Anti-homossexual parade in Warsaw - June.

Remove all ads!

The kissing thing isn't weird (heterosexual couples kiss in public all the time) and licking is only over the top if it's in private areas like the chest or bottom (though I personally wouldn't do that at all, it's still a personal preference). But having sex in an alley is definitely public lewdness, and they should have been arrested for that.

I agree that some of the demonstrations that the (public) gay community holds are doing more harm than good to their cause, but I consider the people in them to be not unlike the KKK. Just a bunch of screwballs who want exclaim their separatism in the loudest way possible. I'm not about to look down on all gay people because of the actions of a few any more than I would look down on "white" people because of the KKK, or "black" people because of the Black Panthers (though I may be misinformed about the last one, what I've heard still fits with my point).

Ultimately, separate ceremonies like the Gay Olympics or the Latin Grammies or whatever are simply trying to provide equality NOW. Doesn't work quite that way, but eventually a minority can be accepted and start to win in the "regular" competitions. At that point it soon becomes obsolete (the black Oscars spring to mind, though that's still a judgement call).

Exactly. But that doesn't stop some people (Svy ) from wanting their own private nations.

 

It did indeed. Not quite the same as saying, "They're all potential Nazi genociders," however.

Not to mention the parallel was also made to the Soviets.

 

I just think that people who look bad - in all aspects - have a big reason to act out of frustration, and acting out of frustration cam lead to some serious problems.
I think looks give a good headline.

I could say just as much for leftism...

The problem is the brainwashing the children are going through, not tolerance itself.

Still that does not rule out the role of the parents.

Read Pac Man's description of their "Olympic Games". There is evidence enough to claim they are prone to perverted behaviour everywhere, but yet people refuse to admit so, all in the name of not being "bigots".
I have never seen such display in the real Olympic Games, just as I do not see people doing so in this Warsaw rally - now, in gay parades it is a whole different matter.

Yes, what they do within their walls is not my problem. Anything beyound that it is.
---------------------------------------------------

UN intellectuals want the whole world for themselves/their ideas, what is the problem with me wanting just my Nation?
----------------------------------------------------

If they can be compared to nazis, they might as well be potencial nazi genociders...

 

So are they frustrated because they look bad, or what? And look bad in who's eyes? It's all subjective.

So tolerance is not a problem, but teaching people tolerance is horrible brainwashing?

That's right, it doesn't *rule out* the role of the parents. But if schools didn't teach people any ground rules of how to behave around others, there'd be even more violence and anarchy all over than there is now. Not all parents do such a hot job, you know. If daddy says gays should be towed behind a truck dragging them face down on the asphalt, is the society 'brainwashing' people when it says gays should be treated fairly?

I did. It wouldn't be publicly accepted if straight people did the same, so it's no surprise gays doing it doesn't get accepted. But does it mean all gays are like that? You could just as easily say all straight people are violent whackos because there are straight football hooligans.

In a way I can understand the behavior in the 'Gay Olympics.' Drunk on freedom, getting absorbed in the group mentality and not really thinking anymore. The same thing can happen to heterosexuals, you know. Straight people have orgies too. If some loud bunch made a big issue of how it's 'bigotry' that we're not allowed to have orgies publicly, soon there very well might be public straight orgies. The phenomenon is not so much about whether people are homo- or heterosexual.

Well, if someone has a problem with people having problems with gays not staying in the closet and walking with eyes downcast, they're going to be just as convinced of themselves being right as you are. And then everybody will be screaming "I am right!" "No, *I* am right!" Wouldn't it be better to just try to get along?

That the UN intellectuals type of tolerant ideas don't harm anybody. Wanting an anti-gay state harms gay people.

Are the tolerant ideas restricting your right to hate gays? Well, laws restrict my right to murder too. Don't I feel oppressed.

 

It is a smart strategy, since it's the same as calling those who march for the liberal ideas "Marxist" or "communist."

I underwent a similar class presented by a large American corporation. There goes the idea of "state run propaganda and brainwashing"

[ November 16, 2005, 16:43: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Not it is not. You can certainly play with relativism ideas as much as you want, but the fact is they look quite bad and stupid.

The way it is taught it is.

Schools should teach children, and maybe give some basic grounds of morality, but it should never be a gathering place for spreading liberal propaganda.

The fact is this kind of behaviour seems to be fairly more frequent amongst homos.

If Heteros have orgies within their walls, it is our own problem.
I dont see we doing so out in the open like in these poor excuses for "gay olympic games" and gay parades.
Everything else is especulation.

Then we will have a conflict, and one side will come out as a victor, as everything in life. Trying to "get along" is nonsensical and weak to me, if I can not comply with the other side stance.

Yes, because UN intellectuals just want the best for all human beings. How is it that I am so blind I can not see their humanistic purposes?
----------------------------------------------------

Except that being called a nazi is the worst offense possible, and enough to discredit one's claim completely.
Being regarded as a commie or marxist will, at most, make people think you are an uthopian person, "although with a good heart, and who fights for a noble cause, even if impractical in the real world".
There is an abyss of difference.

It does not have to be a state run program. Hell, no one does a better job than NGOs - most of which are financed by the UN.

 

Yes, except that Stalin was a communist. As was Mao.... One can have liberal ideas and ideology and NOT be a communist, or a Marxist for that matter.

BTW, that diversity class was here in Houston, Texas, hotbed of the religious right - not "San Francisco."

 

Yes, but they are all leftists. Regardless, that was not my point, which was accusing someone of being a commie is hardly a strategy people use to discredit people's views, since in the collective imaginary being a commie is not a bad thing. In the other hand, accuse someone of being a nazi and he becomes the worst scondrel ever, and his views are worthless and disconsidered a priori. I can certainly see a strategy being applied here.

Meaning? I dont know the content of your class, so I can't say the motivations behind it. I know which was all about the San Francisco one though - which was told to me by my friend - and that surely was a pure mental brainwashing.
Even if Houston is a "hotbed of religious right", it does not mean there are no leftist groups doing their typical propaganda there, by the way.

 

I could also assume that because of your typos/misspellings ('especulation?') you are uneducated and stupid, but that would make no more sense than judging people whose looks I don't like, now would it? The only 'fact' is that they look bad and stupid *to you.* It's not absolute.

Good luck trying to deal with the rest of the world.

First of all I hardly think of it as propaganda. But how about right wing propaganda? Would you have a problem with that? Oh, right - the right wing is *right.* How thoughtless of me.

The key word here is 'seems.' And if you did some research on criminal records, among cases of exhibition/public indecency you'd pretty surely find more heteros than homos. Not to mention cases of sexual violence.

I won't make claims about the UN specifically. But I really don't see the harm in striving for tolerance and equality. What else is it, a gay conspiracy to overthrow heterosexuality?

Seeing as not so long ago the US regularly executed its citizens who were suspected of being communists, the abyss is not so deep. You're tweaking the definitions and imagery to your benefit there, mixing commie with hippie.

 

You can assume whatever you want, but the most logical assumption would be that English is not my mother language.

Not the rest of the world, just a small bit.

Except that right wing propaganda is hardly spread in mass media, much less in schools.

Not "seems", it simply is. Their "olympic games" and parades are a good indication.

The problem is that this is just an undercover for things much more important and in-deepth than "equality and tolerance".

I am not interested in "not so long ago". The fact is, if you tell someone else you are a commie, he might give you a funny look, but that is it. Try telling him you are a nazi though; it might even ensue an ass beating if they are in numerical disadvantage.

[ November 16, 2005, 18:16: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

 

I suppose that one may view any large American corporation as a "leftist group." Anyone is free to label anything as "leftist" whether the particular group thinks it is leftist, or just a group grounded in the reality that a portion of its employees and customers may be "gay" or any other minority. Wait ! I almost forgot, we are not talking reality here, but ideology.

 

I dont remember saying your company is leftist. Actually, I specifically remember mentioning I did not know the content of these classes you took, much less the motivations behind it.

 

Missed the point, did we? It's not my first language either and I make typos too. The point was that assumptions like that are just like assumptions made based on appearance - shortsighted and stupid.

In other words, whoever disagrees with you. Of course I didn't mean the entire globe loves gays. I meant that generally it's not a very smart attitude to think that "trying to get along is nonsensical and weak."

There's that 'pro-war/pro-Bush/if you don't agree you're a traitor' -news channel in the US. But I haven't seen much leftist propaganda around - apparently this becomes about what one considers to be leftist propaganda. You apparently see equality for gays as such, I don't.

But you didn't answer the question. Let's phrase it a little differently: *Theoretically,* would you have a problem with right wing propaganda taught at schools, *if* such a thing was to happen?

Quite a generalization there. It has been estimated recently that 1-6% of the world's population are homosexuals (as opposed to the frequently claimed 10%). Unless there were more than 60 000 000 people present, the Gay Olympics thing is hardly conclusive evidence of how all or even most gay people behave.

Straight people do some pretty nasty things too on a daily basis, but nobody's claiming they do it because "straight people are like that."

Please do share with the rest of us what this secret, hidden, sinister agenda is.

Where my brother used to work (less than a year ago) there was this one guy who was quite obviously a neo-nazi, complete with the SS symbols, swastikas and ultra-racist attitude. Nobody harassed him in any way. People gave him funny looks.

 

@ Svyatoslav,

I take it Fox News is not available where you live? Ask any American - Fox is an entire network dedicated to right wing propoganda, and it is one of the biggest if not the biggest network in the US (by biggest I mean most watched). As for radio you have the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh. And the number of right wing propoganda authors are too numerous to mention. As I obviously am not aware of what the media presents in your corner of the world, I cannot speak for them, but to claim that right wing propoganda is hardly spread in the mass media simply isn't true.

@ Everyone else:

I think there is a rather blantant and obvious disconnect here. People the like of Svyatoslav and Gnarrflinger will never change their stance, because in their mind's eye, they possess the moral high ground. If you start with the assumption that homosexualism is amoral and perverse, there's no way to reason from that starting point that it's at the same time a normal, tolerable thing. That's also why Svyatoslav says that teaching children to treat gays equally is brainwashing, because to him that is exactly what is happening. To him, people who are openly homosexual is not a good thing, and thus it is entirely logical to him that you wouldn't want to teach children something that isn't good. Furthermore, since even children have some limited ability to determine right from wrong, the only way you can convince them to accept these not good things is to brainwash them.

The main reason your attempts to sway Svyatoslav have been unsuccessful is not because your arguements lack merit, it is because they are not addressing the basis of his mindset, which is where this reasoning comes from. Unless you can figure out a way to get into his head - a prospect I seriously doubt is possible - then all of your effort will prove futile.

 

Aldeth: I was wonder when you would come to that conclusion (actually I thought you had given there are fewer responses to Gnarff et al). My whole family believes homosexuality is a sin and can be corrected through faith. Nothing, and I mean nothing, will sway that opinion. No amount of medical evidence or scientific research will convince them that homosexuality is not a sin (weakness of the flesh, they call it).

 

When I commented that the diversity class I took was here in Houston, which was promoted by the company I worked for, you said:

So, what did you mean?

Because, in some of our opinions, it has nothing to do with the moral high ground. It is more a matter of ideology to them. People on all sides pick-and-choose the issues they wish to regard as on the moral high ground. Case in point: abortion is morally wrong because it "kills babies." Yet, war is OK, even if it kills babies. "Life is sacred" and killing is wrong: but the death penalty is Ok, so is the war in Iraq...I could go on with this...

 

T2B,

Well, one of the reasons I have not been very active in this thread is that is the conclusion I have come to. In order to have a productive arguement, one must come into the arguement either having a neutral viewpoint, or one that is at least open-minded and allows for the possiblity for change. As you correctly point out, such is not the case here.

Taken to a broader context, there is little people like Gnarff and Svy can say to sway other people's viewpoints that homosexualism is normal and should be openly tolerated and accepted. So perhaps the other side is no better.

The main difference I see in the two sides is the "Gay is OK" side puts forths arguements that those on the other side can try to refute. On the other hand the "Gay is not OK" side simply uses the Bible as a starting point, stating that "The Bible says it's wrong" and then, that's the end of the arguement. I cannot state with any conviction which side is right or wrong, because once you enter the realm of religious beliefs, you're never going to get universal agreement. Besides, if you beat your head against a wall long enough, you just may knock it over.

@ Chandos,

I agree with the sentiment, but unfortunately, to the people in question, the moral high ground has EVERYTHING to do with it. To think otherwise is to commit a crime against God, which is not an acceptable course of action. Don't get me wrong - I think you are correct, but this doesn't change the fact that they feel the moral high ground is very real and on their side.

[ November 16, 2005, 19:27: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

If the pro - gay people have a right to have parades and protest something, then the people who oppose them should have the right to have a parade as well. As long as the protests are non-violent and do not violate long standing norms of public decency (ie: neither side should be getting naked) they should be allowed to protest.

I am, as most know, opposed to homosexuality and the trend toward societal acceptance of such as normal behaviour, but at the same time, homosexuals are citizens and have the right to peacefully advocate changes that they wish to see made in their society.

 

@Aldeth

I am anti-gay and do not care what the bible says. My rationale is that it goes against nature and therefore is unnatural.

@LKD

Very well said.

@ Whomever cares

People that are anti-gay wouldn't have a cause if the pro-gay people would just shut up and live their lives without bothering the rest of us. Nobody will ever gain acceptance by trying to force/legislate it. That is just common sense, acceptance must be earned.

 

I can easily turn that around and say that people that are pro-gay would have no cause if the anti-gay people would just shut up and stop complaining and caring how gay people live their lives.