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

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

To me, there is a limit...

Like mention, there is no need for gays to be in a video game or a movie... It should be possible to have gays in such but isn't a need...

Though I highly believe in a hugely world game (Like The Elder Scrolls or Grand Theft Auto series), I do believe there should be a good mix of everything possible, since it is highly unlikely you will NOT find a single gay person in a city or a country/province...

Jusey1:
To me, there is a limit...

Like mention, there is no need for gays to be in a video game or a movie... It should be possible to have gays in such but isn't a need...

Though I highly believe in a hugely world game (Like The Elder Scrolls or Grand Theft Auto series), I do believe there should be a good mix of everything possible, since it is highly unlikely you will NOT find a single gay person in a city or a country/province...

Was there a "need" to have a black guy in GTAV?

Neta:

Jusey1:
To me, there is a limit...

Like mention, there is no need for gays to be in a video game or a movie... It should be possible to have gays in such but isn't a need...

Though I highly believe in a hugely world game (Like The Elder Scrolls or Grand Theft Auto series), I do believe there should be a good mix of everything possible, since it is highly unlikely you will NOT find a single gay person in a city or a country/province...

Was there a "need" to have a black guy in GTAV?

Absolutely not. It's fine that there was a black guy but there was certainly no need. The game wouldn't have suffered if his character was suddenly changed into another white guy or a Latino or a Sherpa or whatever have you.

This idea that somehow various minorities NEED to be represented in various media, whether it be video games or movies or tv, or anything else, is absurd. Where does it stop? At the rate we are going pretty soon we will have people coming down with a massive case of sandy vag and crying foul because there isn't a transgender Aborigine in some game/movie/tv show.

Super Not Cosmo:
Where does it stop? At the rate we are going pretty soon we will have people coming down with a massive case of sandy vag and crying foul because there isn't a transgender Aborigine in some game/movie/tv show.

Are you sure? "At the rate we're going", remember, the vast majority of media still contains only straight romances.

I think you're perfectly safe for the time being.

Super Not Cosmo:
Absolutely not. It's fine that there was a black guy but there was certainly no need. The game wouldn't have suffered if his character was suddenly changed into another white guy or a Latino or a Sherpa or whatever have you.

Hmm, you know, on second thought I think I actually agree with your comment here.

Super Not Cosmo:
This idea that somehow various minorities NEED to be represented in various media, whether it be video games or movies or tv, or anything else, is absurd. Where does it stop? At the rate we are going pretty soon we will have people coming down with a massive case of sandy vag and crying foul because there isn't a transgender Aborigine in some game/movie/tv show.

However I still disagree with this part of your comment. While black people, gay people, etc. are all "minorities" they're not particularly small minorities. More of a mid-ority.

These demographics should be represented in popular culture because whatever else you may think, these people are quite common in society. Leaving them out could be taken several different ways, such as ignoring them as people, disregarding their value as humans beings, trying to pretend they don't exist, and so on.

A character may not need to be black, or gay, or female, but then again they don't need to NOT be black, or gay, or female in most situations. (You wouldn't cast Queen Latifah as Abraham Lincoln for example, but there's no reason she can't ever be portrayed as a potential President of the USA.)

Super Not Cosmo:
This idea that somehow various minorities NEED to be represented in various media, whether it be video games or movies or tv, or anything else, is absurd. Where does it stop? At the rate we are going pretty soon we will have people coming down with a massive case of sandy vag and crying foul because there isn't a transgender Aborigine in some game/movie/tv show.

Dude, that's one hell of a slippery slope fallacy you're using there.

Neta:
(You wouldn't cast Queen Latifah as Abraham Lincoln for example, but there's no reason she can't ever be portrayed as a potential President of the USA.)

I know this is incredibly off topic and you were probably just looking for an example, but I personally wouldn't cast her as a president (as a dramatic role) simply because she doesn't come across as presidential... and don't think she has the acting chops to pull it off.

Beyond that I think that the OP probably needs to think about how pervasive gays are in the culture at large. The answer is not very. The fact that they want to see some representation within verious forms of media isn't some kind of Herculean task so stop bitching about it.

As for what Cosmo said, there is a need for representation in the media. It gives give that perticular demographic cedibility within the culture, it signifies that it has become part of the norm, especially when it isn't just a character who's one defining trait is their race or sexuality. Also I'm glad to see you produce such great commentary, I don't know what we would do without you and your constant railing against those darn gays and their secret plan for cultural domination.

nyysjan:
"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.

I'm getting incredibly sick of this "point" being brought up. It's ridiculous. First of all you, specifically, missed the point of my thread if you think I was suggesting that gays should be hidden.

Second, the "Anyone who says they're not something usually is" argument is bullshit. So far in this thread, I've been accused of being anti-gay and BEING a closeted gay, simply because I had to clarify that my point wasn't in attacking gays but raising questions of their methods of attaining acceptance.

That's a very efficient way of discrediting someone whom you disagree with but cannot form a logical argument against - Liberal and Conservative media does it all the time (but the Liberals are WAY better at it).

However, had I failed to include such disclaimers, there's the other half of you who would STILL accuse me of being anti-gay or whatever because "You don't know gay people so you don't know what they go through etc etc etc".

It's a no-win situation, I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't, so I'll just say it now plain and clear - do not fucking put words in my mouth or accuse me of anything if you're going to completely ignore the point I was trying to raise.

CarnageRacing00:
Second, the "Anyone who says they're not something usually is" argument is bullshit. So far in this thread, I've been accused of being anti-gay and BEING a closeted gay,

There is nothing contradictory in those two things, and so mentioning that you've been accused of both accomplishes nothing for you.

simply because I had to clarify that my point wasn't in attacking gays but raising questions of their methods of attaining acceptance.

Yes, but the points you were raising were a bunch of nonsense you made up in order to make the ways gays have been attaining acceptance sound scarier than it really is. Which makes your disclaimer that you are not homophobic quite suspect.

However, had I failed to include such disclaimers, there's the other half of you who would STILL accuse me of being anti-gay

So you acknowledge that including the disclaimer accomplishes nothing. Why did you choose to include it then? Wouldn't it be smarter to demonstrate your lack of homophobia through the quality of your arguments, rather than just proclaiming it and demanding we accept it, even when your arguments themselves are dishonestly hostile toward gays?

It's a no-win situation, I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't,

It's a very easy situation to win: Don't make homophobic arguments, and the only people who accuse you of homophobia will be people who don't matter.

CarnageRacing00:
However, had I failed to include such disclaimers, there's the other half of you who would STILL accuse me of being anti-gay

Because you claim that gay people are taking over, that straight people are being attacked for being straight, that you are upset at people wanting to see more gay people in movies and games..

Which is anti-gay.

You've been accused of homophobia because of that long homophobic rant of yours. You can put whatever disclaimers you want in front of a homophobic rant, it doesn't stop being a homophobic rant.

thaluikhain:

CarnageRacing00:
However, had I failed to include such disclaimers, there's the other half of you who would STILL accuse me of being anti-gay

Because you claim that gay people are taking over, that straight people are being attacked for being straight, that you are upset at people wanting to see more gay people in movies and games..

Which is anti-gay.

You've been accused of homophobia because of that long homophobic rant of yours. You can put whatever disclaimers you want in front of a homophobic rant, it doesn't stop being a homophobic rant.

Granted to be fair to the OP here's a point Thal. I think he might be getting mixed up the extremists of the gay community with the community as a whole. As a gay male myself I sometimes take umbrage at groups like GLAAD. I agree with some things they do and think other things they do are fucking stupid. But they are some of the most vocal in the community. If someone sees the most vocal and isn't familiar with the group as a whole, it stands to reason they might see things skewed. There are people out there who will complain if anything is said they consider anti-gay even if it's not. There are people who will try and shove their own homosexuality and views down anyone's throat. (The people who continually try and get Sesame Street to say Bert and Ernie are gay come to mind :-p) But there are people like that for anything. Religious, ethic, political, hell even cultural. (Star Trek vs. Star Wars fans come to mind here :-) )

Anyways, the OP doesn't strike me as homophobic. He strikes me as someone who is seeing the most extreme views out there and is mistakenly associating them with the whole. He needs to be shown that not every gay person want to MAKE THE WORLD QUEER!!!! We want what everyone wants. Respect, acceptance and for our sexuality to not be an issue to anyone.

Ashannon Blackthorn:

thaluikhain:

CarnageRacing00:
However, had I failed to include such disclaimers, there's the other half of you who would STILL accuse me of being anti-gay

Because you claim that gay people are taking over, that straight people are being attacked for being straight, that you are upset at people wanting to see more gay people in movies and games..

Which is anti-gay.

You've been accused of homophobia because of that long homophobic rant of yours. You can put whatever disclaimers you want in front of a homophobic rant, it doesn't stop being a homophobic rant.

Granted to be fair to the OP here's a point Thal. I think he might be getting mixed up the extremists of the gay community with the community as a whole. As a gay male myself I sometimes take umbrage at groups like GLAAD. I agree with some things they do and think other things they do are fucking stupid. But they are some of the most vocal in the community. If someone sees the most vocal and isn't familiar with the group as a whole, it stands to reason they might see things skewed. There are people out there who will complain if anything is said they consider anti-gay even if it's not. There are people who will try and shove their own homosexuality and views down anyone's throat. (The people who continually try and get Sesame Street to say Bert and Ernie are gay come to mind :-p) But there are people like that for anything. Religious, ethic, political, hell even cultural. (Star Trek vs. Star Wars fans come to mind here :-) )

Anyways, the OP doesn't strike me as homophobic. He strikes me as someone who is seeing the most extreme views out there and is mistakenly associating them with the whole. He needs to be shown that not every gay person want to MAKE THE WORLD QUEER!!!! We want what everyone wants. Respect, acceptance and for our sexuality to not be an issue to anyone.

So, instead of homophobic, he simply is ignorant and bigoted?
I'm not sure how much happier he would be with that description.

At some point in a very, very far distance that has nothing to do with any realistic or real scenarios I've ever encountered.

nyysjan:

Ashannon Blackthorn:

thaluikhain:

Because you claim that gay people are taking over, that straight people are being attacked for being straight, that you are upset at people wanting to see more gay people in movies and games..

Which is anti-gay.

You've been accused of homophobia because of that long homophobic rant of yours. You can put whatever disclaimers you want in front of a homophobic rant, it doesn't stop being a homophobic rant.

Granted to be fair to the OP here's a point Thal. I think he might be getting mixed up the extremists of the gay community with the community as a whole. As a gay male myself I sometimes take umbrage at groups like GLAAD. I agree with some things they do and think other things they do are fucking stupid. But they are some of the most vocal in the community. If someone sees the most vocal and isn't familiar with the group as a whole, it stands to reason they might see things skewed. There are people out there who will complain if anything is said they consider anti-gay even if it's not. There are people who will try and shove their own homosexuality and views down anyone's throat. (The people who continually try and get Sesame Street to say Bert and Ernie are gay come to mind :-p) But there are people like that for anything. Religious, ethic, political, hell even cultural. (Star Trek vs. Star Wars fans come to mind here :-) )

Anyways, the OP doesn't strike me as homophobic. He strikes me as someone who is seeing the most extreme views out there and is mistakenly associating them with the whole. He needs to be shown that not every gay person want to MAKE THE WORLD QUEER!!!! We want what everyone wants. Respect, acceptance and for our sexuality to not be an issue to anyone.

So, instead of homophobic, he simply is ignorant and bigoted?
I'm not sure how much happier he would be with that description.

Well ignorance is fairly easy to overcome is one is aware of it and willing to change. Bigoted in this case is just another word for homophobic so I think we can avoid duplicating ourselves. Now whether the OP wishes to change or thinks he needs to is another thing. **shrug**

Ashannon Blackthorn:

nyysjan:

Ashannon Blackthorn:

Granted to be fair to the OP here's a point Thal. I think he might be getting mixed up the extremists of the gay community with the community as a whole. As a gay male myself I sometimes take umbrage at groups like GLAAD. I agree with some things they do and think other things they do are fucking stupid. But they are some of the most vocal in the community. If someone sees the most vocal and isn't familiar with the group as a whole, it stands to reason they might see things skewed. There are people out there who will complain if anything is said they consider anti-gay even if it's not. There are people who will try and shove their own homosexuality and views down anyone's throat. (The people who continually try and get Sesame Street to say Bert and Ernie are gay come to mind :-p) But there are people like that for anything. Religious, ethic, political, hell even cultural. (Star Trek vs. Star Wars fans come to mind here :-) )

Anyways, the OP doesn't strike me as homophobic. He strikes me as someone who is seeing the most extreme views out there and is mistakenly associating them with the whole. He needs to be shown that not every gay person want to MAKE THE WORLD QUEER!!!! We want what everyone wants. Respect, acceptance and for our sexuality to not be an issue to anyone.

So, instead of homophobic, he simply is ignorant and bigoted?
I'm not sure how much happier he would be with that description.

Well ignorance is fairly easy to overcome is one is aware of it and willing to change. Bigoted in this case is just another word for homophobic so I think we can avoid duplicating ourselves. Now whether the OP wishes to change or thinks he needs to is another thing. **shrug**

Nah, in this case bigoted means general prejudiced intolerance of something he or she lacks proper knowledge of to properly evaluate (cue ignorance).
And ignorance can be cured, but often is not (because people, being stupid, often are unable to aknowledge their ignorance).

Anyway, judging from the OP, he seems to be homophobic, the cause, or how easily he may or may not be able to get rid of this viewpoint/attitude, is irrelevant.
Just because someone is a bigot, does not mean they are raving lunatics or can't be otherwise perfectly nice people (even to people they are bigoted towards), they just happen to have a bigoted opinions or views.

I guess things are going a little far when "normal" people are being told THEY'RE actually wrong.

But that's no more than a cry for validation from the person spouting that nonsense, so it actually doesn't bother me.

I actually have never met a gay person (and I know a couple) who acted that way.
In fact, most gay people I know are not even that "gay". I wouldn't have guessed they were homosexual until I was told, and it never changes my opinion of anyone knowing they're gay.

So I don't know where you live, but I've never had any negative experiences with gay people trying to tell me they're better or whatever.

Super Not Cosmo:
It already has and you need look no further than GLAAD, The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Disagreement.

Okay, I know that I have called you out on this bullshit, and I imagine that others had as well. IT is not "Gays and Lesbians Alliance Against Disagreement", it is "Gays Lesbian Alliance Against DEFAMATION". You know what Defamation is right, it is and I fucking quote "The communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal action to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism."

Are you ever going to get it through your skull that the D is for DEFAMATION and not disagreement, or will you simply stick with disagreement?

SimpleThunda':
I guess things are going a little far when "normal" people are being told THEY'RE actually wrong.

But that's no more than a cry for validation from the person spouting that nonsense, so it actually doesn't bother me.

I actually have never met a gay person (and I know a couple) who acted that way.
In fact, most gay people I know are not even that "gay". I wouldn't have guessed they were homosexual until I was told, and it never changes my opinion of anyone knowing they're gay.

So I don't know where you live, but I've never had any negative experiences with gay people trying to tell me they're better or whatever.

Three things in this post stood out to me.
One, being told they are wrong on what? For being straight? (and has anyone,who we should in anyway take seriously, actually made that claim?)
Two, you saying homosexuality is not normal? (yes, i assume you are using it to mean "not statistically average", but still, calling gay people "not normal", could easily be taken as an insult)
Three, what do you mean they aren't that "gay", they are only slightly attracted to people of the same gender?

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:
It's a very easy situation to win: Don't make homophobic arguments, and the only people who accuse you of homophobia will be people who don't matter.

I don't consider the "arguments" to be homophobic, that's yet another bullshit term thrown around to scare people from challenging certain concepts and ideologies.

Want to destroy a politician's career? Accuse him of being homophobic. There is absolutely nothing, and I mean NOTHING he can say from that point to make himself look good - if he says "I have gay friends, I support gay marriage" or whatever, you'll say he's overcompensating to throw people off the trail. Even if he says "I have no idea where they get the idea that I'm homophobic, I'm simply not", you'll say he's in denial.

Granted, I am raising questions that could be construed as "anti-gay" by those who fail to comprehend the notion of playing devil's advocate or simply attempting to create important discussion of the merits of forced societal integration and the negative effect it has on the image of any particular demographic, but it doesn't matter - if I tell you that i'm not anti-gay, and I'm not a homo phobe, that should be enough. You should have the capacity to allow yourself to move on from that and actually debate the issue, NOT the debater.

thaluikhain:

Because you claim that gay people are taking over, that straight people are being attacked for being straight, that you are upset at people wanting to see more gay people in movies and games..

Which is anti-gay.

You've been accused of homophobia because of that long homophobic rant of yours. You can put whatever disclaimers you want in front of a homophobic rant, it doesn't stop being a homophobic rant.

I raised questions. Instead of attempting to answer those questions with logical, rational thought, you choose to attack me instead. You viewed my post as a homophobic rant because either A) you didn't read it, or B) you're incapable of understanding complicated thought processes.

CarnageRacing00:
if I tell you that i'm not anti-gay, and I'm not a homo phobe, that should be enough.

No, definitely, definitely not. Absolutely anybody can say they're not racist, or homophobic, or sexist, or what-have-you. And yet, some of the most racist/homophobic/sexist statements I've ever seen have been prefixed with that phrase; "I'm not homophobic, but..."

The Daily Mail says it's not racist all the time.

Arguments should be judged on their content. Assuring people that your argument is fine shouldn't count for anything. It is not enough.

CarnageRacing00:
I raised questions. Instead of attempting to answer those questions with logical, rational thought, you choose to attack me instead. You viewed my post as a homophobic rant because either A) you didn't read it, or B) you're incapable of understanding complicated thought processes.

Well, that and it's a homophobic rant. Claiming that society is turning against or shaming straight people is homophobic. Claiming that gay activists are trying to take over is homophobic.

Claiming not to be homophobic doesn't change that. You can say you're not homophobic as much as you want, it doesn't magically stop what you said from being homophobic.

CarnageRacing00:
Want to destroy a politician's career? Accuse him of being homophobic.

Oddly enough, being actually homophobic doesn't destroy careers.

EDIT: Look, I understand that you might not want to be homophobic, but that doesn't mean that everything you say is automatically not homophobic. If you really don't want to be homophobic, when someone (or, in this case, many someones) calls you out on saying something homophobic, you can think about what was homophobic about what you said, or you can consider yourself beyond criticism and dismiss it. One of these is much more useful that the other.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, will get called out on some prejudice of theirs from time to time. The question is not whether someone is free of bigotry, it's whether they are willing to accept that and try to do better in future.

Racecarlock:
When straight marriage is illegalized.

Agreed. This would only tip the balance when gay people have more rights and privilages when compared to straight people under the law. I really don't know what else can be said on this thread.

Social pressures and views have some influence, but are not legally compelling by themselves.

CarnageRacing00:

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:
It's a very easy situation to win: Don't make homophobic arguments, and the only people who accuse you of homophobia will be people who don't matter.

I don't consider the "arguments" to be homophobic, that's yet another bullshit term thrown around to scare people from challenging certain concepts and ideologies.

No, that's another lie. There is no "ideology" that you've challenged. You've received several replies in this very thread spelling out for you in meticulous detail every fallacy you've made in your anti-gay OP rant. And you haven't bothered to respond to hardly any of it. You haven't tried to revise your position, you haven't addressed the falsehoods spotted in your rant, you just threw a tantrum about us not believing your claim to not be a homophobe. You're not challenging anything at all beyond your own internet reputation.

Want to destroy a politician's career? Accuse him of being homophobic. There is absolutely nothing, and I mean NOTHING he can say from that point to make himself look good - if he says "I have gay friends, I support gay marriage" or whatever, you'll say he's overcompensating to throw people off the trail. Even if he says "I have no idea where they get the idea that I'm homophobic, I'm simply not", you'll say he's in denial.

Another baseless, unsubstantiated rant that has nothing to do with the argument in question. I'll give you a tip: When you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging.

Granted, I am raising questions that could be construed as "anti-gay" by those who fail to comprehend the notion of playing devil's advocate or simply attempting to create important discussion of the merits of forced societal integration and the negative effect it has on the image of any particular demographic,

No, you're doing no such thing. You're spreading lies. And you need to admit it and fix it if you want the rest of us to stop thinking you're a homophobe.

if I tell you that i'm not anti-gay, and I'm not a homo phobe, that should be enough.

Nope, sorry, that's not how it works. Smart people make decisions based on evidence, and all the evidence you've given us points to the opposite of what you're claiming it does.

You should have the capacity to allow yourself to move on from that and actually debate the issue, NOT the debater.

Except here there is no issue to debate- the debater has provided not a single shred of evidence that anything they've claimed is true, and has blatantly lied about the issue on more than one occasion. At this point, the issue is the debater.

It crosses the line when it stops being about something personal (i.e. what I want to do for myself) to being something that infringes upon others (i.e. what I want others to do for me). Marriage is a personal choice that affects you and the person who makes that choice with you. So wanting same sex marriage doesn't cross that line. But forcing game developers and movie directors to create the characters and stories you want them to goes beyond a personal decision. It's no longer about how you want to live your life, but about how you want other people to run theirs.

I would say that any decision/action the individual makes regarding themselves falls under acceptance and freedom, any decision the individual makes that affects those other than himself may border on tyranny and oppression.

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:
Except here there is no issue to debate- the debater has provided not a single shred of evidence that anything they've claimed is true, and has blatantly lied about the issue on more than one occasion. At this point, the issue is the debater.

You calm yourself right down there, skippy. I'm not taking too kindly to your accusatory attitude toward me, and it's certainly not helpful for your cause if you're hoping to educate me or anyone else. How about we both dial it back a notch so this can actually be discussed, like I asked for in the first place?

Anyway...

Example 1: A star of a stupid reality TV series about a bunch of rednecks who hunt water foul made comments about not understanding the appeal of same sex relations. Yes, his comments were utterly harmless, taken vastly out of context and he was accused of homophobia and hatred for gays. Yes, despite the fact that he says he loves you no matter if you're gay, a drunk, a terrorist - the man was still targeted for public destruction. Yes, despite the fact that he said that he prefers vagina over anus, but stopped short of actually saying anything even remotely insulting to anyone (other than those who find those words offensive of their own merits), he was still accused of hating gays. They even said he was a racist for saying that when he was white trash working in the fields next to black people, he never saw mistreatment with his own eyes. Yes, his statements there were taken out of context as well and blown way out of proportion. The man was asked his opinion of gay marriage and he basically said "I don't understand it, my religion says a sin is a sin and being gay ain't no better than being a drunk which I once was, but hey I still love you no matter who you are" and the man was just viciously attacked by certain sects of the "gay movement". I did ask my own gay uncles opinion on the matter, however, and he thought it was ridiculous that such a big deal was being made - he thought what the guy said was silly, but didn't find it even remotely offensive... and I have to believe that a majority of gay people would agree with that. Yet, there are those that construe ANY negative depiction of homosexuality as just a terrible hate filled thing... and we're seeing evidence of that very thing here, in this very thread. Thanks.

Example 2: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/21/gay-only-hotels-to-be-investigated-for-discriminating-against-straights/
Fighting fire with fire, I suppose... but how does it solve anything? It doesn't, it just creates an entirely new problem. Now, I do believe it's within their rights as business owners to deny service to whomever they choose... but as was pointed out in another thread, when you cross the line into outright discrimination, it's no longer your right to deny service.

I'm convinced that my problem is with the vocal minority... but as evidenced in the past, that's usually who gets their way.

You've got whackos like this:
http://shutthefuckupstraightpeople.tumblr.com/tagged/heterophobia

Then you've got more reasonable people like this who find themselves resenting straight people because they lean toward believing that ALL straight people hate gays:
http://emptyclosets.com/forum/general-support-advice/98600-how-do-you-not-hate-straight-people.html

Continue reading down that thread and you'll see a lot of negativity and resentment toward straight people. There are a lot of positive comments too, of course... in fact, they're the majority.

Then you go back to whackos like this:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/queernation.html

Until I can enjoy the same freedom of movement and sexuality, as straights, their privilege must stop and it must be given over to me and my queer sisters and brothers.

Straight people will not do this voluntarily and so they must be forced into it. Straights must be frightened into it. Terrorized into it. Fear is the most powerful motivator. No one will give us what we deserve. Rights are not given they are taken, by force if necessary.

It is easier to fight when you know who your enemy is. Straight people are you enemy. They are your enemy when they don't acknowledge your invisibility and continue to live in and contribute to a culture that kills you.

Every day one of us is taken by the enemy. Whether it is an AIDS death due to homophobic government inaction or a lesbian bashing in an all-night diner (in a supposedly lesbian neighborhood), we are being systematically picked off and we will continue to be wiped out unless we realize that if they take one of us they must take all of us.

Then someone attempting to justify "straight hate", in what would otherwise be a fairly logical point if it didn't set up such a dangerous precedent:

You know why saying, "I hate straight people," isn't the same thing as saying, "I hate queer people?"
Because no one who says they hate straight people is trying to legally take away the rights of straight people.
Because no straight youth end up homeless just because of someone hating their sexual orientation.
Because no straight person has been murdered for being straight by someone who says, "I hate straight people." But queer people are routinely murdered by people who say, "I hate queer people" (and this has been and continues to be in some places, the legally mandated response to learning someone is queer).
Because when queer people say they hate straight people, they're often saying they hate the people who have abused, assaulted, bullied, and harassed them. But when straight people say they hate queer people, they're saying they think queer people deserve to be abused, assaulted, bullied, and harassed.
Because oppressed folks expressing their anger and exhaustion at dealing with their oppressors is not the same thing as oppressors expressing their hatred of those they oppress.

http://peacehon.tumblr.com/post/45153017058/you-know-why-saying-i-hate-straight-people

Another person confessing to "heterophobia", although he appears to be troubled by it:
http://www.enotalone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=378892

I'll continue scouring the internet for more evidence, but I think you get the point now - the mentality does exist among gays that straight people are wrong. All gays? Nope. Just like not all straights hate gays... but any straight person who questions the validity of homosexual culture is usually drawn and quartered without trial.

What's extremely interesting to me is that nobody has realized yet just how perfectly this thread has proven my point. As a straight person, I can't say anything that calls the logic or validity of certain trends among the gay community into question without being labeled a homophobe or closet gay. This thread is proof of that. It's proof because no matter WHAT I said, whether I attempted to quell the cries of discrimination by qualifying my opinion with the fact that I have gay friends and relatives and whole heartedly support the right of gays to not have their freedoms restricted, or I just posed my questions without all of that... Someone would have, instead of attempting to debate with me, instead of attempting to "educate" me, instead of attempting to expose the flaws in my logic, someone, mulitple someones, would instead simply attack me, my character, hoping to scare me down so they don't HAVE to debate.

Then don't fucking respond if that's the stance you're going to take. I wanted a discussion, what I got was a flame war. You should be allowed to ask fucking questions, to raise points and either be corrected in a mature way or otherwise educated in the matter, but instead I'm being faced with people who want to convince me that you shouldn't be allowed to ask unpopular questions without facing ridicule and contempt.

With all of that said, I sincerely do not expect this thread to take a sudden turn - I don't expect those of you who have made up their minds to do an about-face and try to actually listen and understand what I'm saying, I fully expect you to remain strongly opposed to ANYTHING I have to say... however I will ask you this one thing:

Do you think bias of any kind, in any situation, is conducive to learning?

As an aside, since I happened to think of this while I was looking for those links I posted above and don't want to waste it:
Why is it that, concerning the gay rights issue... if everyone is as compassionate toward gays as they claim, why is "closet gay" used as an insult? How could a gay person, or a gay sympathizer, accuse someone of being a closet gay in an insulting manner? Wouldn't you think that, as hard as an openly gay person has it, a closet gay PROBABLY has a lot more mental turmoil? Having spoken to my uncle who was married for 10 years to a woman before coming out, he said it was mental agony. He DID often speak out, quite strongly, against gays because he wanted to deny his reality. He said it was anguish not feeling like he could be himself, that he had to put on an act every day, that he had to lie to people, and telling his wife was the hardest thing he'd ever done yet it was also the most freeing thing as well.

So why is closet gay used as an insult? That's pretty fucking wrong, in my opinion. For example, those of you accusing me of being a closet gay... if you're so fucking compassionate, why haven't you offered any help? I know why... it's because you don't really think I'm a closet gay. You were just using it as an insult and nothing more.

Because it relates to the topic, here's one of my favorite songs.

Listen to the lyrics or look them up. Yep, one of my favorite songs... true human suffering... a gay man afraid of what he is and what it will cost him.

Bonus round: Tell me what you think it means, that I like this song so much. Go on, I'm VERY curious to know what you think it says about me.

CarnageRacing00:
-snip-

Judging from your post looks like I called it right:

Pluvia:
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.

Anyway one of the problems with your post is it doesn't back up the claims you made in the OP:

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.

And effectively boils down to "some people said something on the Internet".

Even in your first, unsourced, example you mention that a guy was taken out of context. While I haven't seen the context and can only judge from your post, by the looks of it he compared being gay to being an alcoholic or a terrorist. It's pretty clear to see why comparing being gay to murdering loads and loads of people can be considered homophobic.

You second example was an investigation of discrimination and putting a stop to it. Stopping discrimination is a good thing, so I don't see the problem here.

Pretty sure your 3rd example is satire. The first picture is "Because they [straight people] smell". There's the tumblr poster being represented by the evil witch from Sleeping Beauty, and there's a gif of the rainbow flag but with "Heterophobia 4 lyfe" with sparkles going around it. Looks like clear satire to me.

Your 4th example you say they're resenting straight people because they lean towards believing ALL straight people hate gays, yet the thread just seems to be about a guy that resents how easy straight people have it. I'm going to call you out there and say you either never read that thread, or you deliberately lied.

All of these still boil down to "some people said some things on the Internet", but none of these back up your OP. Where is someone being shamed for not having gay thoughts? Where are you feeling ever increasingly less accepted because you're straight?

You're being disingenuous. It's quite transparent.

CarnageRacing00:

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:
Except here there is no issue to debate- the debater has provided not a single shred of evidence that anything they've claimed is true, and has blatantly lied about the issue on more than one occasion. At this point, the issue is the debater.

You calm yourself right down there, skippy. I'm not taking too kindly to your accusatory attitude toward me, and it's certainly not helpful for your cause if you're hoping to educate me or anyone else. How about we both dial it back a notch so this can actually be discussed, like I asked for in the first place?

You lost the moral high ground to complain about anyone's tone the moment you ignored every sane and rational criticism of your post just to rant more. Sorry, no. You dial it back. I've been respectful and honest to you this entire time.

Example 1:

Example 2:

...

I'm sorry, you don't seem to understand what I mean when I say "evidence". "Evidence" is not examples. You claimed a trend exists. Your job is to provide evidence for the trend, not name a list of anecdotes that happen to coincide with what you want us to believe the trend is.

What's extremely interesting to me is that nobody has realized yet just how perfectly this thread has proven my point. As a straight person, I can't say anything that calls the logic or validity of certain trends among the gay community into question without being labeled a homophobe or closet gay.

No, it's very easy to say something about the logic or validity of trends among the gay community. You just have to actually demonstrate that they are trends first. This is the step you have failed to attempt.

I wanted a discussion,

No, you clearly didn't. If you had wanted a discussion, you would have bothered to respond to the numerous posts on page one identifying fallacies in your ranty OP.

what I got was a flame war.

No, you didn't even get that. What you got was called out for your misrepresentations, fallacies, and fear-mongering regarding homosexuals. It's not a flame when it's the truth.

why is "closet gay" used as an insult?

It isn't, as far as I've seen.

Bonus round: Tell me what you think it means, that I like this song so much. Go on, I'm VERY curious to know what you think it says about me.

I'm sorry, but I honestly wouldn't pull a hair for what you claim your favorite song is. Contrary to the narrative you've been trying so hard to build here, I don't actually care at all about you. No offense, but you are not a topic I'm interested in discussing. I'm interested in discussing religion and politics, with that discussion informed by facts known from evidence and insightful dialog based on those facts. You're not providing those things. I'm not scolding you for that because I want to talk about you, I'm scolding you because I want you to fix what you're providing.

CarnageRacing00:

Example 1: A star of a stupid reality TV series about a bunch of rednecks who hunt water foul made comments about not understanding the appeal of same sex relations. Yes, his comments were utterly harmless, taken vastly out of context and he was accused of homophobia and hatred for gays. Yes, despite the fact that he says he loves you no matter if you're gay, a drunk, a terrorist - the man was still targeted for public destruction. Yes, despite the fact that he said that he prefers vagina over anus, but stopped short of actually saying anything even remotely insulting to anyone (other than those who find those words offensive of their own merits), he was still accused of hating gays. They even said he was a racist for saying that when he was white trash working in the fields next to black people, he never saw mistreatment with his own eyes. Yes, his statements there were taken out of context as well and blown way out of proportion. The man was asked his opinion of gay marriage and he basically said "I don't understand it, my religion says a sin is a sin and being gay ain't no better than being a drunk which I once was, but hey I still love you no matter who you are" and the man was just viciously attacked by certain sects of the "gay movement". I did ask my own gay uncles opinion on the matter, however, and he thought it was ridiculous that such a big deal was being made - he thought what the guy said was silly, but didn't find it even remotely offensive... and I have to believe that a majority of gay people would agree with that. Yet, there are those that construe ANY negative depiction of homosexuality as just a terrible hate filled thing... and we're seeing evidence of that very thing here, in this very thread. Thanks.

Making a slippery slope fallacy comparing homosexuality to bestiality and promiscuity is in no way harmless. It's the same argument (and pedophilia is often thrown in as well) that's being used by actual politicians in their fight to continue denying gay rights to people. Whether you're some pop culture idiot or some random person on the internet, it's not harmless. It is, in fact, extremely harmful and many gay people in Russia are currently being physically attacked and abused by those who use those very same arguments and there's no difference between the two. It's all the same systemic ignorance being used to justify bigotry and anyone who makes use of those arguments deserves to be criticized by every single person who hears them for adding to the overall voices of those who prey on the unequal.

And, for your information, he wasn't asked his opinion on gay marriage. He was asked his opinion on what's sinful and then used that to make the slippery slope fallacy.

'hate the sin, not the sinner' is still a reprehensible attitude. It still demonizes an activity that hurts no one and compares them to murderers and drunks as if they're under the same brush, furthering yet more systemic ignorance that being gay is an abnormal act unworthy of being treated equal.

And finally, no one cares about what your gay uncle said. It doesn't matter anything to this conversation and was only added so that you could say 'A gay person I know said [x] about this.' And people wonder why "I have [x] friends/family, but..." arguments are immediately thrown out for the trash that they are. Because they're trash.

CarnageRacing00:
It's proof because no matter WHAT I said, whether I attempted to quell the cries of discrimination by qualifying my opinion with the fact that I have gay friends and relatives and whole heartedly support the right of gays to not have their freedoms restricted

Again, that does not magically make homophobic statements not homophobic.

It might be seen as evidence that you did not mean to say anything homophobic, or it might not, but that is another thing altogether.

nyysjan:

SimpleThunda':
I guess things are going a little far when "normal" people are being told THEY'RE actually wrong.

But that's no more than a cry for validation from the person spouting that nonsense, so it actually doesn't bother me.

I actually have never met a gay person (and I know a couple) who acted that way.
In fact, most gay people I know are not even that "gay". I wouldn't have guessed they were homosexual until I was told, and it never changes my opinion of anyone knowing they're gay.

So I don't know where you live, but I've never had any negative experiences with gay people trying to tell me they're better or whatever.

Three things in this post stood out to me.
One, being told they are wrong on what? For being straight? (and has anyone,who we should in anyway take seriously, actually made that claim?)
Two, you saying homosexuality is not normal? (yes, i assume you are using it to mean "not statistically average", but still, calling gay people "not normal", could easily be taken as an insult)
Three, what do you mean they aren't that "gay", they are only slightly attracted to people of the same gender?

The OP posted something about "normal" people being told they're homophobic or old-fashioned for not extravagating things that have to do with homosexuality, which is obviously silly.

I used the term "normal" for the lack of a better word. Hence the quotes.

And with "not that gay" I meant they're not wildly extravagant in letting everyone know they're gay, which I think is also one of the things the OP complained about.

Quotation marks have a function, sir.

SimpleThunda':

The OP posted something about "normal" people being told they're homophobic or old-fashioned for not extravagating things that have to do with homosexuality, which is obviously silly.

I used the term "normal" for the lack of a better word. Hence the quotes.

And with "not that gay" I meant they're not wildly extravagant in letting everyone know they're gay, which I think is also one of the things the OP complained about.

Quotation marks have a function, sir.

You could have used the term "heterosexual", or "Straight", both short, precise, and lacking any unfortunate implications (that i am aware of), or even non gay (if you do not want to exclude bisexuals). :)

And i don't see what being flamboyant has to do with being gay (apart from a rather silly stereotype).

The point i was making, that the word choices used, could be seen and interpreted as rather unfortunate in their implications.

I do not think you meant anything by them, and if i left that impression, i apologize, i should have been more precise myself.

CarnageRacing00:

Example 1: [Duck Dynasty Guy]

If you're referring to Phil Robertson, you've misrepresented what he said quite a bit. His actual comments were;

Phil Robertson:
"Everything is blurred on what's right and what's wrong. Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers-they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right..... But hey, it's sin, it's not logical"

...That is quite a lot worse than you made it out to be. He associated homosexuality and promiscuity to bestiality, and repeatedly called it "sin" and "wrong".

You said he just made a comment about not understanding the appeal; in fact, he went a lot further than that. He heavily criticised gay people, and gay people heavily criticised him right back. The injustice is not what was done to Phil bloody Robertson. If he's free to come out with the above, then people are free to criticise him.

CarnageRacing00:
[Other Examples, from blogs etc]

You can find examples of absolutely anything on blogs. They don't provide much evidence for this being a significant trend.

CarnageRacing00:

Then don't fucking respond if that's the stance you're going to take. I wanted a discussion, what I got was a flame war. You should be allowed to ask fucking questions, to raise points and either be corrected in a mature way or otherwise educated in the matter, but instead I'm being faced with people who want to convince me that you shouldn't be allowed to ask unpopular questions without facing ridicule and contempt.

If you wanted a mature discussion, you should not have started with accusations of gay people "cramming lifestyles down peoples' throats", and numerous strawman arguments, like the following;

OP:
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.

Now, that's just absurd. I defy you to find a single example of that "growing notion".

I'm sorry, I'm favourable to mature debate, but the OP was full of aggressive rhetoric.

CarnageRacing00:

So why is closet gay used as an insult? That's pretty fucking wrong, in my opinion. For example, those of you accusing me of being a closet gay... if you're so fucking compassionate, why haven't you offered any help? I know why... it's because you don't really think I'm a closet gay. You were just using it as an insult and nothing more.

You're right, that is wrong.

That said, I've not actually heard or seen it used in that manner.

CarnageRacing00:
I KNOW we're capable of actually discussing this in an intelligent way... so let's do it.

This imo is code for, lets not be judgmental / please be nice. That's big as for the human race given our rather barbarous history.

-----------------------------------------------------

My summary of this thread:

Heterosexuals are losing cultural hegemony.
"AHHHH A GROUP I BELONG TO IS LOSING POWER..."

Yeah, well that's just swell... here is my question, as a totally strait male as well... what gives one group rather than another the right to maintain its Hegemony?

Answer that question, and I'll start giving credence to some of the sub-points.

Here is the simple impacts of homosexuality though. Before, there was just a focus on Heterosexuality, and this is the Dominant cultural presence in a society. It is in most peoples interests to keep this, and to make sure any other group does not have power within a society. Standard power Politics.

You maintain that your beliefs and your way of life are the way... (and society will make this choice as a collective) having the effect that unchallenged you will keep the Status Quo and as a consequence are happy, with the friendly and cosy environment.

Now I am, that guy, who the first time when seeing 2 of the male characters from Game of Thrones getting off with each other, felt really really uncomfortable... as in... intellectually I am for equal rights of all people, but when confronted with this particular one in my living room was half tempted to fast forward. Its really horrible that I have that reaction, and its pretty severe. I can to a great extent sympathize with those who hold bigoted opinions because for some people... the natural reaction is "EWW EWW EWW GET AWAY"... however I challenged myself to how and why I think like that(fuck you Biology, why u do this to me), and just try and take in what is happening, and look back at what this entails for the plot.

I'm going to be completely honest, fear about losing Hegemony, is fear about being confronted with something you are not comfortable with.

And as unsympathetic as it may sound... Deal with it. Unless you can provide a real reason that an aspect of society that was previously shunned... should no longer be shunned then... what is your argument?

Then many of the other aspects of your statement are merely transitional Hollywood style fears, concerns and massive misconceptions about how to go about this, ie Shoehorning blacks, women and gays into films (in that order too historically), before working out: Blacks are just people too, Women are Women, and eventually that gays just prefer their own gender.
Over Stereotyping will not be successful in an artistic sense, and therefore anyone who does achieve a REAL, and a successful character, will do well represented with increased sales.

But before then, it'll just take a bit of time within the creative genres to figure this out... shoehorning in archetypes is normally solved, by getting said minorities (and women, because they aren't a fucking minority, but society why are you so shit at accepting them) into the Script writing stages. Having a more diverse set of writers, will lead to a more diverse cast later on. We are still not there however... and that's because of those with the power, who happen to be white and male, will enable their offspring to better thrive in a particular setting, with money and education, and those established within a career won't really want to endanger their own prospects by widening the area of competition, unless an individual does it so that they may gain more than they'd otherwise lose. If this seems Cryptic or Marxist, no please go read the 48 Laws of Power for a basic overview of how power works, and then knowing that the problems about this impacting upon creating a wider, more diverse and better pool of knowledge with which to aid in writing for films, and games as well as any other form of content.

That's a very long explanation of, don't worry, if its done it won't sell for the shoehorning factor. If it doesn't sell, then within our current Neo-Liberal society... it won't be done for too long.

So, at this point you may be thinking... but what if it gets worse...
Then call anything out as, regardless of whom, or for what cause it is.

This is hard, admittedly. Everyone wants to swing something in a situation towards their own preference (mine being, make everyone less stupid, and you make them less perceptible to power games), so... acknowledge that. Recognize it in full. This requires a cultural shift in lifting the Taboo on Power.

Once recognized that Power is a thing that all humans clamber for in their own specific and individualistic forms. Some want power over people, some want material economic power, I personally want the ability to protect myself against others power... and leveling the playing field by informing everyone suits me just fine though in itself is a form of power.

So the Gay lobby wants to cement its power within mainstream culture... understandable...
They see a hegemony they want to break... cool, go ahead.

And the point at which political games and maneuvering should start to become concerning, is when one side has a larger sway of power, and uses rather nefarious tactics to progress themselves, such as lying, such as malpractice, planting of evidence... or just general Fox News style selective hearing. When any tactics like that are used... tell people. Shame those who do it, make them pay a personal cost for themselves doing it, and then hold the body responsible for them to account as well.

That^^^ Is the only realistic methodology we have of any form of formal, or informal accountability of what groups do. However, that all said... do that, as opposed to being concerned about a group, you don't like threatening a Hegemony you do like.

The Status Quo of a bygone era is referred to as History, rather than the Status Quo. The Status Quo, will change whether you like it or not... the key thing is being able to take control of how we keep it accountable. That comes through education and making people know more. Ignorance and push back against change is useful in presenting challenges, but beyond that is doomed to fail. What is better is to engage, and what I'm trying to work out is if you OP, are the former, or are merely not quite expressing the latter, to the level you would have otherwise wanted.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked