Anti-homossexual parade in Warsaw - June.

Remove all ads!

Christ, just like you ask for a... uh, I'm new here. I'll try to be nice.
Do you really think that's aggressive? Come on... you should know what that word means coming from a country like Russia (you 're from Russia, right?). Something aggressive would involve fire, broken glass, shootings, stuff like that.
Hey, as a funny note, I'd like to say that if you feel like raping someone(as it is implied in the sentence "some women seem to ask that themselves"), then you should get a sexual worker's services ASAP.

 

Isolated cases imply lack of repeating. Calling repeated incidents isolated cases serves turning attention away from the repeating part. It's a fallacy.

I don't like the cheerful breed. I have had homo- and bisexual friends who haven't been cheerful but I doubt I would be able to become friends with a member of the cheerful tribe. They are often allowed to get away with things because of gay rights, but hetero people wouldn't be allowed to get away with doing the same, alone or in couples. Imagine a parade of heterosexual people of both genders, stripped almost naked, covered in pink, gold, fur, feather or whatever such, throwing condoms around and making out in public while wearing bondage gear.

There is not much issue with the non-cheerful ones. You just don't know they are gay and their lovers will most often pass for friends. The cheerful streak is a typical exhibitionist and infantile rebel issue.

Most kids from ghetto gangs think they are good and the police is bad. Most genocides have though they've been doing the right thing.

That was a false comparison and an insulting one. Christmas events cannot be compared to people parading around their crotches barely covered in fur or feather, making out with not even always their same-sex lovers but sometimes just people who happen to share the same orientation. Throwing condoms around and shouting obscenities. No way I could accept that kind of comparison.

 

Svyatoslav:

I'll assume they attacked you and not vice versa. In any case I'm sorry to hear it. Now I can see where this prejudice comes from. But it's still an unfair generalization. Just because you've had trouble with punkish people, doesn't mean *all* who like that type of fashion are the same.

But why should the punishment be death, when you could use imprisonment for life? Death is irrevokable, and there have been quite a few wrongful convictions around the world. You can't set a dead man free if you find you've made an error. Of course you could say that life-long imprisonment is technically the equivalent of a death sentence, but it still leaves a better chance of rectifying the error if one is made.

I can stand a bit of sarcasm. But for the first couple of times you didn't imply anything else than that rightist propaganda did not exist, and that was not the question. And I really don't see how it's too much to ask to answer a question plainly instead of just implying.

I did not say that studies or statistics are infallible absolute truths. But they tend to be more thorough and get closer to the truth than drawing absolute conclusions after witnessing a few cases. If you witness several gay parades and see hundreds of gays act in an obscene manner, it still isn't sufficient indication they're *all* like that. If an impartial study says 4000 out of 5000 gays do that sort of thing, it's still not a conclusive truth, but gets a little closer.

With that blacks example one must remember there are other factors (poverty and lack of education, which go hand in hand and cause each other; the fact that it's more difficult for a black person to get a job than it is for a white person, because of racism) involved. It's not as simple as saying black people are like that. Also with gay people and their perceived behavior there are many factors involved.

Not really, no. Hypothetic questions reveal quite a lot about the people answering them. Assuming they bother to answer. These questions are not out of realm possibility, so I don't see why you have such a big problem answering them. If I had asked "what if a big pink dinosaur appeared etc." I would understand the reluctancy.

And saying that the tolerance classes are a step towards totalitarian rule is quite a hypothesis in its own right. It doesn't mean the state is raising the children on its own and leaving the parents out of the picture. What they're saying is treat gay people fairly, that's the way this society works. I would be much more concerned with public schools teaching children religion as the truth, because I'm not religious myself, but I wouldn't say it's totalitarian and taking away my right to raise my kids my way. I can always tell my kids that what the school says is BS. Do you have a problem with schools teaching religious views? Probably not, if you're religious. But in teaching those views the schools are doing the exact same thing you oppose.

I'm sure your patience is wearing thin with these hypothetic questions, but you could just *hear* from someone the guy is gay even though he acts like anyone else. Or he might tell you himself.

Many businesses, such as hairdressers and interior designers hire femininely acting men all the time, and it doesn't seem to hurt their business. It somewhat depends on what type of business it is.

How about this: If the guy you could hire - a competent, experienced, and very normal (read: heterosexual) acting guy - told you he was gay and that his gayness could easily be found out by anyone who sees him outside the office, would you consider hiring him or show him the door? And by easily finding out I don't mean he would act all obscene outside work, but things like going to regular restaurants with his partner, participating in the not-so-obscene kind of gay parades and acting very civilised while there.

You could say that people knowing he was gay could hurt the business. But would it really be about the business (that might not hold up in court), or the simple fact that you yourself don't like gay people? This is what this question is all about.

You might also wish to re-read what you said. First you said people who change their looks to oppose the mainstream have serious self identity and self steem problems. Then you said the issue has nothing to with what the majority thinks. Guess what, the majority is the mainstream. And those "reasons" you have "said before" have so far all been about the anti-mainstream looks and what they supposedly indicate. If it's not really about the looks but what the people are like, well you have based your opinion of what those people are like on the looks.

And those societal rules would be "don't be gay, and if you are, stay out of sight. This world belongs to us, the normals." That's the rule they wish to topple. I agree their shock-value methods don't seem to be working very well. But again, not all gay people even support those methods.

I can't resist the urge:

But wasn't it nonsensical and weak to try to get along with people whose views you do not share?

I think it's great you did. I might post some thoughts there later on.

It's good you're not comparing the two, because we *can't* objectively claim who's looks are bad. Opinions of looks are subjective. There is public opinion, or the majority, but it is not objectively correct either. It's an opinion like any other opinion.

I don't like Christmas parades either. I don't have a problem with Christmas per se, but I generally don't like parades, demonstrations or other such big gatherings.

chevalier:

I realize you said you've had homosexual friends not of the cheerful type, but if you could just answer this: How do you feel about those that are not of the cheerful, feminine kind but who are still openly gay - letting their gayness be known by things like taking their partner with them to places and occasions where straight people bring their spouses or boy/girlfriends, openly telling people they are gay, things like that?

In other words, is the problem the "Queer Eye"-behavior or that the gayness can be seen?

 

It's much easier when the person doesn't wear girly clothes, hit on guys and generally behave more like a female cat than a male homo sapiens. There is still a problem with accepting such behaviour and thus contribute to the impression that it's normal and morally proper or as simple as making a choice (which is an impression to which I don't want to contribute). However, those who come in peace deserve peace. If they aren't trying to be a nuisance, they deserve the same.

 

As much as I support gay rights, this made me chuckle.

Thanks for the answer. For what it's worth, I think it was a sensible one too.

Something that I think should be said about the obscenity of certain gay parades is that one factor in gays presenting themselves in such a manner is publicity. Because of how most media work these days, calm and decent-looking demonstrations don't get as much attention as dirtier ones. And attention and publicity is what they want - you can't get truly accepted if others don't know you exist. I wish they would say their piece in less offensive ways, sticking to things that wouldn't cause an uproar if done by hetero couples. As stated before, I myself don't take offense from such displays, but restraint would benefit them. Even though they wouldn't get so much publicity, they'd surely get more positive feedback from those who do see them.

 

But here you are drifting from the subject a bit. I would agree with you that paradaes like that are bad - but then I would also say the same if it was a hetro-sexual one, of the same kind. That goes into the realms of indeciency, and away from gay-rights, which wasn't quite the point I was trying to make.

 

Of course, you're right when you say it's an issue of decency or indecency rather than hetero- or homosexuality, but it's a fact that gay parades tend always to include a sickening lot of indecency.

 

Yes, right.

I went with a guy to school who behaved like a gay person. He fitted the clichée, i.e. he was rather outgoing and moved and spoke a little girlish.

He was not gay!

Assuming some gay haters mistook this and beat him up. Aside from the violence, was it his fault that they hated him?

Second scenario: A woman has a date with her boyfriend and wears very sexy clothing. She's going home alone and gets raped.
Is she responsible for this because she wanted to turn on only one man?

Third scenario: A well-known jewish tv-host has some very annoying habits. He looks oily, he constantly touches his guests, talks when they are talking and so forth. On top of it, it is discovered that he's using cocaine and went to prostitutes.
Also constantly, he is getting antisemitic threats, even on his life.

What does his behaviour to do with his religion? The people threatening him because of his religion, not because of his life- or workstyle.

I know some people how claimed that he is partly responsible for anti-semitism.

Is he now?

 

Not really, this does not bother me; I can't see I never provoked a fight with them anyway.
I don't have a problem with them because I physically assaulted them before, but because they are stupid and cause trouble.

When you punish someone, you can't do it with the thought he might be innocent; if you do, you can't convict him.
To give the penalty - and to not give the maximum penalty on that account alone - on the basis that there is a possibility of rectifying the error in the future sounds illogical to me.
It does not have to be death penalty, but then when it is, I don't see what the big deal is.

Well, maybe I digressed too much and rather implied than directly answered in the end.

I did not say all gays act like that, but statistics and experience might give a good idea on their general behaviour.

But then, you will always relativize whatever studies people come with, no? After all, I bet it is rather an ideological position than anything else.

The problem lies within an ill intentioned and badly formulated hypothesis, whose sole purpose is to discredit me, or make me look intolerant.

No it is not. A state that forcedly educates children instead of their parents is a totalitarian state; there is nothing hypothetical in this.
No, I would not mind religious teachings in a religious institution. The parents would know before handedly what to expect from a Christian school, and it would be their wish to put their children in such a place. It is the typical interaction between civil society elements.

Oh yes, there are business in which they are quite praised. I would never be part of the fashion world though.

Someone who is not even hired yet telling me he is gay like that sounds almost like he is challenging or testing me.
I don't think, as a boss, I would like to hire someone who is pushy like that. He could - since he acts like a normal straight guy - just come in and say nothing, and expect to be hired on the basis of his experience, curriculum, but the fact he would tell me he is gay - as if I was interested or something - out of sudden like that seems like a clear attempt to confront me for no reason at all. Or then he could be saying that to accuse me of bigotry if I did not hire him. I can only see his behaviour in a bad light.

No, I am not contradicting myself. You missed the key part of the whole argument. Not being part of the mainstream is nothing sort of a weirdo/loser behaviour necessarily. My musical taste is very non-mainstream for instance.
In the other hand, to oppose the mainstream for the sake of shocking the majority, for the mere sake of "challenging" what most people view as normal, it account for self esteem, self identity problems.
It is all in the motivations and in the way of expressing oneself, not in being different alone.

No. The logic is to act in a way people will not look down on you even more.

Again, there is no contradiction. I don't relate myself with my total ideological opposers, because I would not have common grounds with them to have them as friends. I believe first and foremost that you feel atracted to people simillar to you; at least that is the case with me. That being said, to supress what you think and believe for the sake of getting along with others is indeed utter weak and nonsensical.
However, there is a great in-between me and my "enemies". If I want to convince neutral people of anything, I will be sure to look respectable and reasonable to them. I won't act in a manner that will make them associate people who share my values in a bad light.
These gays acting like that are doing only a disservice to themselves. Skinheads beating the hell out of people in the streets are doing no good to their cause.

I am not talking about opinions here. I am talking about how the Psychology view these people who act for the sake of shocking, hurting the majority. People who screw their own looks because they want the majority to look down on them purposedly.

I don't have a problem with parades, but with how they are conducted.
---------------------------------------------------

I see absolutely no purpose in your post. Be sure to be more up to the point instead of making up a bunch of stories to make whichever point you were trying to.

 

Alas, we are responsible not only for what we want to do but also for what we do in fact. Someone who kills a person in a road accident while driving drunk isn't tried for wanting a ride after a couple of shots but for inflicting death. I don't know what you mean by sexy, but I'm assuming it's something still decent or she wouldn't be coming back from that date before night. At any rate, it's hard to blame someone for getting raped, isn't it? I don't see how this is similar to people who bitch about being faced with feelings they are trying hard to inspire in the very first place. If they throw condoms around and shout obscene insults, hate is what they are seeking and what they are getting. They have themselves to blame. A woman who dresses revelealingly and gets raped could perhaps avoid her fate if she dressed decently, but it's reasonable to expect guys to 1) ask before performing a sexual activity 2) be able to keep it zipped if there's no consent. The only instance where you could blame someone for getting raped is when the victim plays the offender, tempting and wanting him to suffer or getting him to rape her so he would end up in jail (having sex with someone, then hitting yourself with something hard a couple of times and tearing clothes on you is easier if someone's into such games, anyway). This is an extremely rare occurence, while obscenities seem to be an integral part of gay parades. As a result, your comparison doesn't work.

It's like with an employer trying to fire a hetero- and a homosexual employee. Fire the hetero one and nothing happens. Fir the gay one and you will surely have fired him because of your animalistic homophobia, you bastard.

 

If the shoe fits... I don't understand your reluctance either; it's a perfectly good question. And if it comes down to just not wanting to look intolerant, you can always lie.

That's a possibility, but it depends a lot on tone. A timid mention of "gayness" could very well just be honesty in the interest of full disclosure. You never know who might later fire you (rather than just not hire you) for something you didn't tell them. Better to get it out of the way so that the employer can look at other candidates if it's an issue.

Yes, but that's with the assumption that they're trying to "shock the majority"; maybe they just like the way it looks. You can't tell by looks alone what they're trying to do.

As an experienced tutor, I believe I can answer this.

Johnny, you see those little squiggly marks with the dot at the bottom? They're called question marks, and people put them at the end of sentences where they're asking a question. Usually, when someone asks a question, they're looking for an answer. Now, if you'll turn to page 17 in your textbook...

 

It's getting increasingly difficult to understand you. I'd really appreciate some more info on how they cause trouble, and why you label all punky-looking people in the same category.

Of course you can't convict someone if you're not convinced they are guilty. But convictions are about "beyond reasonable doubt" and not "beyond all doubt." There have been plenty of cases around the world over the years, where convictions that have been believed to be absolutely right have been proven wrong after the techonology and investigation methods have improved. It's illogical to assume it could not happen again. I think it's better to keep the rectifying option on the table instead of executing people straight away.

I'll also relativize studies that seem to be in favor of my own preconceived opinion. This relativism thing is about trying to be impartial and objective.

Would you not say you *are* intolerant, towards gay people at least? And if you believe you're right, what's the harm in saying so? More, I wouldn't say the questions have been badly formulated. They've all been situations that could very well happen.

Isn't the whole point of education to educate? And the tolerance classes don't mean the state is doing it *instead* of the parents. Parents can still teach their children whatever they want, even if the state teaches them something else.

Religious teaching in a religious institution is one thing, but there are many schools that do it yet do not label themselves as "christian schools." Public schools. And in some areas the parents don't have the luxury to choose which school they put their kids in. If the parents are poor, they'll have to choose the one that's closest and cheapest, or none at all.

Yes; testing and challenging you to find out whether you will treat him worse than your heterosexual employees, whether or not your business condones that employees treat each other differently based on sexual orientation. Testing whether he can work for you without getting harassed, called names or assaulted on the way home. It's not necessarily a hostile thing to let the employer know if one is gay.

But you still can't *know* whether the punks have changed their looks for shock value or simply because it's the style that pleases their own esthetic eye. You can't know their motivations based on looks alone.

Let's for a moment assume they *have* changed their looks for the specific purpose of shocking the majority. There could be any number of reasons for this: they could have had bad experiences with the authorities, violence from the police and unnecessary red tape from the system for the sole reason of being gay (assuming they are that). Self esteem or self identity problems are only one possible explanation. And it doesn't necessarily mean they are bad people.

Before gay rights became a public issue, a vast majority of people consistently looked down on people for the sole purpose of being gay, no matter what they do or how they act. Many still do.

But the people who look down on gays can hardly be called "neutral people." They qualify as "total ideological opposers" to gay people. It is those people that the gays wish to influence, the ideological opposers who you said it was nonsensical and weak to try to get along with.

To some extent, I agree with you on this.

Would this be the comic relief for your closing?

Edit:

Okay, fair enough.

[ November 20, 2005, 16:19: Message edited by: Susipaisti ]

 

I will reply to you fully later, but that part was supposed to be to Fabius. It was an misunderstanding.

 

Do you know that gays who present themselves on parades want to inspire hate? Did you ask them?
I think they want to show that they exist and no one should deny their rights.

No. They are not responsible for the feelings of other people.

Hmm? Has this something to do with my example? (Which really happened, by the way.)


It is all the same principle. People trying to make the victims responsible for the actions of feelings of those who offend. This is stupid. It is a very easy excuse.

You are responsible for your own actions or feelings. If you cannot cope with the behaviour of some gays, seek the reason in yourself and try to change it.

If you cannot withstand a woman who wears revealing clothing, you lack self control or have a sick mind.

If you think a prominent jew adds to anti-semitism because of his personality then you are probably an anti-Semite yourself. Or rather dumb.

These gays (or heteros who look like gays), prominent jews or women are only "guilty" of one thing: They are easy targets.

 

I wanted to say that there was a gay pride parade (or demonstration, I don't know its name in english) here in Argentina last week.
It went on without incidents, except when they passed near a church. There was a group of catholics there. A bottle came flying from inside the church and then the gays replied with stones. Now, who started it? (I feel stupid asking this question, excuse me, I had to say it). This groups had nothing to do there, they were waiting for an opportunity to attack, that's all. As a side note, I'd like to mention that them gays didn't parade in front of this church on purpose, it is on a common "demonstration-route". That means, every big protest involves walking near it.
They just want civil rights, they're not demonstrating to piss people off. They want right to adopt, to marry, to abort and some others I can't translate.
Here's a link, if you want to check a video. They look pretty normal. And some of the chicks are hot! But that maybe just me.

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2005/11/20/laciudad/h-05601.htm

The video is on the top right corner. Enjoy.

 

I don't want to give too much details of my private life.
If you don't mind these punks - ugly people, dressing like morons, getting drunk and creating mess on the streets, people who do nothing for society or even to improve themselves - that is your problem. They are worthless and useless to me.

If you want to debate death penalty on the basis that you believe life imprisonment is a better punishment than executing someone, that is fine, and it can be done. However, my point was to show someone who is against killing and favours death penalty is no bigger hipocrite, than someone who believes in personal freedom and is for jailing; which I did.

LOL! Relativism is about being "objective"? Maybe you should know what relativism is all about before saying anything further.

And I gave an answer to all these situations. For instance, in the first I said it would be fair to assume I could find an experienced and talented straight guy. In the last situation I gave an even more direct answer. And on and on

You speak as if the State was a living thing on it's own. The only purpose of the state is to ensure some basic rights to people, ensure security and international dealing.
The moment the state starts to educate children, it is doing so for it's own benefit, for it's own end - which is the will of burecrauts nonetheless. The goverment is there to allow people to fully develop, not to enforce it's own continuation, which is the sole reason the goverment would want to "educate" people.
This is so basic...

In the US you can find a public and gratuit school everywhere. You always have an option.
I guess that depends on the religious stance of each Nation actually. My Nation is fully Christian, and people don't have a problem with that, so religious teachings are welcome.
If in a western Nation religion is not as much important, and people view it should not be part of children's education, then it should be removed from the whole process.

I don't view it like that. If he is gay, I don't need him to tell me to test or challenge me. Someone so combative from the starters will not be good for the professional enviroment, or to my authority as a boss.
Boosting it like that, it sounds like he wants some sort of prerogative. I don't expect a straight guy to tell me he is hetero if he wants the job, just as I don't expect an homo to do the same.

Yes. Calling Catholics fascists. I am sure they were there for the best reasons.
Just a bunch of losers wanting to rebel against their catholic society and parents.

Yes. Now we are getting somewhere. Those are typical motivations of frustrated and complexed people wanting to vent their bad experiences somewhere.
Maybe they are not "bad people", but they are very bad to society, or at least, they add nothing positive to it.

So what? Does that mean they should give reason to people hating them even more?

Wait, you are clearly lost. They want to influence exactly the ones who already look down on them by behaving in such a manner that will obviously disgust these people?

You say you agree, but your arguments imply otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------

Except that I don't like lying.

What is a timid tone? So I ask him: "What experience do you have in the area". Then he goes like timidly "I am gay. "

Calling Catholics fascists? What do you think they intent to?

Hehe. Thanks for your help, but it was an misunderstanding.

 

With insults and obscenities? Should I be allowed to enter a public office and say, "I don't want to pay taxes, you ****ing ******* and Nazi bastard etc etc?" That's rich.

Sorry, but that sort of logic doesn't give the impression you had given it much thought before posting. The same way, the majority isn't responsible for gay people feeling bad about not being able to marry within the same gender or adopt children together with a person of the same gender.

Consequently, if gays can't cope with homophobia and all the oppression and discrimination, they should seek the reason in themselves and try to change it. Same logic.

Some are being a nuisance. Some are being negligent. It's not always so black and white as you're painting it.

They can freely marry a person of the opposite gender just like everyone. They want the definition of marriage to be changed to accommodate their ideas.

Adoption is not buying a pet. It serves the children, not the oppressed and persecuted gay couples who are being denied their illusion of being a normal marriage able to have children.

Abortion involves a third party; the foetus. Since when do we have civil rights to terminate other people's lives?

When gay people do it, it's an oh so noble call for civil rights. When the other side does it, it's fascism. Simple, isn't it?

 

It isn't. What are political votes for, pray?
The majority votes for politicans who deny homosexuals some rights. The majority follows the church in it's teaching that homosexual practices are a perversion. The majority stays mute if gays are beaten up.

Who is responsible?

Ah, no. See, there is a difference. The difference between an offense against humanity, and the standing up of an minority for their rights. The gays cannot change what they are. The haters can.

Really now? So, being a nuisance is justification enough for being a target? If all gays would be silent, would they be getting their rights? I dont' think so. Do you?

 

Svyatoslav:

I wasn't asking for info about your private life, rather about the things you've seen punky people do.

I don't have a problem with ugly people dressing like morons. I do have a problem with people creating a mess on the streets. These are sometimes linked, other times they are not.

Weren't they there for the specific reason of objecting the anti-gay parade? Didn't the "Catholics are fascists"-thing stem from that display of intolerance?

Again, you don't know what they do outside those pictures. You don't know whether they have jobs and pay taxes like everybody else.

What I was saying was that based on your logic from before (trying get along with my ideological opposites is nonsensical and weak), the advice you gave gay people (The best strategy for any group of people who want to improve their image upon society was always to "play along with the societal rules") is false. I already agreed that their methods don't seem to be working. The point was that you yourself do the same thing thing with your opposites as they do with theirs, yet you advice them not to do it.

Yeah, I suppose this has been off topic for some time. I disagree with you, but we've both said our piece on that subject, so let's move on.

It's good you gave at least some kind of an answer, but bear in mind you did skewer the presented settings a bit in your own favor each time, thus partially dodging the original questions. Like this:

Felinoid explained some reasons why a gay person might tell the interviewer about their orientation, and so did I in my previous post: to find out whether one will be safe from harassment and treated equally despite being gay in that particular place of work. You pretty much ignored this.

Same as above. It's not combative, nor boasting.

Maybe you should know what being objective is about, since you so like to put labels on people whose fashion sense you don't like.

In the context of the discussed statistics and studies, I took the relativism to mean acknowledging that information gained through such means is not absolutely correct, that there are always other factors involved and so on. I meant not making snap conclusions, and that things like being offensive mean different things to different people.

Also if you think someone is cloudy on concepts, you could provide explanations of said concepts right then and there, since you obviously have a good one. You don't gain anything by saying I'm wrong, if you don't correct me.

What, are you against public education now? If the society doesn't "enforce its own continuation", people are going to have a hard time "fully developing." The things you listed as the sole purposes of the state also enforce its continuation. As for the continuation of the government/politicians, they remain in office for the set amount of time before new elections, unless they seriously botch something up. And people's decision on whether to vote for them or not doesn't depend so much on what kind of an education program the politicians decide to run, but whether people like it and agree with it. Of course the state exists for the people and not the other way around, but having education serves the interests of the people. I don't think governments should be obeyed blindly and unquestioningly, but you sound a bit paranoid about questioning their motives.

If you're too poor to have your children travel long distances daily, you have to pick the one that's closest. If the closest one teaches values you don't like, there's not much you can do. In my country all schools teach pretty much the same things, and religion is only taught to those that belong to said religion. But this is not the case everywhere in the world.

chevalier:

If someone is *really* fired simply because of being gay, of course that is discrimination and a bad thing. But with the over-the-top political correctness, especially in America your examples have become sadly true. People who act like this are harming the groups whose interests they're supposed to have in mind.

 

I can definitely understand that, but you have to realize that refusing to answer will make anyone who wouldn't have liked your answer to imagine one even worse. After all, how bad could it be that even you think it would make you look bad?

Then you could not hire him because he's , because being gay has very little to do with job skills. I'm talking about if he/she brings it up on his/her own, just to tell you, not as an inappropriate answer.

If they challenged me with it, I'd consider the employees I already had working for me. If any of them were homophobic, I'd seriously consider alternatives before hiring in order to preserve the workplace. But if they're not, it wouldn't make a difference unless they got more aggressive with it to the point where they're deliberately making it uncomfortable.

If I were gay and looking for a job, I would either not bring it up (as something not affecting my job performance) or tell the interviewer at the end of the interview, so that he/she could make the same considerations outlined above. I call it courtesy, but some would call it offensive.

The signs are separate from their hair and clothes, though they add to the picture of rebellion (and ridiculousness). I'm just saying that you can't judge them by their looks alone, and it should probably be fairly low on the list if you made one. You need corroborating evidence for such a snap psychological analysis.

I know, I've made similar snap judgements about you and others, but the people on this board have the chance to defend themselves and disprove anything said wrong, which I rely on heavily when making such judgements. The people in the photos don't have the slightest chance, and so should be given the benefit of the doubt, IMO.
--------------------------------------------------
(Hmm, that works pretty well.)

I should've known the church's offer of 'rehabilitation' would come up with chev around. I kind of shift back and forth between "at least they're kind of trying" and "resistance is futile".