIL, I say. EVIIIIIIIIILLLLL!
Originally posted by MildPossession
Probably. I just find it amusing when I hear some men going on hardcore about how gay men are wrong and sick, yet when Lesbians are mentioned, they have noooooooooooo problem with that...
I don't have a secular problem with either. And I know exactly what you're talking about. It's always hate on the males.
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i wasnt being serious by the by. 😗
Oh, I know. That's why it's funny.
Everyone deserves equal protection and opportunity. gays were more accepted by society and seen as something less than a clownish novelty on retarded tv shows like will and grace (then again, this holds true for all races, orientations, and cultures), no one would give a shit about these differences anyway.
Plus, if gay men were more accepted, maybe anal wouldn't be so feared and stigmatized which would make a hell of a lot of straight men (and maybe their girlfriends) very happy.
Originally posted by dadudemonthat says more about women then it does about gays
Dude, do you ever talk to girls? If you did, you'd realize that there's a shit load of gay guys they find attractive.The type of homosexual male you describe is extremely rare...and it doesn't quite happen that way, either.
😆
Well played.
also, gays should be treated lower than japs but just above jews
If gays are unhappy about oppression they should just go somewhere else. Since they don't do that they must be happy with the way things are.
~Sado
Originally posted by Sado22
i have a problem with this kind of thinking. just picking up your stuff and moving away is not dealing with the situation and isn't the kind of stance people should take either. NOTHING is solved this way. this kind of stance as a solution is, no offense, put forward by people refusing to change.~Sado
No, it does solve something.
If the person or people up and move to a place that gives them the freedom they want, be it social or lawful, then why shouldn't moving be considered a viable choice? It's a very easy choice. They can still fight for change, be it changing the minds of stupid close minded people who use God to oppress at every opportunity (lots of those people live in Oklahoma. 😐 ), or getting the laws changed, they can still do it abroad. The internet knows no bounds.
Isn't the information age wonderful? 🙂
but implies that it is the responsibility of the victim to avoid being oppressed and not the responsibility of the state not to oppress people
it is basically dismissing the oppressive actions and putting the onus on the victim. Fleeing is an option, but it certainly doesn't change anything, and expecting people to flee, is, blaming the victim.
Originally posted by inimalist
but implies that it is the responsibility of the victim to avoid being oppressed and not the responsibility of the state not to oppress people
You're missing the part about trying to create a social or lawful change in my post.
You're preaching to the choir.
And, if I were gay, you better damn well believe I'd move out of Oklahoma. How is that wrong? Why are you looking down on that decision?
It's far easier to leave into a better environment than it is to create a change.
Originally posted by inimalist
it is basically dismissing the oppressive actions and putting the onus on the victim. Fleeing is an option, but it certainly doesn't change anything, and expecting people to flee, is, blaming the victim.
I feel like you're responding to the wrong person.
Fleeing is a great option and one that has been used by humans since...we've existed.
Is it really bad to "flee" and fight for change from afar? What's wrong with wanting freedom and change at the same time? It's as if you think fleeing is too cowardly and a poor choice. Why would you scorn one who flees oppression? If the option to go to a much better place exits, why wouldn't one take it?
If that person wants to change how things were in their oppressed location, what's wrong with doing it from afar? Not everyone likes to get beat up and/or killed, you know.
And, still, where does it state or imply in my post that the oppressive actions can be dismissed? It doesn't. In fact, it says the opposite.
Don't paint me with a tag that I don't have.
Let's do a reversal:
You would rather the oppressed stay where they are and fight, instead of them taking the option of a better life somewhere else? Isn't that unreasonable? Why should they have to fight for it? Not everyone is a fighter. On top of that, why can't the person "fight" from a safer location? Don't you think what you're implying is slightly unreasonable? Not everyone thinks as inimalist does. This is why fleeing reamins a viable option for some. If everyone thought as inimalist did, then there wouldn't be oppression in the first place. Agreed?