|
Post by jklinders on Oct 30, 2014 22:27:39 GMT 1
Clint, you should probably educate yourself on the origins of the the gay pride movement (starting with the Stonewall riots) before you talk such rot.
Also, it was a joke.
E-fucking-gad
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Oct 30, 2014 22:46:56 GMT 1
And the above argument ladies and gentlemen, was a riveting scene from Man of Steel 2: Steel Hard-Ons.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on Oct 31, 2014 1:34:14 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Glow on Oct 31, 2014 2:02:32 GMT 1
R. Kelly, on the other hand, is in there with his Beretta.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Oct 31, 2014 2:02:35 GMT 1
LOL I love it!
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Oct 31, 2014 2:42:22 GMT 1
Hey I wonder how the ol' random pics section is doing these da............
Hm.
Clint......
Okay see ya!
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Oct 31, 2014 2:48:14 GMT 1
And Man of Steel 2. Don't forget that.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Oct 31, 2014 2:49:11 GMT 1
did you think a shirtless anthropomorphic bara fox was the universal symbol of homosexuality? I mean ------ can it be? Can we do that?
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Oct 31, 2014 5:53:00 GMT 1
The fox thing was weird. I had no idea what that symbolized. What got my gander up was the Gandhi quote. I've seen many comparisons of the current gay rights movement to the civil rights movement for African Americans the came to a head in the 1960's. With the quote, I incorrectly thought it was saying the gay rights movement was also the equivalent of the struggle for Indian Independence in the 1940's.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I have no problem with the gay rights movement trying to achieve their goals (specifically, I've discussed the gay marriage question). This is a free country, and they should be able to do as they please, so long as it doesn't harm others. However, I take umbrage and I encourage others to take umbrage at the idea that it's the equivalent of previous civil rights battles. There is no widespread system of lynchings and segregation set against them from birth. They may face a difficult road, but burning crosses are highly unlikely. Nor are armed troops holding them back.
I looked into the stonewall riots. No one died. In fact, if I'm reading this information right, there weren't even that many attacked, but that it was the spark for the movement was a whole (interesting, BTW, thanks for the tip). As a response to a negative eye from the government, the riots and subsequent movements make sense. But their efforts do not equate to the uphill battle that African-Americans or East Indians had to fight, and it bothers me when people act as if they are martyrs for some glorious cause when all they've had to deal with is nasty looks or obvious assholes like the Westboro Baptist Church targeting them.
TL; DR : Homosexuals are not fighting the same battles as previous civil rights movements. So long as this is recognized, I don't have a problem with them conducting business as usual.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Oct 31, 2014 6:08:11 GMT 1
In addition: Sorry for derailing the thread. I misinterpreted the post and should have just chuckled and moved on.
|
|
|
Post by Cali on Oct 31, 2014 7:43:27 GMT 1
Your performance in Man of Steel 2: Steel Hard-Ons will not be forgotten, Clint.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Oct 31, 2014 12:11:46 GMT 1
Thanks for the permission to conduct business, fella.
Cali - you are a genius.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Oct 31, 2014 13:13:24 GMT 1
There. That whole phrase, that whole idea - people saying "I am not anti-gay, look, look! I even say I have no problem what they do behind closed doors! Or in the privacy of their homes! Or how they conduct business!Dammit, it's not a privacy issue, or a business deal! It's the fact that everyone should have the right to live their lives in a way that matches their souls! Are straight couples derided for holding hands in public? Or going on dinner dates? Or - gods forbid - even kissing each other in public? No? Oh, then why should gay couples be subjected to that kind of limit or discrimination? It's not a "lifestyle choice", like dressing in different clothing for example, or wearing your hair in a different manner, rather, it's a person's whole being! And it's not just "nasty looks" or "obvious assholes" like the Westboro Baptist Cult (NOT a church! They don't deserve to be operating under God's name.). It's the attacks and killings just for being gay that are being referred to there. See this list for what I mean. And please notice how much longer the lists for Canada, the UK and the US are. Is this an example of just "nasty looks"? Just last year a man in my hometown was nearly killed. This is not something that can be brushed under a rug and ignored as just "nasty looks" that one must simply "get over it". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_acts_of_violence_against_LGBT_people* beat* Dammit. I got sucked into the debate again. Knowing how it pisses me off. This just sucks.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Oct 31, 2014 14:45:42 GMT 1
Cali - That guy had a Batman poster on his wall in the 23rd frame of the 2nd minute. Let me tell you how that bothers me...
Buch - I know you're kidding, but what I mean by that is that your life is your own. I would never attack that.
Lily - I realize that discussions on this topic with are very difficult for us, but I wanted to thank you specifically for the direct answer. You went step by step through my posts and pointed out my errors. I really appreciate that. Allow me to respond.
1. I never said anything about closed doors or privacy of their own homes. It's a free country and however awkward it may seem to see 2 men or 2 women living the gay lifestyle, the discomfort is mine and not their issue to deal with. My issue was with the use of quotes... and I was unaware of the reality of the violence.
2. You couldn't be more right about WBC. I totally agree.
3. That list was fascinating. I had no idea the incidents were so pervasive.
Hey look, is that David Gaider over there? *runs for the door*
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Oct 31, 2014 15:05:59 GMT 1
Clint - I was merely pointing out the similarity between the phrase "how they conduct business" - which was a form of the phrase you used, by the way - and the phrases "behind closed doors" and "in the privacy of their homes", which is insulting because it insinuates that relationships are not to be seen at all outside of the home... oh wait, I forgot, only gay relationships are to be "never seen".
I understand you did not use the other two phrases yourself in that post, but the phrase you did use means pretty much the same insult, and is used all the time by people who are against homosexuality and the implication is that they think that being gay is only about the sexual acts specifically. All sexual conduct, GAY or STRAIGHT, should be behind closed doors simply for decency - I don't want to see any couple - gay or straight - having sex in public. But, being in a relationship is not only about sex, and if I am allowed to hug and kiss my male fiance and hold his hand in public, then so should any other couple, regardless of the genders of the couple in question. That was the point I was trying to make.
By the way, I wasn't only targeting your post alone - your post was simply the catalyst that set off my comments. I was (in part) simply making a blanket statement about the phrases that are used in general arguments about the topic.
And yes, that list is horrifying. And yes, the incidents are that pervasive. Which is why the LGBT community is (rightfully) trying to defend themselves against such discrimination and attacks and outright murders.
I apologize if it seemed like I was targeting you specifically, I was just trying to make a point about why it is so horrible what is happening to so many innocent people who only want to live their lives in peace.
|
|