At what point does the Gay rights issue cross from acceptance to dominance?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I think it's a fair question to ask.

It's sad that I have to do this, but let me go ahead and give you a disclaimer: I think gays should be allowed to marry, I can think of no reason why they shouldn't. I have gay friends, I have a gay uncle, I am by no means anti-gay. I just think it's a valid question.

So, at what point DOES the Gay rights issue extend beyond establishing acceptance and into the territory of culture dominance? And if that's a problem for somebody, why is it a problem that it's a problem for them?

Don't get me wrong, I believe gays have their place in culture, just as any demographic does. But I can't help but notice that it seems that gay activists are pushing almost too hard, seemingly attempting to take over and ensure that the homosexual life style is represented in every facet of daily life.

If a movie seems to be overly macho and stick to more traditional man and woman romance, I've seen those movies criticized as "stuck in the past" or even more outrageously, "homophobic".

It's not ok for there to be movies featuring gays and movies NOT featuring gays?

Another hot topic is the issue of gay character in video games - people believe that games NEED gay characters. I don't believe that. I believe that there should be absolutely no restriction on including gay characters in games, but I don't believe they NEED gay characters. I don't believe it's necessary for stifle anyone's intellectual creativity with a force character archetype or WHATEVER you want to call it, just for the purpose of being falsely inclusive.

I think if a writer thinks "Yeah, this story could really benefit from the dynamic that a gay character could bring", then by all fucking means I'm interested in experiencing your story... but when it comes to the point of "This games cast is not diverse enough, you really should try to shoehorn a gay guy into it", I just find that flat out wrong.

There have been rumors that certain directors/actors have called out for a gay sex scene in a Bond movie to offset all of the womanizing he does. I have to ask, why? Why is that necessary? Can't there just be another movie where the hero is gay?

To me, that idea SCREAMS of trying to cram a lifestyle down everyone's throats. Maybe I LIKE that James Bond is a representation of the macho male fantasy, being too cool, too slick, too bad ass and too impossibly charming for anyone to resist, especially women. As a straight man, I entirely admit that the appeal of a James Bond film is, at least in part, imagining what it would be like to BE James Bond.

And what's wrong with that? Am I being insensitive to gays because I'm secure in my heterosexuality? No, I'm not. But I promise you that there are people who would suggest that I am... somehow. Just because I want James Bond to remain a heterosexual embodiment of male ego fantasy, it doesn't mean that I wouldn't ALSO be just as captivated by a gay man or a gay woman in the role of a bad ass hero. Changing James Bond or giving him a gay confrontation would entirely piss me off, because there's simply no fucking reason to do it.

There's this growing notion that a straight male who enjoys being straight and enjoys women and doesn't consider the possibility of any sort of romantic or sexual encounter with someone of the same sex, is a close minded bigot. How is that fair? If you're going to suggest that gay people are born gay (I AM convinced that they are, for what it's worth), how can you basically turn around and shame a straight person for not having the capacity to entertain homosexual thoughts?

As a sexual creature, as most of us humans are, I think it would be pretty cool to be able to be turned on by BOTH sexes - you could have a lot of fun and more options for relationships... alas, I am not, and I'm getting pretty tired of being made to feel guilty because I can't fathom an attraction to the same sex. Despite my support and acceptance of gay people, I am still very much a straight male... feeling ever increasingly less accepted because apparently it's not OK to be 100% straight anymore.

Well, this turned into more of a rant than I intended... but hopefully you've followed me close enough to really understand what I'm digging at here.

I do not want to see any knee-jerk, standoffish replies. You are welcome to challenge my points, that's why I made this thread - but remain respectful or you're just not going to get a reply back. Thank you.

I KNOW we're capable of actually discussing this in an intelligent way... so let's do it.

When straight marriage is illegalized.

Though I do think forced gay scenes and characters isn't a good idea. I mean, why not just make your own gay fiction?

When gay people start advocating that marriage is between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman and that heterosexual marriage should be banned because of their beliefs and because think of the children.

CarnageRacing00:
I have gay friends, I have a gay uncle, I am by no means anti-gay.

...

Yeah, you're really not off to a good start there. It's almost become a running joke that bigots will have X friends, that proves they aren't anti-X.

Anyway, you seem to have jumped from people wanting a more proportional representation of gay people in movies and games, to gay people taking them over. This only really works if gay people should not be there at all, which, unfortunately, has been the dominant view for a long time.

CarnageRacing00:
There's this growing notion that a straight male who enjoys being straight and enjoys women and doesn't consider the possibility of any sort of romantic or sexual encounter with someone of the same sex, is a close minded bigot. How is that fair? If you're going to suggest that gay people are born gay (I AM convinced that they are, for what it's worth), how can you basically turn around and shame a straight person for not having the capacity to entertain homosexual thoughts?

You can't. That's why this isn't a thing.

CarnageRacing00:
Despite my support and acceptance of gay people, I am still very much a straight male... feeling ever increasingly less accepted because apparently it's not OK to be 100% straight anymore.

Yeah, that is total bullshit there.

It's increasingly ok not to be 100% straight. Being 100% straight does not automatically grant you the same sort of privilege it used to do.

...

Look, I get that you don't want to be anti-gay, but what you're saying sorta does rather that way, whether you want it to or not.

We've all grown up in a society which tells us that straight people ought to be more or less totally dominant, and that therefore, an increase in portrayals of gay people seems wrong and somehow dangerous, an attack on straight people.

But how many games or movies feature gay main characters, compared to straight ones? We tend not to see the ones where everyone is straight, because we've been brought up to see that as normal.

Why not have every character in every movie or game be gay by default, and only allow straight people in if there was a good reason in the story for it?

CarnageRacing00:
Despite my support and acceptance of gay people, I am still very much a straight male... feeling ever increasingly less accepted because apparently it's not OK to be 100% straight anymore.

I'm sorry, but I have an incredibly hard time taking someone who says something like this seriously. As soon as straight people being discriminated against is a thing, I'll take feelings like this seriously.

Until then, you aren't being marginalized, you aren't being treated as a second class citizen, almost no one is actively trying to take away things you like.

Do me a favour: feel free to replace the words gay, homosexual, etc. in your post with black or African American. Then feel free to read it again.

Gay people wanting the same rights as you doesn't hurt you. Gay people feeling underrepresented in popular media doesn't hurt you (and while we've come a long way in the media, we still probably have a ways to go). No one is trying to cram their lifestyle down your throat. And I have no sympathy for any straight person who wants to play the victim and claim otherwise. If you want to do that then talk to me when you're basic human rights are being infringed upon BECAUSE you're straight.

Food for thought: when did it cross from equality to acceptance.

It isn't just about equal rights and hasn't been for a while now. There's a strong push going on for universal gay understanding and acceptance, which isn't necessarily bad, but it is a) futile, since no demographic has ever been accepted by everyone and b) possibly detracting from the goal of equality as people are less likely to concede your rights when you make them a villain for judging you.

tstorm823:
Food for thought: when did it cross from equality to acceptance.

The two are inseparable, surely?

The reason why gay people don't have equal rights is that lots of people don't accept them, after all. You can keep changing laws to deal with symptoms of that, but that's not getting at the cause.t

I'd disagree that it is futile just because you are unlikely to be 100% successful (not impossible, lots of old conflicts are now forgotten).

thaluikhain:

The two are inseparable, surely?

The reason why gay people don't have equal rights is that lots of people don't accept them, after all. You can keep changing laws to deal with symptoms of that, but that's not getting at the cause.t

I'd disagree that it is futile just because you are unlikely to be 100% successful (not impossible, lots of old conflicts are now forgotten).

I don't think those are inseperable at all. The civil rights and women's suffrage movements got the desired changes in legal rights with plenty of sexism and racism floating around. We obviously still have those issues, but we don't have officially segregated schools, and I'm not entirely confident that would still be true if the method back then was publicly shaming all opponents of integration as hateful bigots.

I feel like if the message is "we want rights" it gets further than "if you don't accept us, you're wrong."

I would probably think twice if if the "gay rights" movement started targeting major religions in which homosexuality isn't accepted. I have no issue with people privately doing or believing what they wish with whomever they wish and am glad to say I live in a country where anyone can marry anyone regardless of their partner's gender.

But, taking the Abrahamic religions as an example, they do not accept homosexuality. It is against their beliefs, which they are within their rights to hold. Now discriminating against someone because of their homosexuality, gender, disability, etc is a legal no-no, and rightly so, but homosexuals can get married secularly. There's no need to rail against thousands of years old religions which cannot officially marry them and whose doctrine on this point is not flexible. Accept it, move on, get married in any one of the other places in the world.

I will also note that "not accepting" is a different thing from "condemning". The only result from condemning homosexuality is discrimination, insult and alienation. The religious should let homosexuals get on with it and the same goes vice versa. Live and let live. The religious won't accept or condone them because they cannot so if you try to change them, you'll be in the wrong and I'll disagree with you.

OT: I just don't think this is a thing (or, at least, not a significant thing). I've never seen anybody argue that every film or game or book needs gay people in it, whereas I've seen people complain that gay people are doing just that many times. There are countless, innumerable films in which straight romances and womanising go uncommented.

I'm with Thaluikhain on this. The OP's not homophobic, certainly, but he is jumping at shadows.

tstorm823:

I feel like if the message is "we want rights" it gets further than "if you don't accept us, you're wrong."

Well, as far as parents are concerned, not "accepting" a child's sexuality can be pretty harmful, psychologically speaking. It's not a good atmosphere for a kid to grow up in, even if the lack of acceptance is coming from peers, the press, etc. It leads to repression, denial, suicide.

Quite frankly, I have a great deal more sympathy for gay kids struggling to come to terms than I do with prejudiced people who want others to reassure them it's okay to be prejudiced.

But how many games or movies feature gay main characters, compared to straight ones? We tend not to see the ones where everyone is straight, because we've been brought up to see that as normal.

I really don't think you read my post, because I covered this already. Whatever you consider the "norm", there should be no law or social rule that goes either way. I 100% believe that being straight is what is normal. Not because society has made me that way, but because it just makes logical sense. I don't believe homosexuality is "normal". Without our ability to artificially inseminate, the human race would simply die off if homosexuality were the norm. If the majority of people were gay, and there were no ability to take sperm from a male and insert it into the female through other means than sexual intercourse, you'd either have to force gay people to procreate with the opposite sex, or eventually the straight people would die off, as would the rest of human life. That's plain and simple common sense. That's not me being a meanie or a bigot, that's just how it is. So no, I don't considered homosexuality normal.

HOWEVER, that does not influence my opinion of gay people or their right to live their lives and pursue happiness. And that's where this ENTIRE debacle is made impossible - nobody can debate against the idea of homosexuality being "normal" or "intended" without being labeled a homophobic neanderthal. I mean, I've essentially already been called out just for simply questioning the logic of forced cultural integration. Example:

Yeah, you're really not off to a good start there. It's almost become a running joke that bigots will have X friends, that proves they aren't anti-X.

If I hadn't said it, you'd have jumped to that conclusion immediately, and you KNOW you would have. Hence why I stated "It's sad that I have to do this".

tstorm823:
Food for thought: when did it cross from equality to acceptance.

It isn't just about equal rights and hasn't been for a while now. There's a strong push going on for universal gay understanding and acceptance, which isn't necessarily bad, but it is a) futile, since no demographic has ever been accepted by everyone and b) possibly detracting from the goal of equality as people are less likely to concede your rights when you make them a villain for judging you.

This is a very good point. I disagree that "acceptance" and "equality" are separate - I believe that you can't have one without the other... but this right here is essentially my entire point summed up into one sentence:

tstorm823:
There's a strong push going on for universal gay understanding and acceptance, which isn't necessarily bad, but it is possibly detracting from the goal of equality as people are less likely to concede your rights when you make them a villain for judging you.

Essentially I have zero problem accepting or "allowing" for equal rights for gays. I simply do not understand bans on gay marriage, yet I DO have a problem with being told that I should not ONLY be tolerant to gays, but EMBRACE their culture as well, which is something I'm not willing to do, if only for the very selfish reason that the thought of two men having sex is displeasing to me. I don't want to embrace it, I don't want to see it, I don't want to think about it. Is that wrong? I don't think so.

As an aside, you know very well that I would be lying if I said that the thought of two attractive women getting all bendy with each other wasn't arousing... because it is, to me. I've thought long and hard (shut up) about it and came upon (SHUT UP) the conclusion that it's not the homosexual act that's arousing - it's seeing two women being super sexual. All it takes is seeing a woman enjoying herself to turn most straight men on, so double that and there ya go. Can't say that it has anything to do with the homosexual side of it. At least, that's what I've come to understand so far.

Back to my original point - there is a big enough push for gays to be represented everywhere at all times for me to be concerned about my ability to not have to think about it.

And that's really what this is about - if people are gay, cool, but why should I have to think about it at all? I like to think that I would be exempt from the "accept us" campaign, given that I already have accepted them.

Captcha: Forbidden fruit

Seriously?

CarnageRacing00:
If I hadn't said it, you'd have jumped to that conclusion immediately, and you KNOW you would have.

Certainly. Because you then went on to claim that straight people are being shamed and not accepted for being straight, and that gay people wanting to be represented in movie and games is somehow a problem.

CarnageRacing00:
Back to my original point - there is a big enough push for gays to be represented everywhere at all times for me to be concerned about my ability to not have to think about it.

And that's really what this is about - if people are gay, cool, but why should I have to think about it at all? I like to think that I would be exempt from the "accept us" campaign, given that I already have accepted them.

Ah, so you accept gay people, so long as they aren't in games or movies. That's a very narrow use of the word "accept" there.

Again, why should we instead have straight people represented everywhere at all times (literally, not in the "more than never and I'm not used to that" sense)? Why is having gay people in games and movies a big deal, and having straight people not?

CarnageRacing00:

I really don't think you read my post, because I covered this already. Whatever you consider the "norm", there should be no law or social rule that goes either way. I 100% believe that being straight is what is normal. Not because society has made me that way, but because it just makes logical sense. I don't believe homosexuality is "normal". Without our ability to artificially inseminate, the human race would simply die off if homosexuality were the norm. If the majority of people were gay, and there were no ability to take sperm from a male and insert it into the female through other means than sexual intercourse, you'd either have to force gay people to procreate with the opposite sex, or eventually the straight people would die off, as would the rest of human life. That's plain and simple common sense. That's not me being a meanie or a bigot, that's just how it is. So no, I don't considered homosexuality normal.

I've never once seen how this argument-- that if everyone were gay, we couldn't reproduce-- is relevant to anything at all. It's simply not the case; it's an irrelevant hypothetical scenario.

If everybody was female, we couldn't procreate, either. If everybody was infertile, we couldn't procreate. These hypotheticals bear no relation to the situation. It's not "normal" if your definition of "normal" is "of the majority", but that's a fairly useless definition.

Don't get me wrong; I don't think you're homophobic. But these hypotheticals often get trotted out, and they're just a distraction.

CarnageRacing00:
I've thought long and hard (shut up) about it and came upon (SHUT UP) the conclusion

Heheheheheheh.

CarnageRacing00:

And that's really what this is about - if people are gay, cool, but why should I have to think about it at all? I like to think that I would be exempt from the "accept us" campaign, given that I already have accepted them.

You don't have to think about anything. Gay representation is there so that people get a more accurate image of the society in which they live, and so that gay people don't feel like they're alone and isolated, but you're not forced to watch or hear or read any of it.

Feel free to indulge instead in the 97% of media that involves solely straight romances. Seriously, it's the vast majority.

Silvanus:

Well, as far as parents are concerned, not "accepting" a child's sexuality can be pretty harmful, psychologically speaking. It's not a good atmosphere for a kid to grow up in, even if the lack of acceptance is coming from peers, the press, etc. It leads to repression, denial, suicide.

Quite frankly, I have a great deal more sympathy for gay kids struggling to come to terms than I do with prejudiced people who want others to reassure them it's okay to be prejudiced.

Well, ignoring the part where a society that justifies suicide leads to suicide, you're still not really helping. These parents still aren't going to respond well to being told they're hateful bigots. They might respond to being told they may be hurting their child, but not if the same person is telling them their beliefs are wrong. If anything, you might make things worse since you're telling kids their parents are evil.

It's like you're an NFL team with the ball on their own 20. Sure, you want to get to the endzone, but if you try and throw it straight there every play, you're going to lose substantially. You have to take what you can get.

CarnageRacing00:
So, at what point DOES the Gay rights issue extend beyond establishing acceptance and into the territory of culture dominance?

When they start rounding up the straights and sending us to camp concentration camps?

But I can't help but notice that it seems that gay activists are pushing almost too hard, seemingly attempting to take over and ensure that the homosexual life style is represented in every facet of daily life.

If you want your post to sound like a genuine attempt to discuss the issues, this would be the point where you start giving us evidence. Instead, you give us untraceable, unverifiable anecdotes seemingly drawn from your personal experience. "I've seen..." is not a sign that we need to worry about the direction of a society. After all, I've seen companies where people who support liberal causes were harassed by staff and informed "This is a Republican company." I've seen companies where the CEO used his Christmas dinner speech to rant and rave about sinners not believing in Jesus. But I don't get to use those anecdotes to claim that society is utterly dominated by Christian Republicans who spread propaganda and bully people who aren't in their party because both of those anecdotes come from one small company in a sea of millions of other companies that don't do all that. You just telling us what you've seen isn't really a believable argument, and when you overly rely on "I've seen" without quantifying the experience, well, it can even start to sound a little disingenuous.

If a movie seems to be overly macho and stick to more traditional man and woman romance, I've seen those movies criticized as "stuck in the past" or even more outrageously, "homophobic".

How many times did you see an overly macho movie without actual negative portrayal of gays called "homophobic"? How many times did you see an overly macho movie without actual negative portrayal of gays not called "homophobic"? My guess is the second number will be vastly higher than the first. So you've got nothing to worry about. People say stupid things about movies all the time.

It's not ok for there to be movies featuring gays and movies NOT featuring gays?

This question doesn't follow from your previous anecdote. Attacking a movie as overly macho does not necessarily imply the belief that all movies should feature gay people.

Another hot topic is the issue of gay character in video games - people believe that games NEED gay characters. I don't believe that. I believe that there should be absolutely no restriction on including gay characters in games, but I don't believe they NEED gay characters. I don't believe it's necessary for stifle anyone's intellectual creativity with a force character archetype or WHATEVER you want to call it, just for the purpose of being falsely inclusive.

This sounds like you're incorrectly portraying someone's argument- unless of course you can point me to evidence that either prominent spokespeople for games or significant numbers of fans believe that all games must have at least one token gay character.

What I think is the more likely argument that you are misinterpreting is that games in general need more gay characters. And I would agree. More importantly, they need more interesting gay characters. A simpering foppish villain who is also gay would be an insulting cliche, while an adventuring companion in medieval Europe who is 100% identical to everyone else in the party other than that they're gay is kinda bland. Not every game needs a gay character, but just like women in games, non-white characters in games, there does need to be more diversity.

but when it comes to the point of "This games cast is not diverse enough, you really should try to shoehorn a gay guy into it", I just find that flat out wrong.

The onus is now on you to demonstrate that this actually happens.

There have been rumors that certain directors/actors have called out for a gay sex scene in a Bond movie to offset all of the womanizing he does.

"There are rumors" is one of those games that dishonest people like Glen Beck claim so they can jump to an outrageous (and false) position without supporting evidence. Please don't play it.

As a straight man, I entirely admit that the appeal of a James Bond film is, at least in part, imagining what it would be like to BE James Bond.

And what's wrong with that?

Well, first of all you're projecting a bit I think. I enjoy James Bond films occasionally, and I don't think I've ever once imagined putting myself in his shoes. I'm not saying it's wrong of you to use Bond as a bit of wish fulfillment, but you need to not just assume everyone sees the movies the same way you do.

Secondly, there is a bit of a problem with Bond not in and of itself, but with what Bond represents in the greater movie-watching experience. And that is that Bond pushes a certain image of masculinity and then explicitly links that image with success and heroism. There is a subtext of "people who are great act like this". Now if Hollywood freely published movies with diverse heroes and diverse notions of success and heroism and masculinity, there would be no problem with Bond pushing it's image. But when the vast majority of Hollywood films cater to the insecurities of straight white young men, it's a problem. When there are 100 blockbuster movies saying, "If you want to be a successful man, act like A," and only one or two movies (never blockbusters) saying, "You can also be a successful man if you act like B," then it's a problem.

Am I being insensitive to gays because I'm secure in my heterosexuality?

Yeah... I'm not going to pretend I know who you really are or what your real mentality is, but when you go out of your way to tell us that you're secure in your heterosexuality, you actually convey the opposite.

And personally, I'd also think that a trait of someone who is secure in their heterosexuality is that they don't need to mis-portray gays seeking acceptance as gays trying to dominate society.

There's this growing notion that a straight male who enjoys being straight and enjoys women and doesn't consider the possibility of any sort of romantic or sexual encounter with someone of the same sex, is a close minded bigot.

No, there is not. I've been kind and respectful to your mis-representations before, but I'm calling you out here: The above is a straight-up bold-faced lie. And you know it.

tstorm823:
These parents still aren't going to respond well to being told they're hateful bigots. They might respond to being told they may be hurting their child, but not if the same person is telling them their beliefs are wrong. If anything, you might make things worse since you're telling kids their parents are evil.

Where did I do any of that stuff? I'm discussing it on a damn forum.

tstorm823:
It's like you're an NFL team with the ball on their own 20. Sure, you want to get to the endzone, but if you try and throw it straight there every play, you're going to lose substantially. You have to take what you can get.

A flawed analogy. I'll take whatever route will yield results. I'll also, however, point out that some people have to take far more roundabout routes than others, and that that is an injustice.

I don't think you intended the sentence, "You have to take what you can get", to be as patronising and dismissive as it came across. I'm well aware that I've got the shitty end of the stick sometimes, thank you.

Silvanus:

Where did I do any of that stuff? I'm discussing it on a damn forum.

Ok, admittedly that wasn't the fairest response I've ever given, but you responded to my pragmatism with pretty much full on appeal to emotion, so I didn't have many avenues open to me.

I mean, I never meant to accuse you personally of anything, I just mean that people who are against homosexuality aren't paranoid when they think they're being attacked. There are people out there to shame the homophobes, and I think its doing everyone a disservice.

I don't think you intended the sentence, "You have to take what you can get", to be as patronising and dismissive as it came across. I'm well aware that I've got the shitty end of the stick sometimes, thank you.

My apologies. I did not intend that. If anything, I was worried about sounding dumb myself.

CarnageRacing00:

There have been rumors that certain directors/actors have called out for a gay sex scene in a Bond movie to offset all of the womanizing he does. I have to ask, why? Why is that necessary? Can't there just be another movie where the hero is gay?

Did these people see Skyfall? Bond had equally smoldering chemistry with Silva than he did with Moneypenny.

Oh, James indeed.

CarnageRacing00:
I think it's a fair question to ask.

Don't get me wrong, I believe gays have their place in culture, just as any demographic does. But I can't help but notice that it seems that gay activists are pushing almost too hard, seemingly attempting to take over and ensure that the homosexual life style is represented in every facet of daily life.

Let me re-write what you just said and see what you think:

I think it's a fair question to ask.

"Don't get me wrong, I believe women have their place in culture, just as any demographic does. But I can't help but notice that it seems that feminists are pushing almost too hard, seemingly attempting to take over and ensure that men are subservient to, not equal to, women."

Or:

"Don't get me wrong, I believe blacks have their place in culture, just as any demographic does. But I can't help but notice that it seems that black activists are pushing almost too hard, seemingly attempting to take over and ensure that the black lifestyle is represented in every facet of daily life, and that blacks eventually will have more opportunities than whites."

It sounds like *every* argument of the powerful majority fearing their loss of power by the minority.

It's not ok for there to be movies featuring gays and movies NOT featuring gays?

You DO realize that for every 1 movie featuring gays there are over 100 movies NOT featuring gays, right? Gay movies are still a relatively small genre.

Another hot topic is the issue of gay character in video games - people believe that games NEED gay characters. I don't believe that. I believe that there should be absolutely no restriction on including gay characters in games, but I don't believe they NEED gay characters.

Do you believe video games need female characters? Black characters? Or just white, straight characters?
(Let me guess - you're a straight, white male that feels persecuted?)

And what's wrong with that? Am I being insensitive to gays because I'm secure in my heterosexuality? No, I'm not.

Are you sure?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

There's this growing notion that a straight male who enjoys being straight and enjoys women and doesn't consider the possibility of any sort of romantic or sexual encounter with someone of the same sex, is a close minded bigot.

No, but a straight male who spends large amounts of time on message boards raging how the "gay agenda" is ruining his "straight male fantasy movies" does kinda sound like a closed-minded bigot, since I can name 12 movies that have come out in the past month that feature NO gay themes or people. So. Yeah.

If you're going to suggest that gay people are born gay (I AM convinced that they are, for what it's worth), how can you basically turn around and shame a straight person for not having the capacity to entertain homosexual thoughts?

Nobody is asking you to entertain homosexual thoughts. People are asking you to be able to see a movie with a homosexual character and accept that it's No Big Deal instead of going, "EW! GROSS! THEY RUINED MY STRAIGHT MALE FANTASY!"

Same way when they started including more black actors in movies, nobody is asking you to be sexually attracted to black people. They're simply asking you to acknowledge that they exist.

If you want straight male fantasy movies, I promise: They will always be made. There are plenty to choose from.

As a sexual creature, as most of us humans are, I think it would be pretty cool to be able to be turned on by BOTH sexes - you could have a lot of fun and more options for relationships...

I'm bisexual, it is fun.

I'm getting pretty tired of being made to feel guilty because I can't fathom an attraction to the same sex.

And the LGBT community is getting pretty tired of being told we're "ramming our agenda down your throat" simply because we want increased representation of LGBT people in serious roles in movies and on TV.

Despite my support and acceptance of gay people, I am still very much a straight male... feeling ever increasingly less accepted because apparently it's not OK to be 100% straight anymore.

You can be 100% straight and still enjoy a movie with gay themes, I promise, the gay won't rub off on you. Dallas Buyers Club was a great movie, for example. You'd be surprised at how many STRAIGHT people went to see it and enjoyed it, and exited the movie theatre still completely straight - I promise. Just like when I see an action movie with testosterone-fueled straight actors, when I leave the movies I'm still bi. Every time.

Well, this turned into more of a rant than I intended... but hopefully you've followed me close enough to really understand what I'm digging at here.

Straight, white male not completely catered to in every way, feels uncomfortable: News at 11!

I think a more important question is this:

"So, at what point DOES the Civil rights issue extend beyond establishing acceptance and into the territory of culture dominance? And if that's a problem for somebody, why is it a problem that it's a problem for them?"

Replace "gay" with "black" and re-read the OP.

Neta:
I think a more important question is this:

"So, at what point DOES the Civil rights issue extend beyond establishing acceptance and into the territory of culture dominance? And if that's a problem for somebody, why is it a problem that it's a problem for them?"

Replace "gay" with "black" and re-read the OP.

Reading the OP gave me the exact same sense. I mean he basically says at one point, "I'm not homophobic, but they seem to be asking for too much too quickly." It just strikes me of the same kind of response that the average white person might give in regards to civil rights back in the '60s.

When the western world refuses aid to Ghana because of their (lack of) gay rights, thus willingly throwing thousands of impoverished people who lack proper health care among other things into death.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-15558769

The gay rights issue has crossed into dominance in my opinion, but only dominance over other issues. When you have more people concerned about gay rights than people starving or dying from drinking contaminated water, the line has been crossed. I've heard more in the news about gay rights in Africa than their problems with poverty, AIDs or warlords - what the fuck is that?

It already has and you need look no further than GLAAD, The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement. GLAAD is already an extremist group that goes out of it's way to censor, attack, and harm anyone who so much as utters a single disparaging word about the people they claim to represent. They are no different that such groups as La Raza, The Black Panthers, and The KKK in that they believe that their members should be held up as superior to others not like them. At this point it's apparent to many that what the gay rights movement wants isn't so much gay rights but rather gay exceptionalism and they will use their full force and power to silence, bully, harm, and censor anyone who would stand between them and what they want.

KingsGambit:
But, taking the Abrahamic religions as an example, they do not accept homosexuality. It is against their beliefs, which they are within their rights to hold. Now discriminating against someone because of their homosexuality, gender, disability, etc is a legal no-no, and rightly so, but homosexuals can get married secularly. There's no need to rail against thousands of years old religions which cannot officially marry them and whose doctrine on this point is not flexible. Accept it, move on, get married in any one of the other places in the world.

Firstly, since most of the people making the laws that say they can't marry and fighting desperately against legalization of same sex marriage are doing so because their religion tells them it's wrong, there is a need to rail against those religions. If we were talking about a secular hate group no one would have a problem with it. Religion should not get a free pass on telling people it's okay to be bigoted.

Second, I don't buy the argument for one second that religious doctrine isn't flexible on this point considering religious doctrine has frequently been bent to serve the whims of whoever is preaching it, probably for the entirety of human history. And if their religious doctrine were so inflexible, then the very passages they use to condemn gays and fight against gay marriage would require them to kill their wives if they weren't virgins when they married them. So saying religious doctrine isn't flexible is bullshit. These people have been picking and choosing which parts of the bible to follow for their entire lives. The only reason they choose to follow this specific part is to justify their bigotry, not to explain it.

Super Not Cosmo:
It already has and you need look no further than GLAAD, The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement. GLAAD is already an extremist group that goes out of it's way to censor, attack, and harm anyone who so much as utters a single disparaging word about the people they claim to represent. They are no different that such groups as La Raza, The Black Panthers, and The KKK in that they believe that their members should be held up as superior to others not like them. At this point it's apparent to many that what the gay rights movement wants isn't so much gay rights but rather gay exceptionalism and they will use their full force and power to silence, bully, harm, and censor anyone who would stand between them and what they want.

Does your equivalence of the Black Panthers with GLAAD mean that you also believe that Blacks also ought not to be treated as equal because there is a violent organization associated with them?

Veylon:

Super Not Cosmo:
It already has and you need look no further than GLAAD, The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement. GLAAD is already an extremist group that goes out of it's way to censor, attack, and harm anyone who so much as utters a single disparaging word about the people they claim to represent. They are no different that such groups as La Raza, The Black Panthers, and The KKK in that they believe that their members should be held up as superior to others not like them. At this point it's apparent to many that what the gay rights movement wants isn't so much gay rights but rather gay exceptionalism and they will use their full force and power to silence, bully, harm, and censor anyone who would stand between them and what they want.

Does your equivalence of the Black Panthers with GLAAD mean that you also believe that Blacks also ought not to be treated as equal because there is a violent organization associated with them?

I never said gays shouldn't be treated as equals. If that was all the gay rights movement was about I'd have no problem with that. No, I said gays shouldn't be put on a pedestal and given special treatment, which is very much what GLAAD and those who ally with them are, most certainly, all about. They are nothing more than bullies who use their ways to censor and silence anyone who might disagree with them. I have no issue with gay people, I have a very big issue with militant activist groups like GLAAD another other various members of the GayKK

tstorm823:

Ok, admittedly that wasn't the fairest response I've ever given, but you responded to my pragmatism with pretty much full on appeal to emotion, so I didn't have many avenues open to me.

I mean, I never meant to accuse you personally of anything, I just mean that people who are against homosexuality aren't paranoid when they think they're being attacked. There are people out there to shame the homophobes, and I think its doing everyone a disservice.

Fair enough, I did go a bit overboard. I'd stick by what I said about non-acceptance creating a toxic atmosphere, though, and contributing to the problems of depression and denial.

As I see it, questions of how to deal with it are issues of method, not principle.

tstorm823:

My apologies. I did not intend that. If anything, I was worried about sounding dumb myself.

No worries.

OT: Also agreed entirely with what The Gnome King said, about re-phrasing the OP to substitute another demographic.

Super Not Cosmo:
I have no issue with gay people, I have a very big issue with militant activist groups like GLAAD another other various members of the GayKK

You know if you're going to suggest that GLAAD is about on par with the KKK and that this is representative of the entire movement you're going to have to back some of that up.
For example, how many people have they killed?

The problem with your OP is it sounds a bit disingenuous. Danger - Must Silence said it better than I could, your entire post is basically you saying "I read some things on the Internet" and for some reason you turned it into an entire post that's basically about being a persecuted straight male.

Vivi22:

KingsGambit:
But, taking the Abrahamic religions as an example, they do not accept homosexuality. It is against their beliefs, which they are within their rights to hold. Now discriminating against someone because of their homosexuality, gender, disability, etc is a legal no-no, and rightly so, but homosexuals can get married secularly. There's no need to rail against thousands of years old religions which cannot officially marry them and whose doctrine on this point is not flexible. Accept it, move on, get married in any one of the other places in the world.

Firstly, since most of the people making the laws that say they can't marry and fighting desperately against legalization of same sex marriage are doing so because their religion tells them it's wrong, there is a need to rail against those religions. If we were talking about a secular hate group no one would have a problem with it. Religion should not get a free pass on telling people it's okay to be bigoted.

Second, I don't buy the argument for one second that religious doctrine isn't flexible on this point considering religious doctrine has frequently been bent to serve the whims of whoever is preaching it, probably for the entirety of human history. And if their religious doctrine were so inflexible, then the very passages they use to condemn gays and fight against gay marriage would require them to kill their wives if they weren't virgins when they married them. So saying religious doctrine isn't flexible is bullshit. These people have been picking and choosing which parts of the bible to follow for their entire lives. The only reason they choose to follow this specific part is to justify their bigotry, not to explain it.

I will respectfully disagree with you. First, I'm not talking about bigotry, murder or condemnation. I mentioned "live and let live" being the philosophy to strive for. Second, depending on the religion, the doctrine is inflexible. Taking the Jewish Old Testament as an example, the books are actually the words of God. They were not written by a man or men, but were Divine in origin. Being Divine, men cannot change it. I believe that the Quraan is similarly inflexible, despite being written by men. The New Testament was written by men however and was not Divine in origin, so can be interpreted differently and changed.

To reiterate, I would condemn condemnation and bigotry from any source, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about trying trying to change something that cannot be changed. A country's laws are written by men and are subject to change and the prevailing zeitgeist. For those who believe, laws from God cannot be. To a homosexual, the religions cannot accept them because it is against their beliefs. Just accept it, make peace and move on, you don't need them or their institutions, particularly now since marriage is available secularly.

If anyone discriminates or tries to curtail someone's civil liberties, I will condemn them for it. But if homosexuals rail against being unable to be married by the laws of Catholicism, Islam or Judaism as examples, I'd tell them they were stupid, blame them for the confrontation and wouldn't take their side.

"I am not a bigot or a homophobe, but *followed by a wall of text saying how it is wrong that there are gays visible everywhere*"
Right...

I'm not thirsty, but i think i'll go get a drink.

KingsGambit:

If anyone discriminates or tries to curtail someone's civil liberties, I will condemn them for it. But if homosexuals rail against being unable to be married by the laws of Catholicism, Islam or Judaism as examples, I'd tell them they were stupid, blame them for the confrontation and wouldn't take their side.

What about those Churches (of Christian, Quaker, and Jewish denominations) that actually want to marry same-sex couples, but were/are prevented from doing so? Those religions are not all homogeneous.

Are same-sex couples stupid for wanting to be allowed to be married by Churches that want to do it?

nyysjan:

I'm not thirsty, but i think i'll go get a drink.

That made me laugh out loud, so thank you!

I'm pretty sure homosexuality cannot actually dominate anything. If you're talking media, then the prime concern is what sells, not what orientation is involved. Money is the bottom line and there is no loyalty in business other than to this. If you mean politically or culturally overall, it'll never go beyond an equivalent Left-Right kind of stance. Both sides appear in nature, so both sides will have their place in society.

Silvanus:

KingsGambit:

If anyone discriminates or tries to curtail someone's civil liberties, I will condemn them for it. But if homosexuals rail against being unable to be married by the laws of Catholicism, Islam or Judaism as examples, I'd tell them they were stupid, blame them for the confrontation and wouldn't take their side.

What about those Churches (of Christian, Quaker, and Jewish denominations) that actually want to marry same-sex couples, but were/are prevented from doing so? Those religions are not all homogeneous.

Are same-sex couples stupid for wanting to be allowed to be married by Churches that want to do it?

Muddling up marriages and weddings, which seems to happen a lot with people for some reason. Weddings are irrelavant to marriages.

But anyway you're right in that aspect. KingsGambit is also muddling them up, and fogetting that there's many instituations of those beliefs that would be happy to perform weddings for gay couples.

Movie and show writers like to toss in gay people because they want to be "edgy" and "controversial", not because they're trying to pander. Basically they're just tossing in tried-and-true elements that are known to boost ratings without much effort on the part of writers and production staff. By tossing in a gay character, suddenly your movie isn't just a formulaic action film, it "has an element of social commentary" and gets a shot at free advertising if it ends up being bitched about on Fox News.

What do you mean by "dominance"? That homosexuality will be the enforced norm and heterosexuality will be discriminated against? Well since less than 2% of people are LGBTQ I really can't see that happening.

Where did you get these ideas, exactly? tumblr social justice warriors don't exactly represent the progressive ideal, and though I don't doubt that a select few gay people probably like to complain about the "straight privilege" and how every non-gay person is a bigot who is perpetuating their discrimination none of that is really the norm.

Neta:
I think a more important question is this:

"So, at what point DOES the Civil rights issue extend beyond establishing acceptance and into the territory of culture dominance? And if that's a problem for somebody, why is it a problem that it's a problem for them?"

Replace "gay" with "black" and re-read the OP.

Also this. For comparison:

"I think it's a fair question to ask.

It's sad that I have to do this, but let me go ahead and give you a disclaimer: I think black people should be allowed to vote, I can think of no reason why they shouldn't. I have black friends, I have a black uncle, I am by no means anti-black. I just think it's a valid question.

So, at what point DOES the civil rights issue extend beyond establishing acceptance and into the territory of culture dominance? And if that's a problem for somebody, why is it a problem that it's a problem for them?

Don't get me wrong, I believe black people have their place in culture, just as any demographic does. But I can't help but notice that it seems that black activists are pushing almost too hard, seemingly attempting to take over and ensure that the black life style is represented in every facet of daily life.

If a movie seems to [have too many white characters], I've seen those movies criticized as "stuck in the past" or even more outrageously, "racist".

It's not ok for there to be movies featuring black people and movies NOT featuring black people?

Another hot topic is the issue of black character in video games - people believe that games NEED black characters. I don't believe that. I believe that there should be absolutely no restriction on including black characters in games, but I don't believe they NEED black characters. I don't believe it's necessary for stifle anyone's intellectual creativity with a force character archetype or WHATEVER you want to call it, just for the purpose of being falsely inclusive.

I think if a writer thinks "Yeah, this story could really benefit from the dynamic that a black character could bring", then by all fucking means I'm interested in experiencing your story... but when it comes to the point of "This games cast is not diverse enough, you really should try to shoehorn a black guy into it", I just find that flat out wrong.

[Removed the bit with the James Bond analogy, it doesn't fit here and is a separate argument]

There's this growing notion that a white man who enjoys being white and enjoys white women and doesn't consider the possibility of any sort of romantic or sexual encounter with someone of another race, is a close minded bigot. How is that fair? If you're going to suggest that black people are born black (I AM convinced that they are, for what it's worth), how can you basically turn around and shame a white person for not having the capacity to entertain interracial thoughts?

As a sexual creature, as most of us humans are, I think it would be pretty cool to be able to be turned on by BOTH races - you could have a lot of fun and more options for relationships... alas, I am not, and I'm getting pretty tired of being made to feel guilty because I can't fathom an attraction to another race. Despite my support and acceptance of black people, I am still very much a white male... feeling ever increasingly less accepted because apparently it's not OK to be 100% white anymore.

Well, this turned into more of a rant than I intended... but hopefully you've followed me close enough to really understand what I'm digging at here.

I do not want to see any knee-jerk, standoffish replies. You are welcome to challenge my points, that's why I made this thread - but remain respectful or you're just not going to get a reply back. Thank you.

I KNOW we're capable of actually discussing this in an intelligent way... so let's do it."

Yea, looks pretty ridiculous. Why should you need to append or preface nearly every one of your arguments with "I'm not homophobic but..."? That's usually not a good sign. Sort of like saying "I'm not a racist BUT I think it's just scientifically established that black people shouldn't vote."

No one thinks less of you for being straight.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked