i'm not sure that i am articulating my point well enough. Let me ask it like this. Why should one conform their beliefs in order to satifsfy the beliefs of another? In other words. If someone is comepletely against homosexuality, but is able to function with people of that way of life and perhaps even accepts those people as people but not their choices. Why should this be considered ignorant? I feel that in this world today, many gay people hate straight for the fact that they disagree with their way of life. I also see many straight people hate gay people for the same reasons. I see a co-existence going on today, but an underlying resenment, I dont understand why an understanding cant be made, maybe because we are on the threshold of a revolution for gay rights. Do you follow anything that i am saying? I am quite curious, and it is hard to have conversations like this with some of my gay friends without them being offended
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. But I think the point I was making was that average citizens are the biggest problem when it comes to the equality of gay people.
The first half of this statement contradicts the second half. If the "gay movement" is a result of political correctness, then how can the political correctness movement not include the gay movement?
As for political correctness and the battle to prevent it from overwhelming our little republic, it isn't conservative politicians or liberals that populate the two sides of the asile over this issue. That's a big load of horse shit that's been propogated by the media. Both parties and its members adhere to political correctness. Both sides are bound by the rules of political correctness.
And the gay movement is much older than political correctness.
If you could care less, then why are you even talking?
I also take exception to the term "lifestyle". My lifestyle is no different than yours. I walk on two legs. I have sex. I'd like kids. I have bills to pay. I have a favorite television show. I read from left to right. This term "lifestyle" is bullshit. It's one of those terms made up by your conservative and liberal politicians to describe a single difference between you and I. I sleep with men and you sleep with women. There's no real difference between us, or any of the other members of this forum. We get up, we go to school or work, we earn a little money to pay the bills so we can keep the power on and post on KMC. This entire debate, and the one about gay parades, is really just feeding the reality that we're seperated by a word like "lifestyle" when there really isn't any difference between us.
The key word in all of this is citizen. Because this imaginary straight citizen who doesn't care spends a lot of time caring about what I do with my dick. And I have said many times that the most insidious faction of the anti gay movement is the "average, peaceful" citizen. I know where I stand with a guy who calls me a f@g to my face (thanks Feceman) I have no idea what the man who smiles on the outside and hates on the inside is going to do. I can't even figure out which one hates me the most. You seem to think that it's the right of any majority of American citizens to cast their vote for equality. But that's an interesting scare tactic for teh government. A subject like gay rights gives one group of citizens the power to decide how another will live. That's not a right guarenteed by the constitution.
I'd also challenge you to come up with an example of ANY way my equal rights have an impact on the rights of a straight couple.
Again, I don't understand how the political correctness movement does and does not serve the gay movement at the same time.
But, I'm fine with what happened. If they'd been discussing a black person, hypothetical or otherwise, the same would have happened. Would you consider that black people getting all upity? Your friend deserved to loose his job if he was making slanderous remarks. The difference between the gay guy you're talking about and myself is that I would have handled it personally. I wouldn't have gotten the guy fired by tattling on him. I'd have walked over to them and asked them why they feel the way they do.
As for offending people, what's more dangerous? A man dressed as a woman, or a man who stands behind a podium and screams about how gays are destroying America?
Why should gay people suffer?
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
[QUOTE=8565086]Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. But I think the point I was making was that average citizens are the biggest problem when it comes to the equality of gay people.
The first half of this statement contradicts the second half. If the "gay movement" is a result of political correctness, then how can the political correctness movement [B]not include the gay movement?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
you dont think the gay movement is included in the political correctness that seems to be transforming our country today? I know they are both two different things, but i believe they are one of the same. When people have to watch their tongue because it may offend another, catagorize that as political correctness. I am not talking about hateful remarks, but it seems quite like smoking,obesity, religous people and people against gay marraige are being catagorized into a sterotype of negative connotation, headed by a liberal point of view.
As for political correctness and the battle to prevent it from overwhelming our little republic, it isn't conservative politicians or liberals that populate the two sides of the asile over this issue. That's a big load of horse shit that's been propogated by the media. Both parties and its members adhere to political correctness. Both sides are bound by the rules of political correctness.
And the gay movement is much older than political correctness.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
That is obvious, but i think when society is influenced by political correctness you have a more socialistic country than a free republic that is influenced by a constitution of freedom.
If you could care less, then why are you even talking?
I also take exception to the term "lifestyle". My lifestyle is no different than yours. I walk on two legs. I have sex. I'd like kids. I have bills to pay. I have a favorite television show. I read from left to right. This term "lifestyle" is bullshit. It's one of those terms made up by your conservative and liberal politicians to describe a single difference between you and I. I sleep with men and you sleep with women. There's no real difference between us, or any of the other members of this forum. We get up, we go to school or work, we earn a little money to pay the bills so we can keep the power on and post on KMC. This entire debate, and the one about gay parades, is really just feeding the reality that we're seperated by a word like "lifestyle" when there really isn't any difference between us.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I guess you have severly mis understood me. I could care less about a persons sexuality, but i care about the world and often try to look at it and the current topics in a unbiased perspective. Thus i often try to change my perception to fit the views of another, even if it is alien to my personality and beliefs. Is this not how we grow as human beings?
The key word in all of this is citizen. Because this imaginary straight citizen who doesn't care spends a lot of time caring about what I do with my dick. And I have said many times that the most insidious faction of the anti gay movement is the "average, peaceful" citizen. I know where I stand with a guy who calls me a f@g to my face (thanks Feceman) I have no idea what the man who smiles on the outside and hates on the inside is going to do. I can't even figure out which one hates me the most. You seem to think that it's the right of any majority of American citizens to cast their vote for equality. But that's an interesting scare tactic for teh government. A subject like gay rights gives one group of citizens the power to decide how another will live. That's not a right guarenteed by the constitution.
I'd also challenge you to come up with an example of ANY way my equal rights have an impact on the rights of a straight couple.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
So in other words, you beleive there are only two types of people when it comes to the gay movement. Those who dont care and in doing so support it, or those who are against it whether they make themselves known or not? If this is the case, Then you are of the personal perspective that leaves me bewildered. I know many people who comepletly disagree with the gay way of life, but still accept the person as a person and can even befriend them. I guess these are people who dont look at homosexuality as a threat, but believe that gay marraige effects there vision that is America. I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I am just wandering why this has such an impact in the gay nation. I see it only causing enemies that could other wise be firends
Personally i dont think gay people having the right to get married effects my rights, but i can understand how it may efefct a persons view of their country, and is it not still their freedom to make their voices known as a vote?
Again, I don't understand how the political correctness movement does and does not serve the gay movement at the same time.
But, I'm fine with what happened. If they'd been discussing a black person, hypothetical or otherwise, the same would have happened. Would you consider that black people getting all upity? Your friend deserved to loose his job if he was making slanderous remarks. The difference between the gay guy you're talking about and myself is that I would have handled it personally. I wouldn't have gotten the guy fired by tattling on him. I'd have walked over to them and asked them why they feel the way they do.
As for offending people, what's more dangerous? A man dressed as a woman, or a man who stands behind a podium and screams about how gays are destroying America?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The political correctness movement does infact do both, atleast i believe, assist and hurt the gay movement. Because we are on the threshold of accepting political correctness as a way of life we are are a country in turmoil and contradiction. I just fear that that when the changeover is finally comeplete, when the younger generations who are being taught that political correctness is the future come into power. Much of the freedoms we enjoy today will be non existant. this is however, getting far away from the subject.
My friend who lost his job is not a person of the sladerous personality, he was merely conversing with his co-worker about topical issues which include gay marraige. It was becuse of the integration of political correctness that he was unable to defend himself, the gay persons complaint was immediately acepted as being more relevant that the actual scenario that took place.
As far as who is more dangerous, a tranny or an insane politicion driven by inner spite. Well that question is easy. the politician. However, i believe there are politicions out there who make there views on gay marraige known in an understanding and accepting way.
I guess what i am ultimately trying to say. Why do you think that i cant both, be against gay marraige but still be able to accept a gay person for who they are. I know it sounds like a contradiction, but there are many many people out there like that. I just think our inability as people to calmy debate causes hatred to brew. Are there not contradictions in everything if you look hard enough? America is one big contradiction. I'm sorry if i offended you by calling your way of life a lifestyle. I just assumed homosexuality was apart of your lifestlye, and since we both know we are talking about homosexuality i thought that was apparent. I know you must be defensive when it comes to this subject due to the alienation you must have endured through out life, but what did i say that made you think you needed to point that out? Did i form my statements in an offensive way? hope i was articulate enough in my remarks, it;s been a long day, and i do like debating issues of this nature. Helps me grasp an understanding of people. again sorry if you felt you needed to defend yourself
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
Last edited by jinXed by JaNx on Mar 17th, 2007 at 12:21 AM
dammit... sorry about the above post. i am trying to re-introduce myself to the computer and have comepletly forgotten how to double quote in one post. hope its not to incomprhensible.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
No one has the right to make decisions affecting the rights of others. The rights of a minority are not up for a popular vote. The right of straight people to preserve their view of marriage is not greater than the right of gay people to equal treatment under the law.
For the same reason one cannot accept black people, but feel that they should sit in the back of the bus and use separate drinking fountains.
Because I believe that there must always be social problems--or, at least, the perception of social problems--so that some members of society will have something to fight for, a reason to better ourselves: most will spew self-righteous polemic, others will (attempt to) engage in civil discussion, some will petition and march and protest, and a few--so very few, those who would die for their cause--will actually take up the good fight and do what is right, just, and good, sacrificing part of themselves in the process.
__________________ Ask me about my "obvious and unpleasant agenda of hatred."
[QUOTE=8566222]Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[B]No one has the right to make decisions affecting the rights of others.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Except those who make the laws, and those who make the laws can break the laws. the beliefs of the majority usually sway the decions made from people in power. Atleast in a democracy.
I dont know how you can use this analogy. you have never disagreed with an indivduals choice or way of life, but were still able to look past that and see them for a person and accepted that person even though you may not agree with their decesions or way of life? If not i must be the only person with this super ability.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
Makes sense, but the gays wouldn't really touch the heterosexuals. That's called Sexual Harrassment, and is not looked down upon kindly by most laws and governments.
__________________
"Today was good. Today was fun. Tomorrow is another one." -Dr. Seuss
But why do these desires to fight something have to be focused on social issues? You would think that a war or some other cause would be able to ignite people.
Besides, youre neglecting something. Just because people have the perception of social problems, doesn't mean social problems actually exist. Therefore its not so much the problem (racism, homophobia) that is the essential institution in society, but the perception of social problems that people need.
The United States is not a tyranny of the majority. A fundamental principle of this system of government is that while the majority may rule, the rights of the minoritiy are protected.
You cannot accept someone, and feel that they should be treated fundamentally unequally, e.g. "I accept gays, they just should not have the same rights to adoption, employment, housing, and marriage as straight people."
KMC Community Forums
Mar 16th, 2007 05:33 PM
Makes sense, but the gays wouldn't really touch the heterosexuals. That's called Sexual Harrassment, and is not looked down upon kindly by most laws and governments.
