Pride NYC

[Baboinga]

Originally Posted by Mike

If it is not made a public affair, then nobody will ever be judged by that sexuality--at least, today.

What the fuck? This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.
I've been trying to be polite in my responses thus far, but really, I can't even respond to this legibly, because your entire post is bullshit. There is a huge amount of discrimination against gays throughout Canada and the US. If gays didn't have parades, it wouldn't be "Oh, I met a gay guy at work today, what a nice fella" it would be "I met one of those sick fucking AIDS bearers at work, I hope he doesn't talk to me by the watercooler."
It is necessary to have parades and such to show the population, as I said before. You can't just pretend that discrimination doesn't exist because you'd rather there not be a gay pride parade. You're an idiot. Seriously.

I think that we've made great strides in moving society towards an ideal of sameness between homosexuals and heterosexuals, because they're at root the same thing...

Gays can't even get married. Why? Because it's "against" christianity, seems to be the unspoken truth, and christianity is so engulfed in our politics and societal structure that for some reason people continue to support the idea of not letting gays marry or adopt children because of this archaic state. The church is supposed to be separated from the state, but it's not. ATHEISTS can get married, but gays can't? WTF is that? And in a lot of places (mostly rurall, where they have little exposure to gays) the majority opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry because marriage is some sacred thing that they think their religion invented, which is bullshit anyway. The union between two people came waaaaaaaaay before Catholics made it into what they did.
Whatever, the point is, that gays are actively discriminated against, and we have taken strides, sure, but we are FAR from having homosexuals being accepted as actively as heterosexuals. The idea of having a heterosexual pride parade is stupid BECAUSE every fucking day for straight people is a pride parade. People openly walk down the street hand in hand, on posters, in advertisements, commercials, books, magazines, everything is straight this and straight that. The cliche story is "boy meets girl" or "adam and eve" or whatever else you want to see it as. When is the last time you saw a mainstream movie that's main characters involve a gay or lesbian couple? I can barely think of any ever. Oh, Kissing Jessica Stein, but she turned out straight in the end. That's a GREAT message.

Anyway, the point is, straight people don't deserve a parade for being straight, because they don't live in a society that stifles their sexuality.

the very society that they are actively seeking to see them as something different from everybody else.

............................
Gay people have sex with the same gender, and they have their own culture. It's something to be proud of. As a society we should celebrate our similarities and our differences. It's like Quebec in Canada, some people think they should just fall in line and stop bitching about losing their culture and being so bitchy about everything. I don't mind that Quebec is like that, because they're the only province left that actively stays bilingual. I'd rather them have their own culture and the rest of Canada have our culture and each learn from each other, than force them to be more like the rest of Canada which way Anglo.

[heX]

Originally Posted by Baboinga

Gays can't even get married. Why? Because it's "against" christianity, seems to be the unspoken truth, and christianity is so engulfed in our politics and societal structure that for some reason people continue to support the idea of not letting gays marry or adopt children because of this archaic state.

Originally Posted by Baboinga

The union between two people came waaaaaaaaay before Catholics made it into what they did

Christians or catholics? two different things you can call yourself Christian but not catholic.

new thought:

id love to see one example of a union of a man and a woman that takes place before two believers in God did it.

if you are a Christian you believe in the creation of the world with Adam and Eve. If you're not a Christian looking at history there has always been a belief in a god, the oldest recorded documents showing the Jewish church who believed in a sacred union of a man and a woman referred to as a marriage. marriage was formed by the church like it or not. do i think people just hooked up with out being married back then, well yeah. was that refereed to as a holy union of two people? well no. as far as what we call marriage today, it came down right through the Jewish church. it is a tradition from the church that is believed to be a commandment of God. so if you don't believe in God then why would you wanna follow his commandments? you are letting yourself be manipulated by the church if you feel it is that important to be married.

Is it a matter of expectance by the rest of the world? You want everyone to validate your feelings for your girl/boy as being equal to there feelings for there wife/husband? Thats fine but marriage is something that comes from the church. The problem here is that the state is interfering with the church. The church, not the state is what kept records and preformed marriages. Looking at the history of the world it is fairly a new thing that the state is the one in charge of marriages. For example i have a family tree dated back to the 1700s starting 3 generations into Germany directly to me that my family has been working on for a while. the records of marriage are not found in the German governments vaults, but in the Lutheran church's books. Marriage is the creation of the church from a atheists point of view, and a creation of God from a Christians point of view. If you are gay and consider yourself Christian and feel you should be married then this would be a completely different argument. As far as Atheists being married goes, that also came around after marriage was taken over by the state in the church they would not preform marriages unless the two people would at least fake there beliefs. By todays standards of what marriage is, fuck it let gay people get married no one even takes marriage seriously for what it was intended.


edit: not to play my best friends are gay card.. but my best friend at work is gay, i have nothing but respect for him and love hanging out with him. even was about to go to the gay pride parade with him.

[Plain Old Jane]

marriage, before it was called that, was an advent of sultans and prussian princes who kept a menagerie of women that wouldnt sleep with anyone else, as a matter of protection against disease that spread easily through the hetero and homo sexual peasents as there was no marriage. (fun factoid: the rulers also HIRED castrato men to guard their palaces. No sex, but room, board, and respect (maybe) maybe that was a big deal back then.)

Marriage was made out of nessesity before public sex education was invented, out of fear, not for love or anything. And with the spread of aids through the homosexual community, that kind of protection is just what homosexual people need right now.

Its not strictly christian, it wasnt made by believers or god, its not only between a man and a woman, its now a bond of love, and you can better fucking believe there was horny have mores before there was the advent of god, morals, and whats in the good book.

hex, that thin line between church and state is ALSO a new thing, so just because there arent records doesnt mean thats how it has ALWAYS been.

in conclusion, Marriage was never an advent of god or the church, just of horny (hetero and homo sexual) males who were in charge and didnt want their royal dick to fall off with the syph.

[heX]

Originally Posted by Plain Old Jane

marriage, before it was called that, was an advent of sultans and prussian princes who kept a menagerie of women that wouldnt sleep with anyone else, as a matter of protection against disease that spread easily through the hetero and homo sexual peasents as there was no marriage. (fun factoid: the rulers also HIRED castrato men to guard their palaces. No sex, but room, board, and respect (maybe) maybe that was a big deal back then.)

Marriage was made out of nessesity before public sex education was invented, out of fear, not for love or anything. And with the spread of aids through the homosexual community, that kind of protection is just what homosexual people need right now.

Its not strictly christian, it wasnt made by believers or god, its not only between a man and a woman, its now a bond of love, and you can better fucking believe there was horny have mores before there was the advent of god, morals, and whats in the good book.

hex, that thin line between church and state is ALSO a new thing, so just because there arent records doesnt mean thats how it has ALWAYS been.

in conclusion, Marriage was never an advent of god or the church, just of horny (hetero and homo sexual) males who were in charge and didnt want their royal dick to fall off with the syph.

omg your talking out of your ass jep. tell you what you show me the first doccumented marriage you can find that wasnt done by the spiritual leaders of the time and ill show you where you made something up or didnt do enough research.

"Marriage was made out of nessesity before public sex education was invented, out of fear, not for love or anything. And with the spread of aids through the homosexual community, that kind of protection is just what homosexual people need right now. "

since aids didnt come around untill after the vaccine for polio was developed are you implying marraige came after that? furthermore what are you even basing thats what marriage was intended for? you are just saying what seems to make sense in your head nothing that you know to be fact.

[Plain Old Jane]

omg, I'm not playing this game anymore hex, you provide evidence that marriage was created by the almighty, and I'll gladly go scour the earth for evidence that your a stupid prick who should learn to listen to logic and not the priest that touched you when you were little... i mean, evidence that proves my point.

::has a migraine::

[Plain Old Jane]

::and is going to go play some Xenosaga::

[heX]

Originally Posted by Plain Old Jane

omg, I'm not playing this game anymore hex, you provide evidence that marriage was created by the almighty, and I'll gladly go scour the earth for evidence that your a stupid prick who should learn to listen to logic and not the priest that touched you when you were little... i mean, evidence that proves my point.

::has a migraine::

ok thats fine i will show you a documented marriage by the church that took place before your sultan marriage. can you provide me a date to work with or is that too hard considering you have no date.you were too busy once again confusing the catholic church with Christianity with the priest comment to do any real research before your reply.

edit: i said marriage was created by God from a Christian stand point. so unless you are saying you are a Christian im not trying to prove it was created by God to you. I'm trying to prove it was done by the church to you.

edit edit : you know what never mind. i can already see where this going, like mike said. ill make a point then you'll regurgitate the same jep bitchness spouting up random facts that never quite make a point, that would help your argument. then take a couple cheap shots at the catholic church (which im not catholic or belong to any organized religion with a chain of command). then you would feel happy with yourself that you got to spit out your random factoid about marriage that doesnt fit the same time period as to what i was reffering. then think it was cool that maybe not everyone here already knew about it and feel you put me in my place with out ever really proving me wrong. so jep go fuck a girl and call your self a lesbian because you've never made sense to me so just give up on it. no matter how hard you try you are a attention deprived 6 year old boy wishing mommy and daddy loved you in my eyes.

[malta]

"::and is going to go play some Xenosaga::"

HOT. I just started playing.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Baboinga

What the fuck? This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.
I've been trying to be polite in my responses thus far, but really, I can't even respond to this legibly, because your entire post is bullshit. There is a huge amount of discrimination against gays throughout Canada and the US. If gays didn't have parades, it wouldn't be "Oh, I met a gay guy at work today, what a nice fella" it would be "I met one of those sick fucking AIDS bearers at work, I hope he doesn't talk to me by the watercooler."
It is necessary to have parades and such to show the population, as I said before. You can't just pretend that discrimination doesn't exist because you'd rather there not be a gay pride parade. You're an idiot. Seriously.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. I'm glad that you can make a comment saying that without Gay Pride parades people would say "I met one of those sick fucking AIDs bearers..." and then call me the idiot. Please, you just made a comparison between being Gay and having Cancer. Maybe you didn't notice this but Cancer is a DISEASE. Now, would you like to make the argument that being a homosexual is a disease? You were so blatantly off balance with that argument that I let it die because it was so weak. You're comparing being a homosexual to having a life threatening illness. Sorry, but last I checked, when you find people of the same sex attractive, it doesn't kill you. Maybe I don't understand homosexuality. Or maybe you're making an argument that if you like somebody of the same sex, then you get a terminal illness, like AIDs. Sorry, but I'm not going to pass that judgement. Repeating your point that it is "necessary to have parades to show that Gay people exist" does not make it right. Everybody knows that Gay people exist, except for apparently, your mother. THough, I suppose that your mother is an accurate model for the millions of people that live in North America. That's a rather boistrous assumption, don't you think? "My mother didn't believe that she would know a gay person, therefore the 296 Million people in America and 32 million people in Canada (actually, 31,999,999 ... because you, I suppose, know that gay people exist) must think the exact same way as this one woman." See, the world has changed... and it has not changed because Gay people have had parades. IF that were the case then nobody would accept any minority unless they have a parade. I am polish, I have never been to a Polish parade. Poles are an ethnic minority in this country, I am generally accepted as a Polish person. The same goes for pretty much every group in the country.

Most Americans could really give two shits about what two people do in their house, especially in the last 15 years. THe courts have ruled that nobody really gives a shit about what two people do in their house; law makers have made laws that nobody really gives a shit about what two people do in their house... Pretty much nobody gives a fucking shit about what people do in their house. A person having a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex IS homosexuality... by definition, by interpretation. VERY few people care about one person having a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex. QUID PRO QUO VERY FEW people care about homosexuals. However, those who do care don't care about homosexuals, they care about pricks who over step the bounds of what they can do in public, or what is generally acceptable in public. These people who overstep the bounds are not "what is Homosexuality." Homosexuality is the definition provided ... NOT individual people wearing thongs and riding rollerskates. When parades for Homosexuals are known more by the people in clown suits dancing with half naked men ... The Parades CHANGE from being something celebrating homosexuality to being something that celebrates a ridiculous carelessness for social decency.

(I'm going to speak on behalf of the United States, because I'm from the US, not Canada, and I'm not going to defend Canada.)

Gays can't even get married. Why? Because it's "against" christianity, seems to be the unspoken truth, and christianity is so engulfed in our politics and societal structure that for some reason people continue to support the idea of not letting gays marry or adopt children because of this archaic state.

Wait a second .. Gays can't adopt children!? Holy shit, that's news... especially considering that I have three cousins who were adopted by two homosexual women more than 20 years ago. And they also have friends who have adopted children ... whom I happen to know on very personal relationships. They do exist. I guess I'm going to have to call DSS and the police on them for actively breaking the law ... Or maybe you're just misinformed. Probably the latter.

The church is supposed to be separated from the state, but it's not. ATHEISTS can get married, but gays can't? WTF is that? And in a lot of places (mostly rurall, where they have little exposure to gays) the majority opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry because marriage is some sacred thing that they think their religion invented, which is bullshit anyway. The union between two people came waaaaaaaaay before Catholics made it into what they did.

Your knowledge of constitutional law, basic politics, and Christianity is lacking. Find the clause in the US Constitution that says that the Church is supposed to be separated from the state. You're not going to find it. Why? Because it isn't there. Regarding religion, the courts consider the establishment clause and the free exercize clause.. neither of which explicitly call for a separation of CHurch and state, because those who wrote the Constitution KNEW that politicians were people and that they had religious convictions that inform their philosophy ... just like how you have convictions that inform your philosophy (and how I have convictions that inform my philosophy. Like your idea that the state is somehow archaic, that there is an explicit separation in the Constitution, and that homosexuality is a flamboyant, flagrant, and boistrous display of social indecency ... all convictions that inform your philosophy).

The sentence that begins "The majority opinion is that..." is the clearest example that you have absolutely no idea what is going on in the world and what other people think. I guess the only way to begin a response to that sort of point is, "No." Christians and Catholics do not think that they invented marriage. WHat is the most obvious example of this? The book that generally governs the moral choices of CHristians and Catholics is the Bible. The Bible has a collection of pages called "THe Old Testament." The Old Testament is a collection of predominantly Jewish texts about Jewish people, many of whom got married. Now, there would be quite the incongruency for Christians to claim that they invented marriage when marriage is mentioned ad nauseam in a collection of chapters about people who are not Christians. Rather than making up what you think Christians, Catholics, and those against Gay Marriage believe ... and then justifying your opinion on that make-believe universe, why don't you justify your beliefs on what people actually believe. WHat most will tell you isn't that marriage is something made up by Christians or Catholics, or even Jews, but rather, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman... per definition. This has been the case in American culture for about 400 years, it was informed by Western philosophy, which also shares some roots in Western religion (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism; predominantly). So the "majority" who are opposed to Gay marriage do not think that way because it discriminates against homosexuals, because it doesn't. It'd be like a rock with absolutely no aerodynamics wanting to fly by its own power. Nature is not discriminating against that rock; nature has defined flying and defined what that rock is. PEOPLE have defined marriage and what marriage is.. and homosexuals want to do something that is NOT marriage. If Marriage is the union between and man and a woman, and homosexuals do not want to have a union with a man or a woman, then they do not want marriage... they want something else. And it is entirely up to their chosing how they want to handle that, what they want to call it, and what the definition of it is. Hence, marriage is not a right. You mentioned Atheists being able to get married, and this proves my point. Well, it proves two points. One of them is that you're basing your justifications off of misinterpretations of what other people believe ... and then accosting them for your own misunderstanding. Secondly, it proves that Christians and Catholics don't believe that marriage was invented by their religion and for the sole use of their religion ... or else, they would not allow Atheists to get married.

If you want to talk about rights--then I am probably in complete agreement with you. I thought, 10 years ago, when I began to venture into politics, culture, and society, that homosexuals should be granted the same rights as heterosexuals, and within the last 10 years, this has happened... to the point that nearly all medical facilities recognize a legitimate homosexual partner, nearly all insurrance companies recognize homosexual partners, and most states will grant the same the same opportunities to homosexuals partners, pending application. I bolded "legitimate" because just like heterosexuals, a medical facility can use their discression when allowing people to visit patients... and this is because there are so many people, both homosexual and heterosexual, with flanderous, dangerous sex lives. They turn people away as actively with heterosexuals as they do homosexuals, and even married spouses.

(cont)

[Mike]

==THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE PREVIOS POST==

Originally Posted by Baboinga

Whatever, the point is, that gays are actively discriminated against, and we have taken strides, sure, but we are FAR from having homosexuals being accepted as actively as heterosexuals. The idea of having a heterosexual pride parade is stupid BECAUSE every fucking day for straight people is a pride parade. People openly walk down the street hand in hand, on posters, in advertisements, commercials, books, magazines, everything is straight this and straight that. The cliche story is "boy meets girl" or "adam and eve" or whatever else you want to see it as. When is the last time you saw a mainstream movie that's main characters involve a gay or lesbian couple? I can barely think of any ever. Oh, Kissing Jessica Stein, but she turned out straight in the end. That's a GREAT message.

Well, I guess you can ignore all of my mention that I am not in favor of a heterosexual pride parade... but really, that's irrelevent. The reason "everything" is "Straight this" and "straight that" is because the majority of the population is heterosexual, so if you want your advertising to appeal to the majority of people, you market it towards them. Advertisings generally show adults or people over the age of 16 in their advertisements ... should this all change? Should we show babies and three year olds using iPods, instead of people in their 20's? When somebody is driving a car in a commercial, should that person be a 9 year old, instead of an adult? NO, because the majority of car drivers are adults and the majority of people using iPods are in their later teens, 20s, and 30s... Just like the majority of people in America are heterosexual. Take for instance a commercial about Diamonds ... like the DeBeer's commercials... they show a black and white background with what is obviously a man and a woman sharing that diamond. Is this an active display of heterosexuality? No. Did the producers of that commercial purposely put a man and a woman in the ad? YES! Because heterosexual men are their primary target audience... the majority of their sales are to heterosexual men, so it only makes sense to advertise with heterosexual men in mind. This is not pushing the Heterosexual agenda, it is smart advertising.

Television and movies, however, are quite different. THe homosexuals are usually the most active characters ... for some reason, people can make careers out of being homosexual and being on TV. This doesn't bother me, because it's marketed well. One of the most popular shows in America is "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," I don't really watch it, but I think it's a funny show and the hosts are pretty crazy, and it is entertaining. Ellen DeGeneres has a talk show because she is a Lesbian... Now, it also happens that the show is a pretty good show, but there would be no interest if she wasn't a lesbian. Proof of this is that you can find 100s of other shows, throughout history, that have had leading female roles... when those shows have ended, the female roles rarely have had their own television talk shows. Nearly every new sitcom on network television tried to work the "Gay angle" into their stories, because homosexuality in television sells and it makes interest. People like to watch those shows. And the shows that have elements of homosexuality in them have those elements emphasized... those characters and story lines are typified by their homosexuality. You'd be hard pressed to find a Gay character in a television show where the essence of what that character is, is not a Homosexual man. However, I can go through every show and list the heterosexual characters where their sexuality, throughout every episode and every season, is barely mentioned.

Anyway, the point is, straight people don't deserve a parade for being straight, because they don't live in a society that stifles their sexuality.

I have mentioned already that I was never in favor of a straight parade. You're thinking that I am so that you can base your argument on this idea. I'm not. Your argument is baseless.

Like I said above, nobody could care less about the sexuality of any random person. People can do whatever they want in their homes when it comes to sexuality. Even outside of the home, people aren't as stifling as you may think. It is not uncommon to see two men walking down the street holding hands, or two women who are involved sitting in a park together. With the exception of obtuse old people, nobody has a problem with that. If I saw two men making out in a park, I'd probably have a problem with that, but that's also because I'd have a problem seeing a man and a woman make out in a park... It's neither the time nor the place for either.

Sexuality is not the clothes you wear, the way you talk, or the way you present yourself. It is your sexual attraction. Very few people care about anybody else's sexual attraction enough to actively seek to discriminate against them.

...........................
Gay people have sex with the same gender, and they have their own culture. It's something to be proud of. As a society we should celebrate our similarities and our differences. It's like Quebec in Canada, some people think they should just fall in line and stop bitching about losing their culture and being so bitchy about everything. I don't mind that Quebec is like that, because they're the only province left that actively stays bilingual. I'd rather them have their own culture and the rest of Canada have our culture and each learn from each other, than force them to be more like the rest of Canada which way Anglo.

"Gay people have sex with the same gender." That's a stupid sentence. It is impossible to have sex with a gender because, as anybody who has ever taken any course on sociology knows, gender is not in the essence of an individual, where as sexuality is. My sex is that I am male... I happen to assume the gender roles of a male (for a number of reasons). I could have sex with somebody who takes the same gender roles as I do, and that does not make me a homosexual. There are many women who have, for whatever reason, assumed the gender roles of a man ... or "do male gender"... if I, as a male, had sex with a female who had assumed the gender roles of a man, I would not be committing an act of homosexuality.

"It's something to be proud of. As a society we should celebrate our similarities and our differences."

This is just a difference of opinion between you and I. I do not see my sexual preference as something to be necessarily proud of because in and of itself, it doesn't exist. While it can be good to celebrate similarities and differences, with that celebration comes resentment ... If I celebrate how great a basktball player I am (though I am not), somebody who is not a great basketball player may resent me celebrating it. Me celebrating does not change the type of basketball player I am, and the type of basketball player I am does not cause resentment. The active celebration causes resentment.

Now, as you began this post, you mentioned that you were trying to be polite. Frankly, I don't care if you're polite or impolite, but I'd rather you have a concernl to facts, the philosophy of others, and of the issue at hand. If you want to say that you can have intercourse with a gender; If you want to use Christianity and Catholicism as the same thing; If you want to say that Homosexuals cannot adopt children; If you want to think that the separation of Church and State is explicit in the Constitution; And if you want to believe that marketing to heterosexuals is anything more than smart business ... Then you can. You'll be wrong. You'll look stupid. But you can.

You'll also free to call me an idiot, but maybe if you studied some of the things you're talking about, you'd rethink that word choice.

[Mike]

BTW -- Hex and I may agree on ends, but we probably do not agree on means. Don't take his arguments for mine.

[Baboinga]

I didn't compare aids to being gay, I compared the VICTIMIZATION and MINORITY values of the two. I'm not saying one is like the other in all ways, I'm saying that they have similarities. If you can't understand simply that, then I can't argue anything with you. You simply take whatever you want to read out of what I'm writing, and it's not worth it to bother. It's like you're a horse with blinders on to whatever the person is trying to say, and you only see what you prefer to see, or read it how you would like to. Have you never heard somebody compare something before? It's like someone saying "Jean jackets are so ugly, I like jeans as pants, though," and you're like "WTF FUCKER? Jeans go on your LEGS, idiot, they are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS". I'm not saying one is the other, far from, I'm not saying being gay is like having a disease, why the fuck would I ever even imply that?

Like your idea that the state is somehow archaic, that there is an explicit separation in the Constitution, and that homosexuality is a flamboyant, flagrant, and boistrous display of social indecency ...

wtf, can you read? I believe none of those things except that the integration of specifically christian beliefs (which is discriminatory in cases to people who either don't believe in God, or who aren't christian) into the legal system is archaic.
As far as the AIDS bearer comment is concerned, I'm glad you live in your little bubble of righteousness, but in the real world there is discrimination, and people believe ridiculous shit like that. (note things like this site: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=77 ) I'm not quoting something I saw on a talk show, I've seen it in real life. In some cases, I've experienced it. People claiming that gay people are pedophiles, or people who claim to be "non-bias" but will still state bullshit statistics as though they are fact, ie: "Gay people are fine in my book, but it's a fact that when they raise children, the children are more likely to be gay". If there is a modicum of truth in this, it would be that the children are in a more open environment, so they would be more likely to come out of the closet; which is an entirely different context and still renders the original statement untrue. The point is, there is a stupidly large percentage of people who are bias, whether they believe so or not. You can laugh at me saying something about people thinking that all gays have aids, but in places, that's what the stereotype is, and there's simply no one there to dissuade them.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf (table five, bias motivation; for 2003 three the number of hate crimes for sexuality is approximately the same as the number of anti-religious crimes, literally... give or take ten) (if for some reason it doesn't open, 1430 anti sexuality hate crimes, subtracting 15 anti heterosexual crimes; 1415 anti homosexual/bisexual crimes. anti-religion crimes = 1426; for 2003. Also Anti hispanic or other ethnic origin crimes number to 1236. Anti racial hate crimes are a bit more than triple the anti-sexuality crimes)

It might also be noted that (table seven, by offense type) there were six murders inspired by homophobia; which outnumbers the other categories, even murders inspired by race. (Which is five, but still)
I'm too lazy to go through the actual state-by-state analysis of the crimes, but ignorance breeds hate, and those that don't know a lot of gay people, or those who aren't EXPOSED (key word, as that's where the pride parade comes in) to gay people are those that assume that they're all the same and can stereotype them. As Jep said, if you actually attended one, you would have a good time and wouldn't keep your panties bunched about what a few people are wearing.


Also I thought I summed up in the last post that you're an idiot that can't be conversed with, so the arguement is over.

[Baboinga]

Ellen DeGeneres has a talk show because she is a Lesbian...

Not true. How often does Ellen mention being gay on her show? You can watch ten shows in a row and hear her mention it once, MAYBE. I would know, because I've watched many, many episodes of her show. Ellen had a successful comedy career before her show, which is why she has her show. Because she's funny and charming. Even in her comedy shows (Such as her most recent DVD out, I believe called "Here and Now" she mentions being gay in the very begining, and then not again throughout the entire thing.

Alternately, there is a woman called Elvira Kurt. She's a Canadian lesbian comedienne; and SHE capitalizes on the lesbian thing. She has a show because she's charming and funny and a lesbian, this is very significantly different from the Ellen situation. ( http://www.elvirakurt.com/ )

However, I can go through every show and list the heterosexual characters where their sexuality, throughout every episode and every season, is barely mentioned.

Again... this is because their sexuality is the default and is assumed. Television shows use gimmicks for people, someone being "straight" isn't a gimmick, but someone being gay is. The fact that there are homosexuals on television now is at times a blessing and a curse. It gives it homosexuality more exposure, which is a great thing; but on the other hand, it perpetuates the stereotypes. Some television shows like "The L Word" (I believe it's called) whose cast is mostly lesbians, is a bit more honest than, say, Will and Grace. Will and Grace shows more stereotypical gays (oh, haha queen lol decorating, haha, we dress so nicely) but isn't as bad as some other shows that have the typical gay character who has the same stereotypical aspects as in the parenthesis above, but those are ALL that defines the character. At least in W&G the characters are more dynamic and are shown in relationships and being "normal" instead of just the implied odd homosexual lifestyle.
I will admit though, it is a new adventing time of gays in the media, and that's great. But so far it's just been spattered in television shows, and it's not necessarily a strictly positive thing, if it is just continuing to put forth old stereotypes. But positive in the exposure aspect, and in time it will lead to more and more honest characters who are interesting. Will and Grace is a pretty good example of this. Queer as Folk is also a good example of this; while they embrace the stereotypes in a way (some of them are lispy, they joke about fashion and decorating and basically slutty behavior) they still function in a fundamentally human, dynamic way. As in, it shows relationships happening and difficult decisions that makes you empathize with them. A token character on Suddenly Susan, for example, isn't shown as having long relationships or being a dynamic character, which is fine, only a few main characters on sitcoms are, but the exposure is always more positive when it's easier to see the person being real.

I'm aware of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, I also think it can be funny. *shrug* Not much else to say on that.

This is not pushing the Heterosexual agenda, it is smart advertising.

Well fucking duh. Did I sound like I wanted all ads all the time directed at me? Or at heterosexuals? No. But I was saying as an arguement towards straights having a pride event, which you didn't even say, so that part doesn't pertain to you. So don't shit yourself over it.

People like to watch those shows. And the shows that have elements of homosexuality in them have those elements emphasized... those characters and story lines are typified by their homosexuality. You'd be hard pressed to find a Gay character in a television show where the essence of what that character is, is not a Homosexual man. However, I can go through every show and list the heterosexual characters where their sexuality, throughout every episode and every season, is barely mentioned.

Right, because on television shows there is token black guy who has a few extra lines once a season when he confides to the main character some difficulties because he's black. Same with gays. It's their schtick, it's the role that they're given. This is going back to what I said earlier.

[Mr Biglesworth]

Mike you're going to be a really bad father. As demonstrated by the infamous haircut mp3.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Baboinga

Not true. How often does Ellen mention being gay on her show? You can watch ten shows in a row and hear her mention it once, MAYBE. I would know, because I've watched many, many episodes of her show. Ellen had a successful comedy career before her show, which is why she has her show. Because she's funny and charming. Even in her comedy shows (Such as her most recent DVD out, I believe called "Here and Now" she mentions being gay in the very begining, and then not again throughout the entire thing.

Alternately, there is a woman called Elvira Kurt. She's a Canadian lesbian comedienne; and SHE capitalizes on the lesbian thing. She has a show because she's charming and funny and a lesbian, this is very significantly different from the Ellen situation. ( http://www.elvirakurt.com/ )

I really like Ellen Degeneres, and I like her show, and I think that she is very funny. However, there are dozens of very funny women actors who have had their own sitcoms who were never offered their own talk show. The only other that I can think of that was offered a show was Christina Rey (sp?) who had a short-lived sitcom, and then took over the Rosie O'Donnel show after Rosie O'Donnel left... But had Rosie O'Donnel not started that show, Christina Rey would have never had it ... it wouldn't have existed. Ellen, on the other hand, was given a show not because she's a charming, funny comedian ... because there's hundreds of them ... but because she was a comedian who made a splash on her television show by being a Lesbian. Ellen also hosted the Emmy's or one of those award shows not long ago ... she hosted this because she is funny and witty, but there are hundreds of other funny and witty women who have had their own relatively shortlived sitcom... and none of them were ever given the job of hosting the Emmy's. She is as famous as she is BECAUSE she is a funny and witty Lesbian... and homosexuals are a big draw on television.

Again... this is because their sexuality is the default and is assumed. Television shows use gimmicks for people, someone being "straight" isn't a gimmick, but someone being gay is. The fact that there are homosexuals on television now is at times a blessing and a curse. It gives it homosexuality more exposure, which is a great thing; but on the other hand, it perpetuates the stereotypes.

Exactly. Just like how Gay Parades that are known for their flamboyant display of indecency stereotype homosexuals into this category of ridiculous dressing and acting people who lack any and all morals. Now, I don't believe that is what a homosexual person is, because I don't think that somebody's sexual preference predetermines how they act in civil society. While the majority of people at these parades are looking to strengthen community and push the modest homosexual agenda, the parades are known for being this display of morbid irregularity (this is evident in if you google image "Gay Pride Parade" the entire first page is filled with crazy people; and when people talk about Gay Pride parades, they generally tend to focus on the crazy outfits and expression of others). (this paragraph also corresponds to the continuation of that paragraph)

Well fucking duh. Did I sound like I wanted all ads all the time directed at me? Or at heterosexuals? No. But I was saying as an arguement towards straights having a pride event, which you didn't even say, so that part doesn't pertain to you. So don't shit yourself over it.

You were saying that every day is Straight Pride Parade and then cited people holding hands, advertisements, and marketing techniques that feature heterosexuals. If it doesn't pertain to me, then don't include it in your post. That post was obviously directed at me. I wouldn't start spewing on about the fouls of communism, which would obviously be directed at Jep (as Jep and I have many a discussion on Communism and poli-economics), in a reply to one of your posts. If a post is directed at me and you do not want me to respond to a particular point, then announce that this point is irrelevent to our conversation and does not pertain to me.

Right, because on television shows there is token black guy who has a few extra lines once a season when he confides to the main character some difficulties because he's black. Same with gays. It's their schtick, it's the role that they're given. This is going back to what I said earlier.

Well Black people aren't really a good example anymore, because Black people generally have more varied roles and have for some years. There are more shows based on the lives of Black people than there are on the lives of white people (rarely would you have "Friends" mention the whiteness of 'the friends' unless it was making fun of them; in a show like "Sistas" on UPN or the WB, whatever network that is, the blackness of 'the sistas' is the premise of most of the episodes). But in pertainance to homosexuals, I have a philosophical problem with this because I do not think that sexuality makes people innately different... I think that its like liking the color red or the color blue... it is something that does not predetermine every decision, outfit, and the way you act for the rest of your life. I think the only thing that it changes is who you go to sleep with at the end of the night and who you think about the next day. The Gay-media-blitz, coupled with the stereotypical image that Gay Pride Parades put out, perpetuate the idea that the effects of homosexuality on a person are ridiculously different than the effects of heterosexuality on a person... which in and of themselves, they are not... they're different sides of the same coin.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Baboinga

I didn't compare aids to being gay, I compared the VICTIMIZATION and MINORITY values of the two. I'm not saying one is like the other in all ways, I'm saying that they have similarities. If you can't understand simply that, then I can't argue anything with you. You simply take whatever you want to read out of what I'm writing, and it's not worth it to bother. It's like you're a horse with blinders on to whatever the person is trying to say, and you only see what you prefer to see, or read it how you would like to. Have you never heard somebody compare something before? It's like someone saying "Jean jackets are so ugly, I like jeans as pants, though," and you're like "WTF FUCKER? Jeans go on your LEGS, idiot, they are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS". I'm not saying one is the other, far from, I'm not saying being gay is like having a disease, why the fuck would I ever even imply that?

I always take point against any comparison to two things that are in their essence entirely different. People, by their nature, like to compare themselves to irreversible diseases because it makes them look like a victim against the odds of nature. You could have compared being homosexual to being a rare vegetable, but nobody wants to compare themselves to something that does elicit a feeling of guilt in the other person. It's a technique that everybody uses, I do it with other subjects; if I do it, though, then I expect to be called out on it. If you don't expect to be called out by comparing homosexuality to a deadly and destructive disease, even if you are only comparing likewise characteristics of both, then don't do it.

wtf, can you read? I believe none of those things except that the integration of specifically christian beliefs (which is discriminatory in cases to people who either don't believe in God, or who aren't christian) into the legal system is archaic.

That's not archaic, it's called "politics." Politics consists of, among other things, legislators and politicians who are people. People, as we've already established, have convictions... everybody does. Legislators and politicians base their politics and their legislature on their convictions. This is legitimate, because 'beliefs are beliefs are beliefs.' The very idea of a legal system, of equality, and basic human rights is from a belief system. It may not be Christian, though Christianity has certainly propagated it in Western culture, but it is a philosophy based in subjective human beliefs. The only way to prevent this "discrimination" is to turn to a Nietzchean paradismo. If people feel that Western culture discriminates against them more than it helps them, then I do not know why they continue to live in a Western culture.

As for "believing none of those things," why would you say that "there's supposed to be a separation of Church and State" if you do not believe it? You also said "this Archaic state," clearly calling the State archaic. The use of that phrase wasn't even in the context of your argument that Christianity informing politics is archaic, but something different ... that Gays cannot marry (which is as much a Christian idea as it is an idea of the philosophy of semantics), and that gays cannot adopt. If you do not believe that the state is archaic, then don't say say that people hold beliefs "because of this archaic state." If you were using the word "state" as in "form," then you should clarify, because just several lines earlier you referred to "Church and State" referring to a political body--but I'm fairly certain you were referring to a political body, or else, the argument would be senseless. The third part, about believing that homosexuality is a boistrous display of indecency was a purposeful twist of words, and I wouldn't think that you would believe that anyway... So, ignoring that, you still seemed to believe two out of those three. Say saying "I believe none of those except two of the three..." is stupid.

As far as the AIDS bearer comment is concerned, I'm glad you live in your little bubble of righteousness, but in the real world there is discrimination, and people believe ridiculous shit like that.

Yes, some people ... but not the majority of people. If the majority of people believed that, then "rights" for homosexuals would not be getting anywhere. The majority of people believe otherwise, and not because of Gay Pride parades. Gay pride parades do more to stereotype than they do to kill those stereotypes. People do not believe that all homosexuals are AIDs bearers because it is inconsistant philosophy.

The point is, there is a stupidly large percentage of people who are bias, whether they believe so or not. You can laugh at me saying something about people thinking that all gays have aids, but in places, that's what the stereotype is, and there's simply no one there to dissuade them.

I don't think that this is the case anymore, at least, not in the United States--even in the most rural of areas.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03hc.pdf (table five, bias motivation; for 2003 three the number of hate crimes for sexuality is approximately the same as the number of anti-religious crimes, literally... give or take ten) (if for some reason it doesn't open, 1430 anti sexuality hate crimes, subtracting 15 anti heterosexual crimes; 1415 anti homosexual/bisexual crimes. anti-religion crimes = 1426; for 2003. Also Anti hispanic or other ethnic origin crimes number to 1236. Anti racial hate crimes are a bit more than triple the anti-sexuality crimes)


It might also be noted that (table seven, by offense type) there were six murders inspired by homophobia;

I didn't view the PDFs because I'm on my work computer and it will suffer from Adobe Acrobat from opening... but I'll take your word for it on the numbers and the wording. Given that, I do not think that there is an active discrimination against religion... and if there is an ardent believer on these forums, it is me. I believe that there is an active bias in academia against religion, but that does not reflect the majority of people. Furthmore, the "six murders inspired by homophobia" is probably a pretty subjective summary. Typically, when anybody cites "homophobia" as a reason for murder, it translates pretty well to that it was a motive that they could not find, but it involved a heterosexual and a homosexual, so the heterosexual must be "afraid" of the homosexual or homosexuality. I'd also like to see, of those murders, how many of the murderes have clinical problems.

I'm too lazy to go through the actual state-by-state analysis of the crimes, but ignorance breeds hate, and those that don't know a lot of gay people, or those who aren't EXPOSED (key word, as that's where the pride parade comes in) to gay people are those that assume that they're all the same and can stereotype them. As Jep said, if you actually attended one, you would have a good time and wouldn't keep your panties bunched about what a few people are wearing.

Well, I'm one of the few active criticizers of many of the demands of the homosexual agenda who does attend some events. I don't go to homosexual parades because I do not attend any parades at all, really. I do, however, go to lectures on homosexual 'rights', I've been to two homosexual weddings in my home state, my employer is homosexual, and I have a number of close friends who are homosexual. The gay marriages, my homosexual employer, my homosexual friends do not perpetuate the stereotypes of homosexuality... The two Gay marriages happened to be two of the more respectful "marriage" services that I've been to... and they are burying homosexual stereotypes. However, the public opinion of homosexual marriages (the services themselves) are much different than the public opinion of Gay Pride Parades (the parades themselves), and this is because the nature of those "marriages" is far different than the nature of a Gay Pride Parade.

Also I thought I summed up in the last post that you're an idiot that can't be conversed with, so the arguement is over.

I'd like to bet that this argument is not over. If you don't respond, I'll commend you for keeping your word ... but considering that you've gone back on what you've said a number of times in this thread already, I don't expect you to end the argument. If you'd like to continue to think I'm an idiot, feel free. I'll just quote what I said in the last post:

Originally Posted by Mike

If you want to say that you can have intercourse with a gender; If you want to use Christianity and Catholicism as the same thing; If you want to say that Homosexuals cannot adopt children; If you want to think that the separation of Church and State is explicit in the Constitution; And if you want to believe that marketing to heterosexuals is anything more than smart business ... Then you can. You'll be wrong. You'll look stupid. But you can.

You'll also free to call me an idiot, but maybe if you studied some of the things you're talking about, you'd rethink that word choice.

[Mike]

Jep -- I can't read your topic just yet, I'll probably read/respond to it later tonight... I'm at work now and I have to do some stuff for some people, and I'm goign to a James Taylor concert at 4:30-ish... I'll be back around midnight-ish... And if I respond to it tonight, it'll be around then. The one thing I did read was the beginning, and no, I wasn't mocking you, I actually ran out of space. At first, it was more uniform ... the first post said "==this is continued in the next post==" but I was like ... 15 characters over the limit with the first post, so I just removed that line and put in (cont.) instead. So, no, I wasn't mocking you, I legitimately ran out of room.