Thread: Is the LGBT movement all that?

Okay, I have nothing wrong with LGBT people. Love is love and I think it's unfair that there are still some countries where same-sex couples can't get married. However, I don't understand the amount of attention that's given to it.

1. The Pride parades are a good idea in practice. They provide the community a chance to let their voices be heard. But they are way too over-sexualised. Do the marchers really need to be dressed like that? By showing so much skin, they are reinforcing the stereotype that gays are only interested in sex. And I for one would not want my children to have to see people dressed in the street like that. Not because they're a certain sexuality but because I believe in a certain level of decourum.

2. The way the media treats the LGBT movement, it's as if it's the biggest civil rights issue of our time. I understand that it's important to fight for the right to love whoever you want, but not when it's taking attention away from more life-affecting issues like homelessness and mental illness.

3. Many religions are against the LGBT movement. We're fighting for equality yet religious people are forced to feel ostricized by seeing what they think is haram/sin glorified on a daily basis. If they speak about how such practices make them uncomfortable, they're told that they're being unjust and that they should shut up. So much for equality.

NOTE: This is about the LGB side of the community. I realise that trans* people do have a lot more issues, which frankly deserve to get more recognition than they're getting.

Please tell me I'm not the only one who feels like this!

Point #3 has no merit.

It's like complaining that the feelings of racist people weren't being taken into account with all the civil rights movements.

"We're fighting for equality yet racist people are forced to feel ostricized by seeing what they think is subhuman people glorified on a daily basis. If they speak about how such practices make them uncomfortable, they're told that they're being unjust and that they should shut up. So much for equality."

And I for one would not want my children to have to see people dressed in the street like that. Not because they're a certain sexuality but because I believe in a certain level of decourum.

So I take it you're also opposed to women's Take Back The Night and Slutwalk marches. Or not.

Basically, every social justice movement has an "out, loud and proud" arm as well as a more conventional, polite, persistent arm. How successful do you think Martin Luther King could have been if he hadn't had the contrast with the Black Power and Black Panther in-your-face movements?

Gay Pride marches started out with very brave people literally risking life and limb from hostile crowds. Now the Dykes on Bikes and all the rest of it are a fun thing for everyone. But there's a dark underside. People are still losing their jobs and their lives just for being who they are. Gay Pride puts a fun face on real problems.

If you don't like the vulgarity and open sexuality of events like Carnevale in Rio or Gay Pride in your own city - don't go there. I've never been to either because that's not my taste, but I think they're important. Well, gay pride is, I have my own reservations and a different kind of distaste for Carnevale.

Please tell me I'm not the only one who feels like this!

Of course not, but I hope the numbers are dwindling because such opinions stand in the way of liberty in freedom loving societies and are an anathema to helping oppressed minority groups such a LBGT get the same rights as the majority; their concerns are very muchlife-affecting.

My apologies if I offend with any of this.

I do wonder what assless chaps and red ball gags have to do with being gay in the gay pride parade. It would seem the "dykes on bikes" and "gay pride parade" is about stealing the thunder from people who stereotype and try to hurt someone with it. but I do have to ask how is it not reinforcing a stereotype that, I was under the impression, the gay community didn't care for?

I'm not saying the community shouldn't do it. I think along the lines of adelady in that it's not my thing so I don't go. but I'm certainly not going to stop anyone else from going. and I WOULD go if I was asked to by some (ok, only one) of my friends to go and support the cause. but I will admit I don't understand what conforming to a ridiculous, cartoonishly, swishy stereotype has to do with having pride for being gay...again, unless it's making fun of that stereotype, but then again, I don't think that's wildely known as the reason to breeders, which is why it comes off as misunderstood.


"See? See? they are all about deviant sex?? See? See?"

I will admit I don't understand what conforming to a ridiculous, cartoonishly, swishy stereotype has to do with having pride for being gay

About as much as Miss Universe or Carnevale has to do with conventional hetero sexuality I would have thought.

Refuge in audacity?

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

3. Many religions are against the LGBT movement. We're fighting for equality yet religious people are forced to feel ostricized by seeing what they think is haram/sin glorified on a daily basis. If they speak about how such practices make them uncomfortable, they're told that they're being unjust and that they should shut up. So much for equality.

Unfortunately, that victimized religious population is fighting for the denial of rights. They mask it with the idea that they are fighting for religious freedom and the protection of marriage, but it's simply a denial of rights afforded to others. It is discrimination. No matter how you spin it, they still want to refuse something to people based upon personal prejudice.

That is not okay.

Originally Posted by adelady

And I for one would not want my children to have to see people dressed in the street like that. Not because they're a certain sexuality but because I believe in a certain level of decourum.

So I take it you're also opposed to women's Take Back The Night and Slutwalk marches. Or not.

Basically, every social justice movement has an "out, loud and proud" arm as well as a more conventional, polite, persistent arm. How successful do you think Martin Luther King could have been if he hadn't had the contrast with the Black Power and Black Panther in-your-face movements?

Gay Pride marches started out with very brave people literally risking life and limb from hostile crowds. Now the Dykes on Bikes and all the rest of it are a fun thing for everyone. But there's a dark underside. People are still losing their jobs and their lives just for being who they are. Gay Pride puts a fun face on real problems.

If you don't like the vulgarity and open sexuality of events like Carnevale in Rio or Gay Pride in your own city - don't go there. I've never been to either because that's not my taste, but I think they're important. Well, gay pride is, I have my own reservations and a different kind of distaste for Carnevale.

I'm not familiar with Take Back the Night marches. However, I am opposed to the Slutwalk marches and Rio's Carnevale. They are essentially platforms to glorify nudists. I don't mind nudists per se but there's a time and place for it (eg at certain beaches), not out in the middle of the street where there are children around. And definitely not when it's meant to be part of a civil rights movement, for the reasons grmpysmurf has explained.

However, you pose a good point when you say that Martin Luther King Jr wouldn't have had the success he had if it it wasn't for the contrast between him and more loud-and-proud activists.

Also, some of you have mentioned about how religion is basically just a mask for bigoted views and, on reflection, yes I agree with your point completely.

As a side note, not that it should matter, but I am a homoromantic asexual. I only want romantic relationships with other guys so yes, I want lgbt rights as much as the next person. I just don't think that the nudist-esque marches are the right way to go about it. And I think that more time and attention should be given to more important issues like homelessness and mental illness. Yes, lgbt people are often denied things like jobs but they are able to survive without anyone having to find out that they're gay, no matter how tough that existence might be. Homeless and mentally ill people are not able to survive if their voices aren't head.

In an ideal world, everyone-homeless, mentally ill, lgbt, coloured, everyone-would be given the rights they need but right now, some very important rights are being ignored.

Regarding the chaps and gags comment, without the power/consequence of reproduction, people (homosexuals and heterosexuals alike) can treat sex with less of the respect that it deserves. What respect? Let's face it, without reproduction, there is no tomorrow.

Originally Posted by adelady

I will admit I don't understand what conforming to a ridiculous, cartoonishly, swishy stereotype has to do with having pride for being gay

About as much as Miss Universe or Carnevale has to do with conventional hetero sexuality I would have thought.

I don't understand those either. Well Miss universe, I do. they just want a receipt to prove to the rest of the world (or universe as it may be) that they are pretty. Shallow existence.

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

I don't mind nudists per se but there's a time and place for it (eg at certain beaches), not out in the middle of the street where there are children around.

Oh, the horror!!! Won't someone think about the children?!!!?

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

And definitely not when it's meant to be part of a civil rights movement, for the reasons grmpysmurf has explained.

Don't lump me in with you!!
I think it's completely a civil rights movement/issue. Just because I don't immediately understand some of the reasons doesn't mean I'm not in full support. If that's what the community does because it helps them (in ways I don't understand) Who am I to say otherwise?

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

Also, some of you have mentioned about how religion is basically just a mask for bigoted views and, on reflection, yes I agree with your point completely.

Then perhaps you have a different reason for your insensitive remarks regarding it not being a civil rights issue?

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

As a side note, not that it should matter, but I am a homoromantic asexual. I only want romantic relationships with other guys so yes, I want lgbt rights as much as the next person.

It would appear you have competing interests at stake in this thread.

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

I just don't think that the nudist-esque marches are the right way to go about it.

Perhaps an email to the GLAAD may be in order for you?

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

And I think that more time and attention should be given to more important issues like homelessness and mental illness.

Who says there isn't? just cause the homeless and the mentally ill don't have a parade doesn't mean they're ignored.

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

Yes, lgbt people are often denied things like jobs but they are able to survive without anyone having to find out that they're gay, no matter how tough that existence might be.

So, "suck it up, and be glad you're not homeless?"

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

Homeless and mentally ill people are not able to survive if their voices aren't head.

These people are who they are regardless.

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

In an ideal world, everyone-homeless, mentally ill, lgbt, coloured, everyone-would be given the rights they need but right now, some very important rights are being ignored.

Yes, let's stop the movement of one to try to mobilize another? brilliant.

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

Okay, I have nothing wrong with LGBT people. Love is love and I think it's unfair that there are still some countries where same-sex couples can't get married. However, I don't understand the amount of attention that's given to it.

1. The Pride parades are a good idea in practice. They provide the community a chance to let their voices be heard. But they are way too over-sexualised. Do the marchers really need to be dressed like that? By showing so much skin, they are reinforcing the stereotype that gays are only interested in sex. And I for one would not want my children to have to see people dressed in the street like that. Not because they're a certain sexuality but because I believe in a certain level of decourum.

You appear to have either not been to a Pride parade or only watched a small portion of one. The majority of marchers/floats in parades are NOT the supersexualized type you are fixating on. And of you dont want your childeren to see the human body then you should be more worried about media and the internet.

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

2. The way the media treats the LGBT movement, it's as if it's the biggest civil rights issue of our time. I understand that it's important to fight for the right to love whoever you want, but not when it's taking attention away from more life-affecting issues like homelessness and mental illness.

you understand that until 1973 bbeing gay was classified and treated as a mental disorder right? And that until the last 5-10 years LGBT people could openly be discriminated against and being out was a threat to ones life in most places in the US.

Its not taking any attention away from other groups at all.

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

3. Many religions are against the LGBT movement. We're fighting for equality yet religious people are forced to feel ostricized by seeing what they think is haram/sin glorified on a daily basis. If they speak about how such practices make them uncomfortable, they're told that they're being unjust and that they should shut up. So much for equality.

Religions at no point get to dictate what is ok to see and do in public based on their beliefs. They are not at any point being forced to not practice their beliefs in their places of worship. However they do not get to discriminate without consequences.

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

Please tell me I'm not the only one who feels like this!

Sadly you are not.

Many religions are against the LGBT movement. We're fighting for equality yet religious people are forced to feel ostricized by seeing what they think is haram/sin glorified on a daily basis. If they speak about how such practices make them uncomfortable, they're told that they're being unjust and that they should shut up. So much for equality.

If religions decided not to tolerate homosexuality in their own churches, it wouldn't bother me. It's their religion. But if you're not allowed to do something in public because it goes against somebody else's religion, that's wrong. If you're a Muslim and you talk about how seeing people eating pork, Muslim or not, makes you uncomfortable, nobody is going to take you seriously. Why should this be any different?

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

2. The way the media treats the LGBT movement, it's as if it's the biggest civil rights issue of our time. I understand that it's important to fight for the right to love whoever you want, but not when it's taking attention away from more life-affecting issues like homelessness and mental illness.

I'm all for fighting those things too. In my view if the LGBT DIDN'T make a big a stink as they have made, they would not have made the progress they have. If a mental health organization made as big a stink about treatment of mental disease I'd be in favor of that as well.

3. Many religions are against the LGBT movement. We're fighting for equality yet religious people are forced to feel ostricized by seeing what they think is haram/sin glorified on a daily basis. If they speak about how such practices make them uncomfortable, they're told that they're being unjust and that they should shut up. So much for equality.

I don't think anyone is being told to shut up just because gays make them uncomfortable. However, if they spend money and effort trying to deny Americans of _any_ sexual orientation their rights, they will rightly be labeled as bigots.

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

2. The way the media treats the LGBT movement, it's as if it's the biggest civil rights issue of our time. I understand that it's important to fight for the right to love whoever you want, but not when it's taking attention away from more life-affecting issues like homelessness and mental illness.

There aren't any other civil rights movements to report on. So by default it is the biggest.

It's a grasshopper in a room full of ants.

Originally Posted by adelady

And I for one would not want my children to have to see people dressed in the street like that. Not because they're a certain sexuality but because I believe in a certain level of decourum.

So I take it you're also opposed to women's Take Back The Night and Slutwalk marches. Or not.

Basically, every social justice movement has an "out, loud and proud" arm as well as a more conventional, polite, persistent arm. How successful do you think Martin Luther King could have been if he hadn't had the contrast with the Black Power and Black Panther in-your-face movements?

So what about the hate movements? Are they allowed to express themselves too?

Why can't neo nazis have a neo nazi marches? Or a "we hate gays" march for American protestants? I think the "abortion is murder" marches are allowed, at least.

Why does only one side get to express itself all they want, in everyone's face, but not the other? Is it because only one side is "right"? Are we as a society so certain that we know what is right and what is wrong that we can tell other people what they are allowed to believe, and what they aren't? One side of the discussion can offend the others' sensibilities all they want, but the other side had best be quiet if they know what is good for them?

Or can everyone march?

Gay Pride marches started out with very brave people literally risking life and limb from hostile crowds. Now the Dykes on Bikes and all the rest of it are a fun thing for everyone. But there's a dark underside. People are still losing their jobs and their lives just for being who they are. Gay Pride puts a fun face on real problems.

If you don't like the vulgarity and open sexuality of events like Carnevale in Rio or Gay Pride in your own city - don't go there. I've never been to either because that's not my taste, but I think they're important. Well, gay pride is, I have my own reservations and a different kind of distaste for Carnevale.

There is Mardi Gras in New Orleans, but in most of America you would get arrested if you walked the streets naked.

Indeed, I'm not sure, but I think a woman dressed in comparable attire to some of these people in the gay pride marches, but not in a march, would also be arrested or at least detained if she went out in public dressed like that.

Originally Posted by adelady

I will admit I don't understand what conforming to a ridiculous, cartoonishly, swishy stereotype has to do with having pride for being gay

About as much as Miss Universe or Carnevale has to do with conventional hetero sexuality I would have thought.

Last time I checked, Miss Universe doesn't wear anything on stage that you can't wear at a public swimming pool or at the beach.

Originally Posted by adelady

And I for one would not want my children to have to see people dressed in the street like that. Not because they're a certain sexuality but because I believe in a certain level of decourum.


So I take it you're also opposed to women's Take Back The Night and Slutwalk marches. Or not.

Basically, every social justice movement has an "out, loud and proud" arm as well as a more conventional, polite, persistent arm. How successful do you think Martin Luther King could have been if he hadn't had the contrast with the Black Power and Black Panther in-your-face movements?




So what about the hate movements? Are they allowed to express themselves too?

Why can't neo nazis have a neo nazi marches? Or a "we hate gays" march for American protestants? I think the "abortion is murder" marches are allowed, at least.

Why does only one side get to express itself all they want, in everyone's face, but not the other? Is it because only one side is "right"? Are we as a society so certain that we know what is right and what is wrong that we can tell other people what they are allowed to believe, and what they aren't? One side of the discussion can offend the others' sensibilities all they want, but the other side had best be quiet if they know what is good for them?

Or can everyone march?

I think you need to introduce some kind of break or link here. Take Back The Night and Slutwalk are both promoting anti-rape ideas.

I doubt that anyone would get too many takers, let alone supporters, for a march or other promotional activities in favour of rape.

...and the Klan have many rallies and marches a year throughout the united states.

Yeah. I don't think any major organizations are in favor of rape. However you also mentioned Carnival - which is different.

Generally speaking, marches that advocate breaking the law are walking on thin ice. However the above mentioned Neo Nazi and Gay Hater protests would not necessarily be advocating that any illegal action be taken.

I'm just wondering why the double standards. Why is the question of who can and who cannot deliberately provoke their protested audience left up to a matter of what is fashionable at the moment?

Shouldn't everyone be allowed to deliberately provoke?

One is about equality and the other would be about bigotry. Need I say more?

Originally Posted by Daecon

One is about equality and the other would be about bigotry. Need I say more?

Yes. You do need to say more.

Anti-bigotry is fashionable right now. Society as a whole has decided that being a bigot is "wrong", and not being a bigot is "right".

So is the idea here that it's ok to deliberately provoke your opposition if the ideal you are supporting agrees with everyone else's view of right and wrong? But your view doesn't agree with everyone else's view of right and wrong, you are committing a crime by provoking your opposition?

Remembering of course that, a half century ago, being homosexual was illegal, and conflicted with society's view of right and wrong.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Daecon

One is about equality and the other would be about bigotry. Need I say more?

Yes. You do need to say more.

Anti-bigotry is fashionable right now. Society as a whole has decided that being a bigot is "wrong", and not being a bigot is "right".

I'm pretty sure that's common sense, not "fashionable society"

Originally Posted by kojax

Anti-bigotry is fashionable right now. Society as a whole has decided that being a bigot is "wrong", and not being a bigot is "right".

Pretty much, and that has usually (not always, but usually) been true. It's one of the better parts of our society.

So is the idea here that it's ok to deliberately provoke your opposition if the ideal you are supporting agrees with everyone else's view of right and wrong?

If "deliberately provoking" means breaking their windows, then absolutely not.
If "deliberately provoking" means kissing your SO in public, then that is definitely OK.

But your view doesn't agree with everyone else's view of right and wrong, you are committing a crime by provoking your opposition?

See above.

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

3. Many religions are against the LGBT movement. We're fighting for equality yet religious people are forced to feel ostricized by seeing what they think is haram/sin glorified on a daily basis. If they speak about how such practices make them uncomfortable, they're told that they're being unjust and that they should shut up. So much for equality.

In most muslim countries being LGBT is an offense. Punishable by death. This is why Ahmedinajad claimed that there are "no gays" in Iran. :-)

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

However, I am opposed to the Slutwalk marches and Rio's Carnevale. They are essentially platforms to glorify nudists. I don't mind nudists per se but there's a time and place for it (eg at certain beaches), not out in the middle of the street where there are children around.

I'm still confused about the American fear of sexuality (not saying you're American, though, as I don't know). We are terrified to have people looking at bare breasts and heaven forbid our kids be exposed to sex for fear it will pervert them.

I wonder if it does more harm to shelter kids from sexuality and essentially tell them the feelings they have during adolescence are dirty or dark.

Originally Posted by xyzt

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

3. Many religions are against the LGBT movement. We're fighting for equality yet religious people are forced to feel ostricized by seeing what they think is haram/sin glorified on a daily basis. If they speak about how such practices make them uncomfortable, they're told that they're being unjust and that they should shut up. So much for equality.

In most muslim countries being LGBT is an offense. Punishable by death. This is why Ahmedinajad claimed that there are "no gays" in Iran. :-)

Not most, in fact it is explicitly legal in quite a few Muslim nations including Turkey, Jordan, Albanian and many others have no laws against including the largest populated Islamic citizens Indonesia.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by xyzt

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

3. Many religions are against the LGBT movement. We're fighting for equality yet religious people are forced to feel ostricized by seeing what they think is haram/sin glorified on a daily basis. If they speak about how such practices make them uncomfortable, they're told that they're being unjust and that they should shut up. So much for equality.

In most muslim countries being LGBT is an offense. Punishable by death. This is why Ahmedinajad claimed that there are "no gays" in Iran. :-)

Not most, in fact it is explicitly legal in quite a few Muslim nations including Turkey, Jordan, Albanian and many others have no laws against including the largest populated Islamic citizens Indonesia.

I should have said "many", not "most". I take it that you learned that from here. So what does the khoran rule about homosexuality? What happens in Iran, Saudi , Afghanistan, Nigeria, Sudan, Mauritania, Yemen to homosexuals?

Originally Posted by xyzt

I take it that you learned that from here. So what does the khoran rule about homosexuality? What happens in Iran, Iraq, Saudi to homosexuals?

Changing the subject. I was merely pointing out that your "most" is incorrect--neither most predominantly Muslim nations have the death penalty for LGBT, nor do most Muslims live in such nations.

==
The Quran has the death penalty, just as the Bible; with increased secularism, most predominantly Christian nations changed to lesser penalties during the 18th and 19th centuries--it's been a slower process in Islamic ones.

Iraq has no laws against homosexuality between adults. When I lived with their army, there were some pretty known "couples," which most folks simply ignored or used as the butt of occasional jokes.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by xyzt

I take it that you learned that from here. So what does the khoran rule about homosexuality? What happens in Iran, Iraq, Saudi to homosexuals?

Changing the subject. I was merely pointing out that your "most" is incorrect--neither most predominantly Muslim nations have the death penalty for LGBT, nor do most Muslims live in such nations.

==
The Quran has the death penalty, just as the Bible; with increased secularism, most predominantly Christian nations changed to lesser penalties during the 18th and 19th centuries--it's been a slower process in Islamic ones.

Iraq has no laws against homosexuality between adults.

I am not changing any subject, I am simply exposing your repeated efforts at whitewashing islam.

The Quran has the death penalty, just as the Bible; with increased secularism, most predominantly Christian nations changed to lesser penalties during the 18th and 19th centuries--it's been a slower process in Islamic ones.

Really, so let me ask you again: what happens to homosexuals in : Saudi, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Nigeria, Mauritania and Yemen?

How much better do the LGBT fare in Egypt, Pakistan, Malaysia?

Originally Posted by xyzt

I am not changing any subject, I am simply exposing your repeated efforts at whitewashing islam.

Ya, whitewash with the "facts."

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I wonder if it does more harm to shelter kids from sexuality and essentially tell them the feelings they have during adolescence are dirty or dark.

I don't think it does do more harm to shelter kids from sexuality. Exposure to sexuality is worse, IMO, if coming from an authoritarian angle - it's an endorsement and encouragement. My local library had this one book carrying sexual advice in the children's section - it had drawings of flat chested little girls on the cover, so seemed to be aimed at 10 year olds. One memorable 'recommendation' was to ensure that the penis is well washed after anal sex before putting it into your mouth. I really don't think there's any need for this. You know that saying : 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'? I think this is one area it should be applied to.

I wonder if it does more harm to shelter kids from sexuality and essentially tell them the feelings they have during adolescence are dirty or dark.

It can be hard to get right either way. I remember a school friend of mine saying how she'd been horrified beyond all reason when her very strait-laced very conservative Christian mother gave her The Talk about sex. Why was she horrified? Not about the details, she knew all about that. The horror came from knowing all about the details of what the "low class kids" in the neighbourhood did. How could her parents do that?

As for us, we were always pretty casual about dress in front of the kids. We weren't nudist in the house, but we weren't prim and proper either. It's a good basis for any questions that comes up naturally. The best thing is for your schools to do the hard work for you or at least to find the best age-appropriate books and other materials. They're best placed to do the right level of information at the right age or stage of maturity. One thing a lot of people get wrong. It's best for all the practical descriptions of sexual activities to happen looooong before the kids reach puberty. When it's factual only with no personal emotional involvement the reaction is likely to be either a bored uh-huh or a get-the-cooties-off-me Now! rejection of the idea that they'd ever go anywhere near one of those opposite sex people.

What needs to be done with adolescents is the hard work of explaining relationships and cooperation and responsible behaviour. To year nine. Best to do the same at year 10 and year 11 and year 12 - by this time, a good few of the class (but not the majority) will already have begun engaging in sex. But everyone still needs reminders about good/ bad, better/ best attitudes to relationships and the sex that might go along with them.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I wonder if it does more harm to shelter kids from sexuality and essentially tell them the feelings they have during adolescence are dirty or dark.

I don't think it does do more harm to shelter kids from sexuality. Exposure to sexuality is worse, IMO, if coming from an authoritarian angle - it's an endorsement and encouragement. My local library had this one book carrying sexual advice in the children's section - it had drawings of flat chested little girls on the cover, so seemed to be aimed at 10 year olds. One memorable 'recommendation' was to ensure that the penis is well washed after anal sex before putting it into your mouth. I really don't think there's any need for this. You know that saying : 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'? I think this is one area it should be applied to.

It might be your opinion, but it's factually wrong. Children who receive sex education have lower rates of teen pregnancy, lower rates of STDs,
Sex Education Linked To Delayed Teen Intercourse, New Study Says -- ScienceDaily
http://www.jahonline.org/article/S10...325-4/abstract

And meta studies, (studies and reviews of studies) show this a consistent result, not only the US, but in Europe and Canada.
The impact of abstinence and comprehensive sex and STD/HIV education programs on adolescent sexual behavior - Springer

So while that book might have offended you..the obvious question is at what age should adolescents learn about basic sexual hygiene that can save their lives?

Given the increasing rates of teenagers that have anal sex to avoid pregnancy and because they think it avoids disease, the books is exactly the type of information they need.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I wonder if it does more harm to shelter kids from sexuality and essentially tell them the feelings they have during adolescence are dirty or dark.

I don't think it does do more harm to shelter kids from sexuality. Exposure to sexuality is worse, IMO, if coming from an authoritarian angle - it's an endorsement and encouragement. My local library had this one book carrying sexual advice in the children's section - it had drawings of flat chested little girls on the cover, so seemed to be aimed at 10 year olds. One memorable 'recommendation' was to ensure that the penis is well washed after anal sex before putting it into your mouth. I really don't think there's any need for this. You know that saying : 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'? I think this is one area it should be applied to.

It might be your opinion, but it's factually wrong. Children who receive sex education have lower rates of teen pregnancy, lower rates of STDs,
Sex Education Linked To Delayed Teen Intercourse, New Study Says -- ScienceDaily
Elsevier

And meta studies, (studies and reviews of studies) show this a consistent result, not only the US, but in Europe and Canada.
The impact of abstinence and comprehensive sex and STD/HIV education programs on adolescent sexual behavior - Springer

So while that book might have offended you..the obvious question is at what age should adolescents learn about basic sexual hygiene that can save their lives?

Given the increasing rates of teenage anal sex to avoid pregnancy and because they think it avoids disease, the books is exactly the type of information they need.

Kinsey and his like would approve of 10 year olds being buggered. I don't.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Kinsey and his like would approve of 10 year olds being buggered. I don't.

There's no evidence that Kinsey approved of anal sex with 10 year olds.

But attacking the messenger while ignoring the grand canyon difference how human sexuality is and how you narrowly think it ought to be, is neither objective nor show good reasoning skills. When your narrow views on sex are put into practice and enforced in public policy it puts children in danger and denies civil liberties from a significant and harmless minority population.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

When your narrow views on sex are put into practice and enforced in public policy it puts children in danger and denies civil liberties from a significant and harmless minority population.

There needs to be a limit. That book went way past it.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

When your narrow views on sex are put into practice and enforced in public policy it puts children in danger and denies civil liberties from a significant and harmless minority population.

There needs to be a limit. That book went way past it.

I think lynx has more than established that your opinion on the matter is far from the truth of the matter.

Wouldn't surprise me if I saw a similar publication on how to practice safe bestiality. Or necrophilia.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Wouldn't surprise me if I saw a similar publication on how to practice safe bestiality. Or necrophilia.

Irrelevant, intentionally muddying the water, nonsequitur, and strawman. impressive

Originally Posted by samsmoot

Wouldn't surprise me if I saw a similar publication on how to practice safe bestiality. Or necrophilia.

I had no idea the vast majority of children grew up to F*ck animals and dead people... So much so that they needed a book.

Originally Posted by samsmoot

I don't think it does do more harm to shelter kids from sexuality. Exposure to sexuality is worse, IMO, if coming from an authoritarian angle - it's an endorsement and encouragement.

While I agree that how you present it is important, the flip side of the coin is that they ARE going to be doing it. A few thousand years of history has demonstrated that.

About books being available - you can now get far worse, far more easily on the Internet. If there's a factual book in the children's section that might prevent a few kids from getting HIV, great! It's there if they want it, and if not, they don't have to read it. If parents don't want their children to read such books (or find smut on the Internet) that is their prerogative as well.

Originally Posted by xyzt

This is why Ahmedinajad claimed that there are "no gays" in Iran. :-)

His infamous statement makes sense if you understand the Iranian notion of gender: If a person is attracted to men, that person is female. And vise versa. What counts here is the mind, not the body. This is why you can get government subsidized sex change in Iran, to align your body to your "true" gender. I suppose many if not most Iranian homosexuals accept society's point of view e.g "I'm really a woman in a man's body." Meanwhile secular societies won't devalue the body as mere vessel of the soul, so we like to categorize and rate people also by the bodies they are born with.

***

I was taking my son to various pride parades when he was a toddler. It's all in fun. I did roll my eyes and groan about a few things. Such is real life. I think children develop best when they get a broad experience plus casually honest commentary by parents. Worse is setting up dark closets that might contain monsters.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by xyzt

This is why Ahmedinajad claimed that there are "no gays" in Iran. :-)

His infamous statement makes sense if you understand the Iranian notion of gender: If a person is attracted to men, that person is female. And vise versa. What counts here is the mind, not the body. This is why you can get government subsidized sex change in Iran, to align your body to your "true" gender. I suppose many if not most Iranian homosexuals accept society's point of view e.g "I'm really a woman in a man's body." Meanwhile secular societies won't devalue the body as mere vessel of the soul, so we like to categorize and rate people also by the bodies they are born with.

...and I naively thought that the absence of gays in Iran has to do with the fact that the sentence for being gay in Iran is death.

Originally Posted by xyzt

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by xyzt

This is why Ahmedinajad claimed that there are "no gays" in Iran. :-)

Originally Posted by xyzt

Originally Posted by Pong

His infamous statement makes sense if you understand the Iranian notion of gender: If a person is attracted to men, that person is female. And vise versa. What counts here is the mind, not the body. This is why you can get government subsidized sex change in Iran, to align your body to your "true" gender. I suppose many if not most Iranian homosexuals accept society's point of view e.g "I'm really a woman in a man's body." Meanwhile secular societies won't devalue the body as mere vessel of the soul, so we like to categorize and rate people also by the bodies they are born with.

...and I naively thought that the absence of gays in Iran has to do with the fact that the sentence for being gay in Iran is death.

You ignored Pong's point altogether...Iran leads the world in sex-change operations.

Being gay isn't punishable by death, sodomy is. (Most other sexual acts outside of man+women marriage also carries a max penalty of death under Sharia law. )

The distinction and Pong's point is important because if you are gay by the Western Psychology definition, as in being attracted to the same sex, and claim you are really of the opposite sex ""I'm really a woman in a man's body," you aren't considered gay but instead someone the State is willing to help get an operation so they can join in a traditional marriage. (and yes I'm fully aware many transgender aren't gay).

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Being gay isn't punishable by death, sodomy is.

How tolerant of them.

[QUOTE=TheFosterKid;578179






In an ideal world, everyone-homeless, mentally ill, lgbt, coloured, everyone-would be given the rights they need but right now, some very important rights are being ignored.[/QUOTE]

What about us hetrosexual white folks ?

Why would Iranian police ever get a sodomy case? I think - in practice - such cases where they actually have a person pressing charges likely warrants police intervention. I'm not saying it's easy to be gay in Iran. But please respect the San Fransisco concept of "homosexual" does not fit all societies equally well. Heck, we also differ in our notions about heterosexuality.

Originally Posted by Pong

Why would Iranian police ever get a sodomy case? I think - in practice - such cases where they actually have a person pressing charges likely warrants police intervention.

Such cases like having a birthday party?

There were two reported crackdowns in Esfahān (also spelled "Isfahan"), Iran's third-largest city. On May 10, 2007, Esfahān police arrested 87 people at a birthday party, including 80 suspected gay men, beating and detaining them through the weekend.^[40] All but 17 of the men were released; those who remained in custody were believed to have been wearing women's clothing.^[41] Photos of the beaten men were released by theToronto-based Iranian Railroad for Queer Refugees.^[42] According to Human Rights Watch, in February 2008 police in Esfhan raided a party in a private home and arrested 30 men, who were held indefinitely without a lawyer on suspicion of homosexuality.

LGBT rights in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Pong

I'm not saying it's easy to be gay in Iran. But please respect the San Fransisco concept of "homosexual" does not fit all societies equally well. Heck, we also differ in our notions about heterosexuality.

It looks to me like you have tolerance for other cultural beliefs only as long as it takes place in some foreign country. Liberals have got to insist that the Iranians support gay marriage. Otherwise they have a huge, gaping double standard.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

a birthday party?

87+ people arrested, 17 in drag, sounds more like a rave. Well, I know you wouldn't call the police over such an innocent "birthday party" on your own street, since you're an anarchist and you tolerate that sort of thing.

Note adultery (homo or hetero) is punishable by death. The target is not gays, but gays, being human, do get in the line of fire sometimes. I'll bet some cops are homophobes too.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

looks to me like you have tolerance for other cultural beliefs only as long as it takes place in some foreign country

No, I believe the challenge of tolerance is best met in Canada, where our national identity kinda is striving for tolerance. Iran's history doesn't lead to the same purpose, and I don't expect it of them. I just want them to be true to their own beliefs, and screw what I think.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Liberals have got to insist that the Iranians support gay marriage. Otherwise they have a huge, gaping double standard.

I think you're right. But the liberal argument for gay marriage is empty, because the liberal concept of marriage is empty. Note their divorce rate. I don't know any group in North America with the credibility to school Iranians about marriage.

Anyway if liberals will phrase to ask "two Iranians with male bodies marry" then sure, that can happen. If they insist the Iranian couple identify as gay men like American style gay men, then no... "We don't have homosexuals, like in your country."

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Being gay isn't punishable by death, sodomy is. (Most other sexual acts outside of man+women marriage also carries a max penalty of death under Sharia law. )

The distinction and Pong's point is important because if you are gay by the Western Psychology definition, as in being attracted to the same sex, and claim you are really of the opposite sex ""I'm really a woman in a man's body," you aren't considered gay but instead someone the State is willing to help get an operation so they can join in a traditional marriage. (and yes I'm fully aware many transgender aren't gay).

I see, the iranians are all right, they are the good guys after all. They do not kill the gays, they only kill the "sodomists". Important difference, if you are gay and have sex, you are sentenced to death. If you have oral sex with a partner of the opposite sex, you are sentenced to death. The wonderful world of Sharia.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Pong

Why would Iranian police ever get a sodomy case? I think - in practice - such cases where they actually have a person pressing charges likely warrants police intervention.

Such cases like having a birthday party?

There were two reported crackdowns in Esfahān (also spelled "Isfahan"), Iran's third-largest city. On May 10, 2007, Esfahān police arrested 87 people at a birthday party, including 80 suspected gay men, beating and detaining them through the weekend.^[40] All but 17 of the men were released; those who remained in custody were believed to have been wearing women's clothing.^[41] Photos of the beaten men were released by theToronto-based Iranian Railroad for Queer Refugees.^[42] According to Human Rights Watch, in February 2008 police in Esfhan raided a party in a private home and arrested 30 men, who were held indefinitely without a lawyer on suspicion of homosexuality.

LGBT rights in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Pong

I'm not saying it's easy to be gay in Iran. But please respect the San Fransisco concept of "homosexual" does not fit all societies equally well. Heck, we also differ in our notions about heterosexuality.

It looks to me like you have tolerance for other cultural beliefs only as long as it takes place in some foreign country. Liberals have got to insist that the Iranians support gay marriage. Otherwise they have a huge, gaping double standard.

Too bad I can't get the "like" button to work.

Originally Posted by Pong

the liberal argument for gay marriage is empty, because the liberal concept of marriage is empty. Note their divorce rate...

Can you provide support for your right wing garbage?
Here's one link that say's you're an absolute partisan moron.

Divorce Rate Higher in Counties With More Conservative Protestants, Study Says

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Pong

the liberal argument for gay marriage is empty, because the liberal concept of marriage is empty. Note their divorce rate...

Can you provide support for your right wing garbage?
Here's one link that say's you're an absolute partisan moron.

Divorce Rate Higher in Counties With More Conservative Protestants, Study Says

Not the only source that shows this--it's shown in many others:
Why Conservative Christians Divorce More Than Atheists

absolute partisan moron.

Whether you think it or not.... ease off. It doesn't help good conversations.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by kojax

Anti-bigotry is fashionable right now. Society as a whole has decided that being a bigot is "wrong", and not being a bigot is "right".

Pretty much, and that has usually (not always, but usually) been true. It's one of the better parts of our society.

So is the idea here that it's ok to deliberately provoke your opposition if the ideal you are supporting agrees with everyone else's view of right and wrong?

If "deliberately provoking" means breaking their windows, then absolutely not.
If "deliberately provoking" means kissing your SO in public, then that is definitely OK.

What if "deliberately provoking" means gathering together and listening to some guy in a white robe and hood giving a long, public rant about "them niggers" and waving a Confederate flag?

But your view doesn't agree with everyone else's view of right and wrong, you are committing a crime by provoking your opposition?

See above.

Let us suppose that the people gathered around the guy in the white robe do absolutely nothing even remotely violent. Just stand there and cheer every time he drops the "n" word?

But suppose maybe a passer by who happens to be black decides to throw a brick, and it breaks one of the gathered participants' nose. If the participant maintains their composure and calls the police, will the passerby who happens to be black get cited for assault? Or will the whole gathering get broken up by the police, and the participants cited for something?

I'm just curious whether the freedom of speech cuts both ways, or whether perhaps it is really the freedom to say what is fashionable at the moment, so long as you avoid expressing unpopular opinions?

[QUOTE=Lynx_Fox;581210]

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

absolute partisan moron.

Whether you think it or not.... ease off. It doesn't help good conversations.

Sincere apologies. Politically Left/right is a touchy subject with me. I really hate how the left has been scapegoated for anything and everything while the right have been largely ignored by our "liberal" media and now we have this guy (I'm sure it will be the start of a new trend by the right) pointing the finger at the left for the social "crimes of the right. I can't tell if they do it on purpose and they know they're lying or if they really are that brainwashed.
long story short, I'll keep it in check. Sorry.

Originally Posted by kojax

Let us suppose that the people gathered around the guy in the white robe do absolutely nothing even remotely violent. Just stand there and cheer every time he drops the "n" word?

But suppose maybe a passer by who happens to be black decides to throw a brick, and it breaks one of the gathered participants' nose. If the participant maintains their composure and calls the police, will the passerby who happens to be black get cited for assault? Or will the whole gathering get broken up by the police, and the participants cited for something?

I'm just curious whether the freedom of speech cuts both ways, or whether perhaps it is really the freedom to say what is fashionable at the moment, so long as you avoid expressing unpopular opinions?

The men in white and their hangers on would need a permit to assemble in public if they did not have one then yes they would be cited. the guy who threw the brick would be cited no matter what.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Pong

the liberal argument for gay marriage is empty, because the liberal concept of marriage is empty. Note their divorce rate...

Can you provide support for your right wing garbage?
Here's one link that say's you're an absolute partisan moron.

Divorce Rate Higher in Counties With More Conservative Protestants, Study Says

I'm posting from a country where the issue was (coolly) resolved a decade ago. I'm not a partisan about gay marriage. But, I do have a position to offend everyone in California: I'm in favour of gays gaining recognized roles in society, and in our families, that *does* include marriage if the coupling expands rather than shrinks social capital; and, I'm opposed to society or government rewarding people (e.g. with married status) merely for their romantic attachments or sexual behaviour - that's none of our business. Society should reward people for doing good for society, i.e. building social capital AKA "multiplying picnics". Society does not owe people any praise for forming exclusive attachments, since in itself that isn't helping society (nor government nor families) at all.

The reason gay marriage is possible lately is because marriage has lost definition and traditional utility to modern society, so, "why not?" since the institution is irrelevant anyway.

I watched the Californians debate gay marriage. Conservative homophobes often used the term "family values" and if they mean what I think they do, in that I agree. Society (and government) should regulate marriage to promote family values. It's just that *my* family values include gays.


I dunno the term "liberal" (introduced by Harold14370) clarifies this discussion. What I meant by liberal was the general progressive shift (e.g. enabling gay marriage, pride parades) in most of the world. I don't use universal terms to mean conditions particular to the USA.



Lynx_Fox, did you notice in that data no mention of marriage rates? You understand that if atheists marry less they'd divorce less. In Canada, the marriage rate is at an all-time low, even lower than it was during the Great Depression.

Originally Posted by Pong

I think you're right. But the liberal argument for gay marriage is empty, because the liberal concept of marriage is empty.

Yet red states have higher divorce rates than blue states, due primarily to "conservative values."

" . . . this comes from living in a cultural climate where most people expect to marry young and there is little support from schools or community institutions for young people to get more education and postpone marriage and children. Abstinence-only education, restrictions on the availability of birth control and abortion, support for marriage as the resolution of unexpected pregnancies, and distrust of secular education (especially higher education) among the populace in religiously conservative counties work to create an environment where young people of every religious belief – or none – tend not to pursue higher education or job training, and instead to engage in early marriage and child-bearing."

https://contemporaryfamilies.org/imp...divorce-rates/

Moral of the story - if you want your kids to have stable marriages - keep them away from conservative influences. (Or probably more accurately - be careful which of those conservative influences they pick up on.)

Anyway if liberals will phrase to ask "two Iranians with male bodies marry" then sure, that can happen. If they insist the Iranian couple identify as gay men like American style gay men, then no... "We don't have homosexuals, like in your country."

Uh - gays come in both flavors. Not sure why that is so often overlooked.

Originally Posted by kojax

What if "deliberately provoking" means gathering together and listening to some guy in a white robe and hood giving a long, public rant about "them niggers" and waving a Confederate flag?

If it's done on private property? That's their right. (Of course, if they then go and harass black people - throw em in jail.)

If it's done in public? Gotta go get a permit for a big gathering if they want to use a park or something.

Let us suppose that the people gathered around the guy in the white robe do absolutely nothing even remotely violent. Just stand there and cheer every time he drops the "n" word?

Then they are not breaking any laws.

But suppose maybe a passer by who happens to be black decides to throw a brick, and it breaks one of the gathered participants' nose. If the participant maintains their composure and calls the police, will the passerby who happens to be black get cited for assault? Or will the whole gathering get broken up by the police, and the participants cited for something?

Depends on the details of the incident. If it happened just as you described - and there were impartial witnesses - then the black guy gets arrested for assault.

Of course this doesn't always work out that way. In some jurisdictions, they'd arrest all the KKK people. In some jurisdictions, they'd just go and arrest all the black people - even if they had nothing to do with the incident. Fortunately _most_ places are better than that.

I'm just curious whether the freedom of speech cuts both ways, or whether perhaps it is really the freedom to say what is fashionable at the moment, so long as you avoid expressing unpopular opinions?

The only rights you will retain in the long run are the rights you defend for others - even if you dislike what they use those rights for.

Originally Posted by Pong

Lynx_Fox, did you notice in that data no mention of marriage rates? You understand that if atheists marry less they'd divorce less

Not necessarily. The divorce rate is normalized by % of those married.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "social capital," but you'll find lots and lots of evidence that marriage, even in the 21st century, brings lots of benefits to longevity, health and though many liberals are reluctant to admit, success of any children raised in the home.

Married rate trends in the US are following Canada and the UK...and at a record low levels. Also similar to Canada and the UK, couples are getting married for the first time later, now near 30. Not mentioned as often is a shift of rates based on education....it used to be lower income were more likely to marry, but now that trends if reversing so college grad couples are getting married for first time more often than uneducated.

LGBT, only about 5% of the population (any population) are not going to effect these trends very much.

Originally Posted by jrmonroe

Regarding the chaps and gags comment, without the power/consequence of reproduction, people (homosexuals and heterosexuals alike) can treat sex with less of the respect that it deserves. What respect? Let's face it, without reproduction, there is no tomorrow.

Hit the nail on the head.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Pong

the liberal argument for gay marriage is empty, because the liberal concept of marriage is empty. Note their divorce rate...

Can you provide support for your right wing garbage?
Here's one link that say's you're an absolute partisan moron.

Divorce Rate Higher in Counties With More Conservative Protestants, Study Says

I'm posting from a country where the issue was (coolly) resolved a decade ago. I'm not a partisan about gay marriage. But, I do have a position to offend everyone in California:

Generalize much? Doubtful anyway.

Originally Posted by Pong

I'm opposed to society or government rewarding people (e.g. with married status) merely for their romantic attachments or sexual behaviour - that's none of our business.

you think having the government recognize your marriage or "letting" you get married is a "reward?" I think you'd offend more than just California with that bit of nonsense.
Odd that you're trying to redefine the conversation in such a way that labels marriage as a reward. So, now do you not only have to get lucky in finding a mate now you have to get lucky in having the state recognize you. Simply... wow.

The rest of your posts on the matter, at best, are right back to the days of trading cows and land for a bride ... ridiculously archaic. and at worst your views are in complete opposition to each other.

Originally Posted by TheFosterKid

Okay, I have nothing wrong with LGBT people. Love is love and I think it's unfair that there are still some countries where same-sex couples can't get married. However, I don't understand the amount of attention that's given to it.

1. The Pride parades are a good idea in practice. They provide the community a chance to let their voices be heard. But they are way too over-sexualised. Do the marchers really need to be dressed like that? By showing so much skin, they are reinforcing the stereotype that gays are only interested in sex. And I for one would not want my children to have to see people dressed in the street like that. Not because they're a certain sexuality but because I believe in a certain level of decourum.

2. The way the media treats the LGBT movement, it's as if it's the biggest civil rights issue of our time. I understand that it's important to fight for the right to love whoever you want, but not when it's taking attention away from more life-affecting issues like homelessness and mental illness.

3. Many religions are against the LGBT movement. We're fighting for equality yet religious people are forced to feel ostricized by seeing what they think is haram/sin glorified on a daily basis. If they speak about how such practices make them uncomfortable, they're told that they're being unjust and that they should shut up. So much for equality.

NOTE: This is about the LGB side of the community. I realise that trans* people do have a lot more issues, which frankly deserve to get more recognition than they're getting.

Please tell me I'm not the only one who feels like this!

Without comment on how large the problem of LGBT people being treated like second-class citizens actually is in the West, and whether or not media and activists are representing LGBT discrimination as a bigger problem than it actually is... The louder you voice your beliefs, the more people display aspects of themselves publicly without shame - no matter how risqué... The more it is normalized, and the more a prejudice dismantles. What the LGBT movement does now still contributes to attaining equality.

"3. Many religions are against the LGBT movement. We're fighting for equality yet religious people are forced to feel ostricized by seeing what they think is haram/sin glorified on a daily basis. If they speak about how such practices make them uncomfortable, they're told that they're being unjust and that they should shut up. So much for equality."

I wrote something related to this a little while ago on another website:

"Three things you have to remember when dealing with prejudice:

1) Most of them don't hate on gay because they're bad people. Some hate on you because they perceive gay as some sort of threat to their cultures, beliefs, and religions. Others don't hate at all, but do perceive homosexuality as a threat to the aforementioned things. They think
"the gays" are out to hurt the waning way of life that they know and love.

2) You can't win with everybody. No matter how much better your argument is, no matter how clear it is that the other person has no idea what they're talking about, there is a possibility that you cannot convince them that homosexuality isn't bad - at all. That said, giving them the opportunity to open a dialogue, and talk it out with them... Well then maybe that's one less person that thinks their kind of people and gays have to be enemies just because they're different in some ways.

3) If you lose your cool, you lose - because that's exactly what they were expecting you to do. If you give them the reaction they want, you have just confirmed their prejudice - and they'll probably walk away thinking, "typical faggot," and you can't let that happen. Every time you discuss homosexuality with someone against it, you have to be a tactician. You have to anticipate that they're going to try and get a rise out of you, and use that knowledge against them by not reacting the ways they want you to. If you can do that, you're the one with the control, and they're the ones that are put on their toes - because suddenly their prejudice is being discredited. You're not fitting the mould they're trying to pigeon hole you into."

So in response to the third point you made... Those groups of people feel like they are being cast-out to the fringes of society because they are holding onto a once dominant culture that is on its way out the door, and they're getting pulled out the door with it because they refuse to let go. It's on its way out the door because minority groups of all sorts were getting marginalized within it, and now that pretty much everyone else is rallying around these minority groups because people realize that it wasn't very fair, the culture is changing to better represent the people within it. The people with prejudice feel like it's getting rubbed in their face, when in reality, minority groups are actually just starting to get the equal treatment and representation they always deserved.

What's more is this: Religion is not some kind of club where certain people get their beliefs catered to and others do not. Religion is something you share, and because it's something you share, interpretations are going to differ. If one Christian sect think it's wrong to be gay, that doesn't mean every other Christian sect has to tow the line. And if it turns out there actually is a god, and it turns out that one Christian sect happened to be right... I'll have made my choices, and they'll have made theirs. I'd be the one going to hell, not them, so maybe they should just let me make those choices for myself.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by kojax

What if "deliberately provoking" means gathering together and listening to some guy in a white robe and hood giving a long, public rant about "them niggers" and waving a Confederate flag?

If it's done on private property? That's their right. (Of course, if they then go and harass black people - throw em in jail.)

If it's done in public? Gotta go get a permit for a big gathering if they want to use a park or something.

Right. Just like how gay people also have to get permits when they want to have their marches.

I'm just curious whether the freedom of speech cuts both ways, or whether perhaps it is really the freedom to say what is fashionable at the moment, so long as you avoid expressing unpopular opinions?

The only rights you will retain in the long run are the rights you defend for others - even if you dislike what they use those rights for.

Definitely. And so gay people who want to have their marches should be among the first to defend the rights of the KKK to hold rallies.

Religious people who want to have the right to publicly denounce homosexuality should be among the first to allow gay people to publicly voice their belief that homosexuality is ok.

Originally Posted by kojax

Right. Just like how gay people also have to get permits when they want to have their marches.

Correct.

And so gay people who want to have their marches should be among the first to defend the rights of the KKK to hold rallies.

Perhaps - but they don't need to. The First Amendment does that for them. (Which is a good thing, because people like the KKK and the Westboro Baptists piss a lot of people off, and it's good to have a Constitutional reminder of what rights we have to afford even people like them.)

Originally Posted by billvon of San Diego

Originally Posted by Pong

I think you're right. But the liberal argument for gay marriage is empty, because the liberal concept of marriage is empty.

Yet red states have higher divorce rates than blue states...

I'm not following your parochial politics. The forum, and topic, is international.

Moral of the story - if you want your kids to have stable marriages - keep them away from conservative influences. (Or probably more accurately - be careful which of those conservative influences they pick up on.)

Not so pat. If you want your kids to have stable marriages, they require influences (or pressures) to marry in the first place. Traditional or religious societies do that; progressive or secular societies not so much. Roughly translated to USA I mean Conservative vs. Liberal.

If people marry just because they feel they ought to (like, the preacher hammered it) we predict divorce. On the other side, however, we have what I call "liberals" (e.g. Canadians under 30) who feel that since common-law marriage is automatic anyway, formal marriage is merely an excuse for the photo-op and wedding party. Contrast very traditional marriages, that were a joining of families, sometimes arranged, of real economic and social import.

Uh - gays come in both flavors. Not sure why that is so often overlooked.

I prefer "queer" to include any couple who aren't (heterosexual) breeders. But alot of people howl at that label. Regarding a re-definition of marriage in this thread, I think we're basically asking if couples who won't breed, should marry.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The divorce rate is normalized by % of those married.

From this: Why Conservative Christians Divorce More Than Atheists ...? What am I missing?

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Odd that you're trying to redefine the conversation in such a way that labels marriage as a reward.

If no benefit, why would anybody want it enter it? IMO marriage is a contract between individuals and also between themselves and family, society, and yes government. All these interests should expect to get something out of it and also give something back.

If individuals marry freely as an entirely personal matter, then it's no business of society or government, or maybe even their families. So let them have their private thing. You don't ask state officials to endorse your taking turns changing the kitty litter or sharing breakfast in bed, either. That's none of their business. It's only others' business where others have something to gain from the coupling.

Families, society, and government *can* gain a lot of things from marriages, gay marriages included. These are mainly intangible and even difficult to describe. To quote a government source:

Family Life - Marriage / Indicators of Well-being in Canada

Marriage may involve caring for one another, having children, pooling financial resources, and sharing social networks. The family is an essential building block in Canadian society and serves fundamental social and economic roles (earning, caring, parenting, reproduction, and participating in community).

The beef I have with champions for gay marriage, is they propose it solely on the grounds that gay people too can be romantically bonded. Well sure, but why cheapen marriage for the argument? It's a bad argument.

Originally Posted by Pong

The beef I have with champions for gay marriage, is they propose it solely on the grounds that gay people too can be romantically bonded. Well sure, but why cheapen marriage for the argument? It's a bad argument.

Most don't limit their argument as you've characterized it. Surely you've heard the stories of long time lovers and companions in life for decades who can't visit each other at a hospital. Or ones who can't adopt a child because despite the overwhelming evidence that children would do far better in a married households are refused by prejudiced (and uninformed) state policies. There's a lot more to it than merely romance and many of them are quite tangible benefits to the couple as well as to society.

Originally Posted by Pong

I'm not following your parochial politics.

You claimed that "the liberal concept of marriage is empty." I posted a real-world example that shows that, in fact, the conservative concept of marriage is poor and leads to broken homes. (The example was from the US, but the conservative values that lead to the problems are worldwide.)

Moral of the story - if you want your kids to have stable marriages - keep them away from conservative influences. (Or probably more accurately - be careful which of those conservative influences they pick up on.)

Not so pat. If you want your kids to have stable marriages, they require influences (or pressures) to marry in the first place. Traditional or religious societies do that; progressive or secular societies not so much. Roughly translated to USA I mean Conservative vs. Liberal. If people marry just because they feel they ought to (like, the preacher hammered it) we predict divorce. On the other side, however, we have what I call "liberals" (e.g. Canadians under 30) who feel that since common-law marriage is automatic anyway, formal marriage is merely an excuse for the photo-op and wedding party. Contrast very traditional marriages, that were a joining of families, sometimes arranged, of real economic and social import.

Right - and that's a big part of the difference. To simplify the above, conservatives get married because their families decide to get them married. Liberals get married because they want to. (That of course is a gross oversimplification of the issue; that is just one trend, obvious only in large sample sizes.)

I prefer "queer" to include any couple who aren't (heterosexual) breeders.

Wow, I was queer for decades and didn't know it! And I know plenty of heterosexual couples who are queer per your definition.

But alot of people howl at that label. Regarding a re-definition of marriage in this thread, I think we're basically asking if couples who won't breed, should marry.

I'd think it's entirely up to them.

If individuals marry freely as an entirely personal matter, then it's no business of society or government, or maybe even their families. So let them have their private thing. You don't ask state officials to endorse your taking turns changing the kitty litter or sharing breakfast in bed, either. That's none of their business. It's only others' business where others have something to gain from the coupling.

Agreed - and ideally government should only get involved in setting up a civil union between any two people. Beyond that people can marry or not in any way they choose. The reason that doesn't work now is that there are all sorts of legal rights that married people have that people in civil unions do not - and thus the need to make gay marriage legal.

The beef I have with champions for gay marriage, is they propose it solely on the grounds that gay people too can be romantically bonded. Well sure, but why cheapen marriage for the argument? It's a bad argument.

Marriage is not "cheapened" by including gays any more than it is "cheapened" by including interracial marriages.

Originally Posted by Pong

If no benefit, why would anybody want it enter it? IMO marriage is a contract between individuals and also between themselves and family, society, and yes government. All these interests should expect to get something out of it and also give something back.

If individuals marry freely as an entirely personal matter, then it's no business of society or government, or maybe even their families. So let them have their private thing. You don't ask state officials to endorse your taking turns changing the kitty litter or sharing breakfast in bed, either. That's none of their business. It's only others' business where others have something to gain from the coupling.

The beef I have with champions for gay marriage, is they propose it solely on the grounds that gay people too can be romantically bonded. Well sure, but why cheapen marriage for the argument? It's a bad argument.

Because it's a cultural norm, because at least one of the partners might find the act of commemorating their love appealing, because of religion, and maybe even sometimes they do it because the older generations in the families want there to be one. I have doubts that many Westerners get married because of the practical benefits of social contracts, oath-swearing, and alliance making anyway. *I'd imagine it's almost an obsolete practice in the West, essentially ceasing with the demise of the gentry/aristocracy. That's mostly an Eastern, and African convention.

I don't quite understand your position here, Pong. It sounds like you're mostly concerned with the motivations people have, what you define as the purpose of marriage, and whether or not other people should be allowed to have a marriage sanctioned by the government if it isn't beneficial for anyone except for the partners wanting the marriage.

I think the problem with that sentiment is that there is no such thing as "cheapening" the institution of marriage. Marriage has practical values, yes - but those benefits aren't going to disappear from "traditional marriages" just because other people are also using the word "marriage" to describe their partnerships. Even so, "Marriage," is a word we apply to an array of customs and practices that differ from culture to culture. As a consequence, marriage and its perceived value is going to differ from culture-to-culture.

What you call the "purpose" of marriage is admittedly your opinion, others value marriage as a sentimental gesture, some might even just enjoy the novelty oath-swearing. Even if marriage was an institution with a monolithic purpose, for what reason does the motive matter? It's kind of a moot point to say, "This person is marrying for a reason that 'cheapens' marriage," because push to shove they and the state presumably still get some of the same benefits, regardless of their motivations for having a marriage in the first place. Like you said, if people have private reasons for wanting to get married it isn't the State's business - so they should probably just stamp the damn papers and collect money from a higher tax bracket.

Edit: *Didn't like the "as a matter of fact" phrasing in one of my sentences.

If LGBT people want to be as miserable as the rest of us, by all means, they should be allowed to get married. Divorce lawyers are drooling at the prospects.

(Just kidding.) LGBT people should have all the rights afforded to the rest of America. Maybe some day we can get beyond the current labels, races, etc., and we will just call people "people".

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

If LGBT people want to be as miserable as the rest of us, by all means, they should be allowed to get married. Divorce lawyers are drooling at the prospects.

Same with children. Hooray for two Christmases!

Originally Posted by Pong

Regarding a re-definition of marriage in this thread, I think we're basically asking if couples who won't breed, should marry.

So we should ban infertile people from getting married, then?

Originally Posted by Daecon

Originally Posted by Pong

Regarding a re-definition of marriage in this thread, I think we're basically asking if couples who won't breed, should marry.

So we should ban infertile people from getting married, then?

With a compulsory divorce after menopause hits.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Pong

The beef I have with champions for gay marriage, is they propose it solely on the grounds that gay people too can be romantically bonded. Well sure, but why cheapen marriage for the argument? It's a bad argument.

Most don't limit their argument as you've characterized it...

Okay, conceded. My fear is that in redefining marriage to accommodate mere lovers, we empty it of meaning. It then means whatever anybody wants it to mean. I rather think this a good time to reflect on how marriage has evolved over the last centuries and decide - as a society - what we want it to be. And I think marriage is as malleable to deliberate engineering as other aspects of life like employment, childrearing, education and retirement. Give marriage teeth.

Originally Posted by billvon

Wow, I was queer for decades and didn't know it! And I know plenty of heterosexual couples who are queer per your definition.

Until quite recently marriage was presumed to produce offspring and a nuclear family at least. Even the function was supposed to be exclusive to married couples. A pair of lovers was seen as a beginning, not an end in itself. That has changed quite a bit, but we haven't yet addressed what this means to the future of marriage as an institution.

Originally Posted by stander-j

I think the problem with that sentiment is that there is no such thing as "cheapening" the institution of marriage. Marriage has practical values, yes - but those benefits aren't going to disappear from "traditional marriages" just because other people are also using the word "marriage" to describe their partnerships. Even so, "Marriage," is a word we apply to an array of customs and practices that differ from culture to culture. As a consequence, marriage and its perceived value is going to differ from culture-to-culture.

Like, inheritance and divorce may be handled within the couples' religions. And society at large shouldn't meddle, since marriage may mean anything a smaller group or couple want it to mean.

Originally Posted by Daecon

So we should ban infertile people from getting married, then?

No, but we'd be childish to pretend marriage was ever just about lovers. That's like saying some bird species instinctively builds nests for the end purpose of pair bonding. Now what we're proposing is to go on building nests and we'll try to fit new purposes to them. I suggest we reflect on our behaviour, and perhaps redesign the nest to make it relevant to our times.

Breeding couples have already re-branded ourselves "parents" and the title holds a lot more power than "married" now. As a society we should discuss what this means.

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by billvon

Wow, I was queer for decades and didn't know it! And I know plenty of heterosexual couples who are queer per your definition.

Until quite recently marriage was presumed to produce offspring and a nuclear family at least. Even the function was supposed to be exclusive to married couples. A pair of lovers was seen as a beginning, not an end in itself. That has changed quite a bit, but we haven't yet addressed what this means to the future of marriage as an institution.

It hasn't changed much. Marriages of convenience - where no children were planned or wanted, or children were planned OUTSIDE the marriage - go back to the beginning of recorded history, and were used for political and commercial purposes. Likewise, marriages between infertile couples (older or injured people) have a long history in our society.

What has changed is that now a new class of infertile people (gay men) can now be married as well. At the other extreme, more people who are technically infertile can now have children via IUI or IVF.

Originally Posted by Daecon

So we should ban infertile people from getting married, then?

No, but we'd be childish to pretend marriage was ever just about lovers.

That's only part of marriage; there are plenty of lovers who aren't marred. In marriage there is also commitment and a desire to pair with one person more or less permanently.

That's like saying some bird species instinctively builds nests for the end purpose of pair bonding. Now what we're proposing is to go on building nests and we'll try to fit new purposes to them. I suggest we reflect on our behaviour, and perhaps redesign the nest to make it relevant to our times.

Interesting example, because in nature same-sex birds DO sometimes pair-bond and build nests - and will raise chicks if eggs are provided.

Breeding couples have already re-branded ourselves "parents" and the title holds a lot more power than "married" now. As a society we should discuss what this means.

Same thing it always has. Not all married people are parents, and not all parents are married.

Pong you seem desperate to toss out the baby with the bathwater--limiting and reinventing the definition of marriage even to the point of spurning its long history and vital role in people's social lives as well as the foundational legal systems common throughout the world. Your own post concedes that marriage has never been just about children. And history clearly shows that to be true with no history that I'm aware of that ever put a fertility as a condition of marriage by any State.

Your views are also somewhat antiquated and don't reflect human sexual behavior. Some people are bi-sexual; gays often have children; and gays are also fully capable of, and do choose to have them either the old fashion why or by help of technology; and gay couples are fully capable of raising well adjusted children even if they aren't biologically their own through adoptions. There's no bona fide or rational reasons to limit any of this within the framework of marriage other than to simply deny them liberties because of simple ignorance (your case), bigotry, or spite (how some of your comments come off).

Looks like we're all basically in favour of gay marriage, and I've prompted people to consider the implications.

Originally Posted by Pong

Looks like we're all basically in favour of gay marriage, and I've prompted people to consider the implications.

The implication being that a person can marry someone they love, regardless of gender?

Can't have a useful discussion if it's boiled down to "Are you in favour? Yes or no?"

Fine. I side with you, "yes." End of discussion.

There doesn't really seem to be much to discuss, it's either an equality-or-no-equality situation.

Like with discussions about interracial marriages, there's no real "shades of grey". (See what I did there?)

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

If some people want to organise some show which is related to intimate issues or contain explicit subjects, why not to organize them in a comfortable closed premises?

Sure, they could do that (and often do.) But that's up to them, not you.

Why instead go on the street in rain or under burning sun, smell gasoline vapours and interrupt street movement?

Because in the US that is a guaranteed right - both to speak your mind and to assemble peacefully in public.

Is only purpose of it to involve those people who don't want to be part of it or shock and affect unsuspected viewers? If yes, then this is not the best way to misuse the very idea of public demonstrations.

In many cases the objective is to affect unsuspecting viewers, yes. This applies to gay pride parades, abortion protests, anti-war demonstrations etc etc.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

If you don't like the vulgarity and open sexuality of events like Carnevale in Rio or Gay Pride in your own city - don't go there.

If some people want to organise some show which is related to intimate issues or contain explicit subjects, why not to organize them in a comfortable closed premises? In this case they could make sure that only those who want to participate in this show will come. There are some giant closed stadiums which could accommodate hundreds of thousands of people. Why instead go on the street in rain or under burning sun, smell gasoline vapours and interrupt street movement? Is only purpose of it to involve those people who don't want to be part of it or shock and affect unsuspected viewers? If yes, then this is not the best way to misuse the very idea of public demonstrations.

Why are the same levels of supposed vulgarity allowed with mardi gras and St Patricks day parades, but not with Pride events, which I will point out are NOT the gay orgies you are claiming they are. They are not anything near what opponents assert they are in fact.

You do not get to dictate where an event happens based on false ideas of what is happening.

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Because in the US that is a guaranteed right - both to speak your mind and to assemble peacefully in public.

As well as to show sexual organs and defecate in public?

This applies to gay pride parades, abortion protests, anti-war demonstrations etc etc.

Not the same kind of issues.

What events have you personally been to where there was public defecation??? Since is CERTAINLY was NOT a pride event where that happened.

Nudity is a fraction of many different events/parades for different groups, not only the "evil" gays. And its perfectly healthy to see breasts or penises so your shock and horrors is not valid reason for oppression.

How exactly are they different issues.

Im still waiting to know what personal experience you have had with a pride event is....

Originally Posted by Stanley514

This applies to gay pride parades, abortion protests, anti-war demonstrations etc etc.

Not the same kind of issues.

They are absolutely the same kind of issues. Some people may be offended by seeing men kiss; some people may be offended by images of dismembered fetuses. (Indeed, you could argue that the latter image is far more offensive.) Both still have the right to make such images public.

As well as to show sexual organs and defecate in public?

Defecate in public? No. That's illegal.

.

On take back the night and slut marches. The reason for women going out in their underwear or whatever is to refuse to do what society tells them to surrounding rape. "Don't dress sluttily and you are less likely to get raped." Most women who get raped are in normal clothes by people they know.

Things like traveling in a pack at night or watching your drink at a party are exclusively told to women, even though both genders could practice this if they want to avoid getting mugged. (Drugging someone in order to rob them is totally a thing. And two people are far less likely to get robbed than one.) And yet society only tells that to women. Why? If it is really just about being aware and educating people to put themselves at less risk, why just tell that to women unless there are sexist feelings behind them?

Even if someone chooses not to travel in pairs or watch their drink, it is still entirely the fault of the criminal if a crime is committed. You don't look back at someone who was murdered and say, "If only they packed a .45 or wore a bulletproof vest." The near nudity is a way to A. get attention to the issue and B. (most importantly) to send a clear message that they aren't buying it. (It being the victim blaming lies.)

Also, people aren't being oppressed when they speak out against homosexuality and are told off for it. Freedom of speech goes two ways. The right to say what you want and the right of others to lambaste you for it. Churches are, however, being oppressed by laws that force them to marry gay couples. (No such laws exist in America, but they do other places.) I have no issue with homosexuality, it doesn't make me the slightest bit uncomfortable to room with or be friends with gay people, I consider myself a supporter of gay rights and a feminist. However, it isn't right to force others to feel that way. Similarly, I would be okay with a church saying I'm not welcome in their building if I'm Jewish. That's their right. But it wouldn't be a violation of that churches religious freedoms if people started picketing that church and it isn't hypocritical of society to be accepting of attempts to keep oppressive laws in place that violate civil rights. If society waged a cultural war against religious people that would be one thing. But not being okay with oppressive laws and the people who support them is another entirely. Inside their own buildings, though, they should be able to mostly do what they want.On take back the night and slut marches. The reason for women going out in their underwear or whatever is to refuse to do what society tells them to surrounding rape. "Don't dress sluttily and you are less likely to get raped." Most women who get raped are in normal clothes by people they know.

Things like traveling in a pack at night or watching your drink at a party are exclusively told to women, even though both genders But even if they choose not to, it is still entirely the fault of the criminal. You don't look back at someone who was murdered and say, "If only they packed a .45 or wore a bulletproof vest." The near nudity is a way to A. get attention to the issue and B. (most importantly) to send a clear message that they aren't buying it. (It being the victim blaming lies.)

Also, people aren't being oppressed when they speak out against homosexuality and are told off for it. Freedom of speech goes two ways. The right to say what you want and the right of others to lambaste you for it. Churches are, however, being oppressed by laws that force them to marry gay couples. (No such laws exist in America, but they do other places.) I have no issue with homosexuality, it doesn't make me the slightest bit uncomfortable to room with or be friends with gay people, I consider myself a supporter of gay rights and a feminist. However, it isn't right to force others to feel that way. Similarly, I would be okay with a church saying I'm not welcome in their building if I'm Jewish. That's their right. But it wouldn't be a violation of that churches religious freedoms if people started picketing that church and it isn't hypocritical of society to be accepting of attempts to keep oppressive laws in place that violate civil rights. If society waged a cultural war against religious people that would be one thing. But not being okay with oppressive laws and the people who support them is another entirely. Inside their own buildings, though, they should be able to mostly do what they want.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Im still waiting to know what personal experience you have had with a pride event is....

I didn't visit them intentionally, but sometimes briefly watched when they passed by. Personally, I didn't see some nudity. (or just didn't pay attention).
Since there is no claims that LGBT people are persecuted by U.S. government, I'm not sure they could be classified as an urgent human protection movement. Therefore they are more like private sex-issue related parties. I do not see a reason to conduct them in the same way as an anti-war or similar demonstrations. I think in any normal society there exist understanding that intimate life should be intimate. Therefore it should be reserved for conscious participants only.

Some people may be offended by seeing men kiss

Kissing in the public is another controversial issue. I would have nothing against if it would be largely restricted, as well as any other sexual actions in public.

Homosexuals are persecuted by the US government. Where did you get the idea that they weren't?






On Islam and homosexuality. In nine Islamic nations you can be put to death for homosexuality, though some of these nations prefer prison time. (Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, The United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.)

Islamic nations with specific anti gay laws banning gay relations between one or both genders include Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar, Maldives, and Uzbekistan. Both Indonesia and Egypt lack federal anti-gay laws, but Indonesia has areas with local anti-gay laws and homosexuals can and have been jailed for being gay regardless. Egyptian morality laws still outlaw homosexuality making it illegal in Egypt.

Homosexuality was illegal before the US occupation and while it was made legal, it has remained de facto illegal. Police officers openly punish and sometimes kill homosexuals, not to mention hate crimes left unaddressed. With the recent uprising, it may very well happen that homosexuality will be truly illegal in Iraq again. In a country where you can be murdered with no repercussions to the murderer and where the law often persecutes you? You can't really say it is legal there. The US went in and made all sorts of laws and the populace doesn't acknowledge all of them.

It's legal in Levant, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Syria, and maybe a couple I missed. I think it's okay in Morocco? Let me know about the ones I missed, but unless I missed a lot, how can you say that the majority of Islamic nations allow homosexuality? (And I'm allowing that countries which ban same sex marriage but not the practice allow homosexuality.)

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Homosexuals are persecuted by the US government.

Could you give some examples?

It's legal in Levant, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Syria, and maybe a couple I missed. I think it's okay in Morocco? Let me know about the ones I missed, but unless I missed a lot, how can you say that the majority of Islamic nations allow homosexuality?

LGBT rights by country or territory
LGBT rights by country or territory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can feel free to pick out the Islamic nations if you want. I presented a pretty decent list of specifics. If you provide me a list of Islamic countries, I'll check for myself. I don't feel like cross referencing every Islamic country.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

I didn't visit them intentionally, but sometimes briefly watched when they passed by. Personally, I didn't see some nudity. (or just didn't pay attention).

That has been my experience as well.

Since there is no claims that LGBT people are persecuted by U.S. government . . . .

They are still systematically denied rights in many states and by the US government. For decades many states had laws that allowed LGBT people to be arrested and jailed for just being gay. I'd call that persecution.

I think in any normal society there exist understanding that intimate life should be intimate. Therefore it should be reserved for conscious participants only.

That works until the government tries to get involved in people's intimate lives, and tries to outlaw certain intimate acts because the people involved are the wrong sex or race. Then it becomes, rightly, an issue that should be very strongly protested.

Kissing in the public is another controversial issue. I would have nothing against if it would be largely restricted, as well as any other sexual actions in public.

You would have nothing against kissing in public if it was outlawed? That's like saying "I have nothing against Christianity as long as they make any public displays or symbols of it illegal."

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Im still waiting to know what personal experience you have had with a pride event is....

I didn't visit them intentionally, but sometimes briefly watched when they passed by. Personally, I didn't see some nudity. (or just didn't pay attention).
Since there is no claims that LGBT people are persecuted by U.S. government, I'm not sure they could be classified as an urgent human protection movement. Therefore they are more like private sex-issue related parties. I do not see a reason to conduct them in the same way as an anti-war or similar demonstrations. I think in any normal society there exist understanding that intimate life should be intimate. Therefore it should be reserved for conscious participants only.

You "briefly watched when they passed by"? So you have not in actuality had any experience with any pride events at all. Yet you claim authority to say that sex and public defecation are common place at them. Do you not see the problem with that?

You need to actually look at the LGBT history of the US then, Until 2003 there were many states that still has and enforced prejudicialy anti-sodomy laws for the arrest and persecution of gay men. Until 1973 being gay was considered a mental disorder and often treated with drugs and "shock therapy". There are still 30+ states that have anti-equal marriage laws in place.

And for the love of god, stop with the purposeful casting of the topic as ONLY about FUCKING. Its demeaning and insulting to everyone.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Some people may be offended by seeing men kiss

Kissing in the public is another controversial issue. I would have nothing against if it would be largely restricted, as well as any other sexual actions in public.

Why exactly is it more controversial to opposite sex couples kissing in public? There is no outcry at all about opposite sex kissing happening public places or being shown in media, yet its suddenly something to be legislated if its two men doing it (but two women is considered hot and acceptable to).

I say that YOUR right to kiss your wife should be made a jail-able offence before you suggest my right to kiss my bf is.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

That works until the government tries to get involved in people's intimate lives, and tries to outlaw certain intimate acts because the people involved are the wrong sex or race. Then it becomes, rightly, an issue that should be very strongly protested.

That is one thing, but to other thing is that people suppose to have right of choice to watch or not to watch. Why they suppose to be obligated by govt. to be part of somebodies private sex related shows if they do not want to be part of it and neither an accidental viewers? Freedom of expression shouldn't ultimately contradict to freedom of choice.

You would have nothing against kissing in public if it was outlawed? That's like saying "I have nothing against Christianity as long as they make any public displays or symbols of it illegal."

I didn't understand it.. Could you explain?

Again you are ONLY thinking of two men fucking, WHY??? You have been informed how BS that assertion is for over a year now and its still the only way you view gay men.

There is NO public sex happening, at all Im sorry to disappoint you, but your outrage over that happening is bull.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

That works until the government tries to get involved in people's intimate lives, and tries to outlaw certain intimate acts because the people involved are the wrong sex or race. Then it becomes, rightly, an issue that should be very strongly protested.

That is one thing, but to other thing is that people suppose to have right of choice to watch or not to watch. Why they suppose to be obligated by govt. to be part of somebodies private sex related shows if they do not want to be part of it and neither an accidental viewers? Freedom of expression shouldn't ultimately contradict to freedom of choice.

You would have nothing against kissing in public if it was outlawed? That's like saying "I have nothing against Christianity as long as they make any public displays or symbols of it illegal."

I didn't understand it.. Could you explain?

No, you don't have that right. You don't have the right not to be offended. You have the right not to be detained somewhere where you are forced to watch things that offend you. The rights you have when offended and watching things that make you uncomfortable are A. to leave. B. not to bring that stuff into your home. People can swear in public even if you dislike swearing.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by Stanley514

That works until the government tries to get involved in people's intimate lives, and tries to outlaw certain intimate acts because the people involved are the wrong sex or race. Then it becomes, rightly, an issue that should be very strongly protested.

That is one thing, but to other thing is that people suppose to have right of choice to watch or not to watch. Why they suppose to be obligated by govt. to be part of somebodies private sex related shows if they do not want to be part of it and neither an accidental viewers? Freedom of expression shouldn't ultimately contradict to freedom of choice.

You would have nothing against kissing in public if it was outlawed? That's like saying "I have nothing against Christianity as long as they make any public displays or symbols of it illegal."

I didn't understand it.. Could you explain?

No, you don't have that right. You don't have the right not to be offended. You have the right not to be detained somewhere where you are forced to watch things that offend you. The rights you have when offended and watching things that make you uncomfortable are A. to leave. B. not to bring that stuff into your home. People can swear in public even if you dislike swearing.

I think you have gone a bridge too far. You cannot pull you pants down in public and then say, Anybody who doesn't like it shouldn't look.

Harold. Why specifically re you equating a pride event to nudity? They are not the same thing at all.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by Stanley514

That works until the government tries to get involved in people's intimate lives, and tries to outlaw certain intimate acts because the people involved are the wrong sex or race. Then it becomes, rightly, an issue that should be very strongly protested.

That is one thing, but to other thing is that people suppose to have right of choice to watch or not to watch. Why they suppose to be obligated by govt. to be part of somebodies private sex related shows if they do not want to be part of it and neither an accidental viewers? Freedom of expression shouldn't ultimately contradict to freedom of choice.

You would have nothing against kissing in public if it was outlawed? That's like saying "I have nothing against Christianity as long as they make any public displays or symbols of it illegal."

I didn't understand it.. Could you explain?

No, you don't have that right. You don't have the right not to be offended. You have the right not to be detained somewhere where you are forced to watch things that offend you. The rights you have when offended and watching things that make you uncomfortable are A. to leave. B. not to bring that stuff into your home. People can swear in public even if you dislike swearing.

I think you have gone a bridge too far. You cannot pull you pants down in public and then say, Anybody who doesn't like it shouldn't look.

Youre right, there are lines. But in general, you don't have the right not to be offended and people aren't obligated to defend your sensibilities.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Harold. Why specifically re you equating a pride event to nudity? They are not the same thing at all.

I was only commenting on the sentence in bold which says that people only have a right not to be detained and forced to watch something offensive. This is clearly false, or so I think most would agree. There are some acts that are and should be prohibited in public.