On Gaymers and Cons Pages PREV 1 . . . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT | |
Not every time. Some of them are just socially inept, and have no idea how inconsiderate they're being. I like to avoid it altogether. I imagine others would to. Therefore, a separate convention. | |
I tackled this earlier in the thread, too. "Uh, PDA? It's a thing that happens between normal young couples. They hold hands, they stand close together, they might even kiss. All those things are clear signs of being at least bi, if not gay. Also transexuals. They don't always pass perfectly, particularly when they're in costumes. Also gossip. You go with someone who knows you're gay, who feels obligated to spread that for one reason or the other. Also some LGBT people fall squarely into the trite old stereotypes you see on TV and you can safely assume that yup, that butch woman really is a lesbian and that effeminate guy really is gay. It's a hotly debated topic within the LGBT community, but it happens. Also, people can out themselves by making comments that have nothing to do with sex, such as speaking of their boyfriends, getting caught staring at a booth babe/promotional poster, or saying "Nathan Drake looked pretty cute in the last game." There are many, many different ways people can find out you're LGBT. You don't need the T-shirt." | |
*sigh* Firstly, it's hard to get the exact emotional context of something across correctly in a text only medium. I, for example, don't know if you're being sincere or disingenuous in accusing me of getting hostile, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former. If you took it as me being specifically hostile towards you, rather than just kinda exasperated at this entire conversation then I hope this clears it up. I quoted your own words and syntax back at you, not to be hostile, but as a rhetorical device that allowed me to address each of your points in a clearly signposted way. So yeah, that was my intent there. Secondly, it's not something to be taken as not personal, because it *is* personal. It's not an abstract thought experiment to me like it may be for you. It's my life. It's very easy to be emotionally detached from a situation you don't have to experience, but for those of us that *do* have to suffer through abuse, ostracisation, slurs, threats of violence and other forms of bigotry it is actually immensely frustrating when every effort we make to try and address these issues is met with open hostility, disingenuous weaselling, concern trolling, and an outright unwillingness to attempt understanding. Note that I'm not accusing you of any of these things, but merely illustrating the kinds of things that have cropped up in this thread that might make it more likely for me to respond in a way that could be taken as getting short with you, because after 18 pages of this, I'm tired. And it's my birthday. And this isn't how I wanted to be spending my birthday. -_- So I'm not always taking 100% care to triple check every word I type to make sure it couldn't be taken the wrong way. To be fair though, many on the other side haven't been doing that either so I don't see why that need be an expectation on me. You see it as demanding special treatment, but really, we paid for it ourselves, organised it ourselves, run it ourselves, and invite everyone to share in it with us. It's not your place to say we can't have it. | |
You are doubly my hero for going through all of this aggravation on your birthday of all days. That's service above and beyond the call of duty. <3 | |
I cannot possibly agree more. You sir, are made of steel. | |
Yes, every time. The very fact they're asking you about your sex life and you're essentially a complete stranger makes them obnoxious - you being homosexual or not doesn't factor into how they're being unsavoury. That being said, how would attending a homosexual friendly convention prevent this type of conversation? I imagine it would actually have a higher chance of taking place given how homosexuality will be the topic on the tip of every tongue.
Just so I have this right, someone either intentionally or inadvertently outs themselves as being homosexual in some way. In reaction to that someone -looks- at them, for whatever reason, and that's an issue? I confess when someone hints at themselves at being homosexual I will give them more than a casual once-over as I find homosexual people to be generally endearing and I appreciate their presence and company. PDA generates stares, no matter the sexual orientation of the affectionate. I can understand the confrontation, the threats, physical violence being something folks would want to avoid - but all of those things are grounds for removal from a gaming convention. Contact security and you've taken care of the problem. When someone gets thrown out of a convention they paid money to because they were inconsiderate it actually tends to learn them pretty damn quick. | |
Hmm interesting. Another interesting point is that unlike other things where we try to up the security here were trying to better all the people attending or in this case seperate them entirely. Would it not be more affective to police this kind of nonsense? But then you cant police every little thing so I see the point now. even with more armed guards noone wants to run up to a guard and go "He call me name" Id wager that a thicker skin on this point will be fundamental to changing the gay community from something marginalized to respected or at the very least left alone. Im gonna do something i normally would object to and support this con on the grounds that its "a con thats gay friendly" and not "a gay con" I hope it doesnt become a trend I dont want black asian and mexican cons they seem backwards and self pitying to me. Completely going against the antisegregation laws that were hard fought for in this country. But this case is a bit different. Oh and I like you guestyman you seem straight up and reasonable. Not easily emotionally compromised like unfortunately some people and groups claiming to represent the gay community have been. And you helped me "get" it. So congrats your words sir were not wasted. | |
Okay. First. Happy birthday man, why are you not out celebrating? This is not the place for birthday people. Secondly. I don't see it as demanding special treatment. Not in the slightest. If it wasn't clear in my posts, my ire is directed at the fact that this is presented as a solution. What is it solving? Nothing at all. For example, I like to go to a rock club because I don't really attract the type of people that go to regular clubs. This is nothing like that. In my example, I'm not asking people with different interests to accept me as one of them. I have no need for that, because I enjoy my interests more than their's. The problem I have with all of this ISN'T that I don't think gay people should have special treatment. My problem is that I don't think it should have to come to that. I hate the idea that we as a society have reached a stage of intolerance where rounding up all the victims and putting them in their own version of our events is somehow a solution. Because it really isn't. My analogy of the flu victim wasn't saying that gay people behave like a flu victim thinking they have pneumonia, it referred to the fact that people react badly to homosexuality, so we acknowledge that gays have no place in straight culture and put them somewhere else - ie giving the flu sufferer pneumonia treatment to make them feel safer. I'm aggressive and I don't do things by halves. I'm actually on the side of tolerance. I'm just a bastard about it. | |
Don't consider the gay con a prison for gay people. Consider it a fortress or an armed camp, where we can gather our strength. (Edit: not to mention catch a breather!) | |
Her point is that they wouldn't ask if she wasn't gay. Her homosexuality is treated as an acceptable excuse to be obnoxious (as you can see by the people in this very thread).
If those people are LGBT, it's a matter of internal policing. We take care of it on our own. As a community, we are capable of self-regulation and enforcing social standards that make us feel comfortable. If they're straight, we can assume the number of such cases will be lessened significantly, and if they do happen, we will deal with it knowing that our problems will be taken seriously and not ignored.
There is a difference between looking and staring. A stare is an intense look that is prolonged far, far more than is socially acceptable, often combined with an undesirable feeling (such as prejudice, in this case), to the point where the person feels visibly uncomfortable. Often this visible discomfort does not cause the staring to stop. The timeframe of this is in dozens of seconds or several minutes, not mere seconds. There is a very strong difference between looking and staring.
Depends on the PDA. Kissing and overt groping of sexual parts, sure. But holding hands, hugging, putting an arm casually around someone, sharing personal space, making eyes at each other, flirting and other PG displays of PDA do not generate stares when done by straight couples. They do generate stares, whispering, mocking or outright name-calling when done by same-sex couples.
I cannot vouch for regular cons (someone else should field that one for me), but it could be possible to do something like that and leave no evidence to present to security. Even without that, I can assure you that it's possible to ruin someone's day without doing anything illegal. Like I said before, staring, whispering, mocking, laughing, name-calling, etc. Nobody's gonna get kicked from a con because of that. They will blame us, saying we're overreacting, playing the victim, that this is perfectly normal, etc. We end up having to swallow the humiliation and passive hostility, and then straight people get arrogant and dismissive when we say we want our own con. | |
Thanks man! :D I'm sitting in my room with the fan on full blast and the internet as my only source of entertainment because it's 10:00 in the morning in the middle of summer and it's 42 degrees C outside. -_- Stupid weather.
It's not being presented as a permanent solution though. It's being presented as a band-aid to hold the wound closed while we look for the stitches and antiseptic.
That's not entirely true in either sense though. Straight people do sit around and talk about being straight, when they talk about their relationships, quote unquote "locker-room talk", noticing the attractiveness of people around them, "I'd hit that" kinda conversations, who's slept with who gossip. Love and sexuality are fundamental things about humanity, and things that we all have in common, and are well worth discussion. Queer people have even more to talk about on top of that. Comparing and contrasting of coming out stories and histories of acceptance/bigotry, bitching about/celebrating recent political accomplishments/defeats, discussing things like the issues of marginalisation within a subculture and the best way to deal with it (ironically enough).
Like I said further up the post. It's not a permanent solution. If the problem of queer marginalisation in gaming culture gets fixed Gaymercon will in all likelihood cease to exist (Or change its purpose. We might just decide that by then it's fun enough to be worth keeping around) | |
I see your point, I do. But like I said before, over and over in this thread, it's better to let the LGBT community decide what they consider a solution or not (even if they fail), rather than ending up constantly doing what (in this case, well-meaning) straight people tell them to do.
Sexuality is part of the gaming industry. It's pervasive. And so far, it's only been about the straight males. I've said it over and over. Here's a link.
I love the sentiment, I really do, but nobody asks you to support the con. LGBT people want to get together and talk about games, let it happen. If you prefer that the con was unnecessary, start working on promoting LGBT acceptance and representation in the gamer community. You'll know your efforts were successful when LGBT people don't feel a gaymer con is desirable. | |
COD pun intended? | |
I thought I had a great post to add but it seems to have been overlooked. So here it is again. "I want to belong... by being sorted out !!!" Yup, that's a common wish, not only shared by the LGBT community, but by pretty much everyone. It's all "justified" by subjectivity, a big mix of frustration of being insulted on online games for a sexual orientation (I'm guessing, based on some arguments I'm reading; and there's probably some other stuff I'd never understand personally, which is fine). But it being illogical doesn't make it nonsense : Of course there's an issue, (just look a at multiplayer Call of duty game on Youtube and you'll get the picture). Is this the best way to deal with the problem though ? As for my own opinion on the conference, I think it's dumb, because it could be integrated as a panel in already existing well-known conventions, thus informing and sensitising more people (and probably the CONCERNED people) to the issue (as it is, it's preaching to the choir). The "fear of bigots crashing your presentation" argument is just an excuse, I'm sure the Comic con (for example) security is qualified to deal with those idiots. "Yes, but it is a tight-knit community with individual that would enjoy meeting people going through the same troubles and sharing the same passion simultaneously." Well, yeah, that's exactly my point : The main motivation, is to provide a shiny, "my very own thing" kinda feeling, to that community. If you wanna feel like you belong and have fun, that's a good place for you (gaming cons in general are, too), but don't tell me you're trying to tackle the issue with this. As I said, I think it's dumb, but, if I turn my brain off for a second, I also think it's okay too. Because even though it's not serving the "cause" as well as it could be, according to me, it provides a feeling of satisfaction and belonging to a community that may be craving for it. | |
Wat. You think we all hang out talking about specifically gay things? No, if we're at a Gaming Convention, we're going to talk about games. | |
No pun intended. | |
Eh, it's less about being bullied, and more about feeling like an outlier. Like many have said, most gaming cons are targeted at white, straight males aged 18 - 35. This is because most of the people who buy games are white straight males aged 18 - 35. But that's fine! No-one is saying don't do that. What they are saying is, hey, this place doesn't really seem to acknowledge our existence in a way that makes us feel wanted, this place makes us feel like outsiders, this place makes us feel unwanted, so we're gonna go make a con where we're explicitly wanted. There probably is bullying at cons. Probably not a LOT, but it no doubt happens, just as it still happens in bars, or on the streets. How many gays are there in the world? How many gaming conventions or events happen every month? Do the maths on that. I mean, we know women still get bullied at cons, right? ...and there's also a difference, since a woman can't not be a woman, but a gay man can hide his true self. Discrimination doesn't need to be aimed at anyone directly, it could be as much as stifling an idea. But at the end of the day, none of that matters. These people feel uncomfortable, whether it is by other people's actions, lack of action, or not. They are afraid, they don't feel safe, so they are creating a place where they do feel safe. That's all that really matters. As far as I know, they aren't saying, "hey, so those OTHER gaming conventions are full of bigoted homophobic dicks!" They're just saying, "eh, we don't feel completely catered to here, or like we can be ourselves here." Whether or not bullying happens or not? This is how these people feel about "regular" cons. It is no-one's fault, not in the slightest. This is about giving people more choice; like I said, about being more explicitly inclusive. There's a difference between acknowledging a minority exists and making sure they feel like they actually belong, eh? | |
Okay, do we actually think that anyone was really afraid D&D was satanic? I mean if i thought that a group of people especially the disenfrancised were getting demonic powers from a gaming manual, would you really go fuck with them? Seriously? I've got a book, it gives me demonic powers & you want to take away my book & by extension my demonic powers? An y ou think i'm going to just let you? If only i had some sort of demonic powers i could use to stop you? I mean seriously, is there anyone alive who thinks those christians really thought that D&D gave demonic powers? | |
I'm going to betray my age here. I was a teenager in the 1980's and raised in the Southern Baptist Church.* Yes, they absolutely believed this. These people believed they were full-on spiritual warriors for Jesus, and that Satan quite literally waited in every shadow to pounce upon the unwary. They practiced the prayers (magic spells, when you think about it) that they would have to boldly shout at a demon if one were to confront them some spooky night. Similarly, they absolutely believed that the D&D books were Satanic ritual manuals. (*: Obviously I am not still with them.) | |
Yes, there are people who genuinely believe the devil gives you magic powers. But they aren't "I melt people with my eyes and can project a shield that makes me immune to everything" powers. They see them as "evil eye", "disease" or "misfortune" powers, weaksauce curses and hexes. The worst thing Christians think Satanists can do is use their "magic" to corrupt people into sinning, which would still be weaksauce charm powers. | |
This is the worst one of these I've ever read. It starts with a really stupid comparison, (does anyone here honestly think cons are comparable to bathrooms) and just fails at everything. "They're innocent questions, but they come from minds that, quite often, don't comprehend that being able to "fit in" (hoho) pretty much anywhere is one of the numerous luxuries that come with being straight. Are you fucking serious? Do you really think that straight people never have trouble fitting in? Do you just not remember what it was like to be in any school below college? I'm straight, I had some trouble fitting in and so did a lot of people I knew for different reasons. Honestly this is one of THE most self-evidently wrong things I've ever seen someone write on the escapist with a straight face. What the hell made you come to this conclusion? | |
Don't you think it's unfair then that you use them against people in your comics and then they can't respond the same way? | |
Listen. This has been covered before. They weren't comparing specific instances, they were comparing attitudes, that's why you see the same guy with the same smug face on all panels. Could it have been done better? I have no idea, I'm not a webcomic expert or connoisseur. But if you have an issue with the way they chose to portray their message, you could elaborate a calm constructive criticism instead of flipping. As for the bit about how "straight people feel bad too", let me repeat myself as I have done over and over in the thread:
Nobody is saying that straight people live in magical paradises of awesomeness and happiness. | |
But you won't be at a gaming convention. You will be at a Homosexual Oriented Gaming Convention. Clearly the homosexuality aspect will be prevalent in at least one shape or form and certainly more prevalent than a regular Gaming Convention. Also, it's homosexual oriented, not homosexual exclusive - so there are likely to be curious heterosexual gamers attending, maybe they will have a few questions for their queer comrades. And the one thing we all know about the gamer stereotype is high frequencies of social awkwardness.
It isn't an acceptable excuse despite what an individual thinks, that's what makes it obnoxious and that's how obnoxious people operate. A person who thinks it is an acceptable excuse is obnoxious to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Is that type of behaviour ignored/considered acceptable at other gaming cons?
A few minutes? We're talking about some seriously strange people, and to be honest they MUST be a very small minority of individuals who attend gaming conventions.
Stares and whispers I can understand since homosexuality is still "novel" and a curiosity for many (myself included). The mocking and name-calling is grounds for removal in any gaming convention. Contact security.
Mocking, laughing and name-calling WILL get you removed from a con. Not the first time it is done but the individual would receive a stern warning. The second time the individual would be out on their ass. Any security company worth their salt will quickly remove such delinquents. Are you saying I am being arrogant and dismissive? | |
Yes, but what I'm saying is that while those people understand that such comments are inappropriate in a heterosexual setting (unless it's between extremely close friends), they think that the fact that she's gay makes it okay (often in the guise of harmless/scientific curiosity). I agree that it's obnoxious regardless, but what I'm saying is that a lot of people think that LGBT people are a curiosity and prodding is seen as completely natural. It's actually even worse with trans people. I've heard about trans people being asked deeply personal questions about passing (and specially regarding their genitals, which is an incredibly inappropriate thing to ask to a stranger or mere acquaintance), and they implied that this sort of thing is disappointingly common. Clearly social boundaries are not being respected here, and the only reason this happens is because we are LGBT (because these otherwise socially aware people don't do that sort of thing with straight people).
I can't really dispute any of these, since my country doesn't do cons. I am still not entirely convinced of what you're saying here, but I cannot back up my disagreement beyond a general feeling of "That can't be right." So I'm letting someone who has had actual experience take this one.
Nope, you are quite civil, though I remain unconvinced. I can easily imagine security guards dismissing the complaints of an LGBT person because they can't back up their accusations, their complaints seem ridiculous in their eyes, or they have no witnesses. I've seen it happen in places other than gaming cons, and I have no reason to believe that it would be any different there, especially with the homophobic slant in gamer culture. | |
I can assure you that a MAJORITY of people do not believe asking homosexual people those types of questions is acceptable. Believe it or not but the negative attitudes displayed to homosexuals is now only being conducted by a minority. I mean, it might be a 40/60 on average between countries now but the decency war is being won. I think that's why many people are concerned about this type of convention. It's viewed as a strategically poor decision, a retreat when homosexuals should be on the offensive (as in not shying away from the public, the easiest way to become accepted is to show you are not going anywhere). As for the transexuals having questions asked of their genitals... I can't quite fault the public for it. Let's be honest with ourselves, there are varying levels of transexuality. The 'big' step is physically removing/installing the primary defining feature between the genders. It is also something that people can simply not empathise with easily - I've been in close contact with transexuals for damn well 10 years now and I still can't empathise with the procdure, still leaving me deathly curious. How often have the transexuals just said "Enough about me, I want to talk about YOUR penis/vagina." and made the opposite party realise that, in their curiosity, they crossed a line?
The feeling of "That can't be right." as in you don't believe that the general public can identify obnoxious/unacceptable behavior? Or do you believe the general public still has a hard on for disliking homosexuals? As I mentioned before, the "allies" are starting to far outnumber the "enemy".
Considering how much gaming conventions rely on the internet for their promotion and advertising they can not afford that kind of bad press. Media would dive on that like piranhas on a cow carcass. Imagine if Penny Arcade got wind of it. And that's just the pragmatic commercial reason. The other reason is because the "homophobic slant" in gamer culture is at the very end of the bell curve of gamers. The XBox live kiddies and "dudebros" are, unfortunately, a PART of gamer culture. But they hardly represent gamer culture as a whole. Just as much as how "queens" are a part of LGBT culture but do not represent the entirety of LGBTs (not saying anything is bad with queens, just a demographical comparison). Lizard and reptiles, yeah? The homophobics are just the most vocal (and annoying) of gaming culture. Those who can afford the time, transport, potential social stigma and cost of attending a gaming convention are NOT part of the XBox Live Kiddies or Dudebro brigade. | |
See, I feel a lot of straight white males who are not bigoted in realistic way, see themselves in a position where everyone is blaming them for a lot of things they didn't have any control of and can't justifiably have any responsibility for. They aren't racist, they aren't bigoted against homosexuals, so why should they be left out or excluded? Why should they be grouped in with those who did? In some respects I see the argument for privilege, but it's still not justified to act as if that is an any and all pass to exclude or send unnecessary guilt towards. Which I see a lot of. As a homosexual white woman, hell... I don't know... Privilege is a hard to deal with, I live well and my job is fine. The worst time for me was in highschool, but I don't know many people who had a good highschool experience. I don't know why we NEED a gay gamer convention. I don't know why it's a big deal that it exists either though. I've been to other conventions before (PAX specifically, I hated it but that's just because I hate crowds) and I didn't feel singled out or not appealed to. Just seemed like games, and games...and lots of games... Like a gaming convention should be I would suppose. However I'm not much of a convention goer... so my situation is anecdotal at best. All in all... I really don't know how I specifically feel on the matter. I can see why white guys feel defensive about the matter, as most of the time they haven't actually done anything to deserve it. I can also see how the nebulous idea of privilege can be a irritating for those who aren't in the straight white male group. At the end of the day.... this is a situation I feel Grey was shooting a low hanging fruit and strawmaning a not so straight forward problem in a place I don't feel he would be challenged all that seriously for. So yeah. I have conflicted opinions. | |
And that might be a fair point, but that's not the only purpose of the con. It's a good way for the LGBT community to send a message to the gaming industry (and, secondarily, to the gamer community as a whole) that we exist in significant numbers, and that we are worth to be considered and afforded the same attention as the straight male demographic. But above that, this is ultimately up to the LGBT community. Like I said before in this thread, it's better for the LGBT community to be allowed to decide for itself what is in its best interest (and be allowed to fail and make mistakes), than to continue to do as (in this case, well-meaning) straight people tell them.
Why should they? Why should lesbians ask straight men if they enjoy being pegged by their girlfriends, for example? Why do we have to tell you that you've just made us uncomfortable? There's a reason women have always pushed for stricter sexual harassment laws, because it shouldn't be up to them to tell men when they've crossed the line. Men should be able to restrain themselves and behave like rational human beings. Women shouldn't have to be on the defensive all the time because men think it's okay to touch them or speak to them inappropriately. And the same goes for the LGBT community. We should not have to be on the lookout for straight people who have no concept of boundaries. And it's not just trans people and lesbians, I myself have been the target of morbid curiosity by straight people who ask them most inappropriate questions about man-on-man sex/romance (and often it's hard to tell if they're closeted, secretly mocking me or think I'm not a human being but an interesting alien species). This is entitlement, and we shouldn't have to stand for it.
Both, really. As someone mentioned in the thread before, anti-gay hate crimes are on the rise (while other hate crimes are on the decline). And look at some of the people on this very thread: some people aren't "I want to burn you alive" homophobic, but they're certainly annoyed that "the gays are doing this or that" and the attitude that comes off is basically "pfeh, these gays just want to stand out" without giving us the benefit of the doubt that hey, maybe being LGBT isn't sunshine and roses, and maybe there's a legitimate reason for doing this. It might not be hate-crime-homophobic, but it's still pretty damn discriminatory to be dismissed as a vapid attention-seeker who clearly needs the wise straight person to tell me what to do to achieve my own goals.
Would that it was true.
I don't know, look at the Anita Sarkeesian debacle. Or hell, look at any time anyone says that something related to gamer culture is sexist, homophobic, racist, etc. Games have been under fire by the media for so long that any criticism levied by minorities or oppressed groups is met with a knee-jerk reaction of utter rage. Gamer culture is extremely defensive. I mean, look at this con. It hasn't even criticised or threatened anything, and yet it's met with reactions from disapproval to bitter scorn.
I don't know, a lot of the people in this thread who have been against the idea of the con (and haven't been civil like you and a few others) have never stricken me as kiddies or dudebros. I honestly, genuinely hope you're right, though. | |
Because of rampant homophobia in the gamer community. | |
But you're not worth it. And I mean that in the literal sense of the word "worth", or "value" or perhaps "profit". The best you can hope for is to establish yourselves as a niche market to be exploited. Gaming is an industry that produces art. The fact is it will not be profitable for a many companies to attempt the risky, untried venture of homosexual... focused (?) games given the size of the potential demographic. I would like to see a homosexual protagonist (as in a 100% homosexual, not an optional like Shepard or Hawke, though good on Bioware for really making grounds in AAA titles by including openly homosexual characters who are people are not just their sexuality), I just don't know if any company is willing to risk the launch of such a title. I guess the convention will prove that an indie developer could start up homosexual focused games or games with homosexual protagonists and there's a market ripe, demanding and willing to be exploited. | |
Is it there? Yes. Rampant? Not been my experience, and is likely an extreme overreaction and thinking as if the xboxlive crowd count for a good chunk of the gamer population. | |
=double post- | |
What a completely idiotic thing to say and it's wrong on two levels. First, homophobia is not "rampant" in the community. It is loud, obnoxious and disgusting, yes, but hardly "rampant" which implies accepted or a majority. Second, the presence of discrimination or persecution does not make the person who asks the question a dick. They are likely asking because they want to know what has driven their homosexual comrades to wanting to create a place like this. It makes them concerned that there is supposedly "rampant" homophobia at gaming conventions. So the person who is likely concerned for the wellbeing of the homosexual community is a "dick" for asking why they are taking actions that reflect some form of issue. That is absurd. | |
Let me clarify. I am a transgender female. I am not "passable". I experience this every day from the gamer community, and not only amongst xbox live. I may be slightly biased. | |
| Pages PREV 1 . . . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT | |
And if you take a temporary concession, then why is there any urgency to forging a permanent solution? Punishing homophobia is useless if you've hidden the victims away. It's like locking people up for their 'protection' after a violent assault rather than jailing the attacker.