AnointedSword wrote on Oct 27, 2011, 10:35:
The bible and nature says homosexuality is wrong...Does that mean I cannot believe and have religious freedoms any longer? I am all for everyone being able to speak their mind. That includes the Christian, the muslim, etc...

I love spiritual people and your hilariously selective interpretation of an old novel. Whenever I see people of faith try to rationalize their bizarre upbringing and parrot everything their community brainwashed them with I'm simultaneously comforted and puzzled by humanity at large.

InBlack wrote on Oct 28, 2011, 04:50:
Recently a friend of mine got fired from a decent job for being....straight....*I* *shit* *you* *not*.

Ok its not your typical job, he was working as an assistant to a clothing designer, she fired him because he made the models and others in the workplace feel "uncomfortable".

How's that for discrimination....

Gay man beaten and burned alive to death. How's that for discrimination?

Also, your friend has recourse and can file a civil liberties complaint. Mr. Walker has no recourse.

AnointedSword wrote on Oct 27, 2011, 10:35:
The bible and nature says homosexuality is wrong...Does that mean I cannot believe and have religious freedoms any longer? I am all for everyone being able to speak their mind. That includes the Christian, the muslim, etc...

Not sure anyone will read this, but here goes.

1. Let’s see what else the bible says:
- Not a virgin upon marriage? Death (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
- Disobey parents? Death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
- Adultery? Death (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
- Working on the Sabbath? Death (Numbers 15:32-56)
- Set up a Christmas tree? Forbidden (Jerimiah 10:2-5)
- Swearing? Forbidden (Ephasians 5:4)
- Gossip? Forbidden (Leviticus 19:16)
- Do you wear poly/cotton blend clothing? Forbidden (Leviticus 19:19)
- Wear gold? Forbidden (1 Timothy 2:9)
- Tattoos? Nope (Leviticus 19:28).

I am sure you follow all these laws because the bible says so.

2. There are more than 1500 species that practice homosexuality. How is that unnatural? There is only one species that practices homophobia. Now that's truly unnatural.

ventry wrote on Oct 28, 2011, 01:05:

Animals for Crackers wrote on Oct 28, 2011, 00:50:
"BLAH, BLAH, BLAH"

*sigh*
Homosexuality is not "normal".
Nature says so.
[...]

Nature "says" so?
Do you often "speak" with nature?

I would kindly advise you to stop using strongly mind-altering substances as it seems that they create the illusion of "nature" being a conscious entity capable of verbal communication or other forms of information transportation that go beyond usual scientific approaches.


Nature never says anything. Nature does and cannot talk. You can only observe nature and its symmetries and patterns and what not and it is possible to observe homosexuality. Homosexuality is typical in many different species, including the Homo sapiens.

btw, protip: "normal" does not actually exist. something that is abnormal suggest a deviation from the average but the actual existence of the average in humans is another fallacy.

InBlack wrote on Oct 28, 2011, 04:50:
Recently a friend of mine got fired from a decent job for being....straight....*I* *shit* *you* *not*.

Ok its not your typical job, he was working as an assistant to a clothing designer, she fired him because he made the models and others in the workplace feel "uncomfortable".

How's that for discrimination....

That doesn't sound like discrimination to me..

However, I don't have enough factual information about the situation, becuase you didn't offer enough (and likely don't have it)... What I can assume from the limited information, is that your friend was fired for staring/leering at women in the workplace... Am I right? Am I way off base? Who knows... There isn't enough information available, and I sure as shit don't take your (or anyone's) word for it : )

People bitch about unwanted results for all sorts of actions, that have NOTHING to do with the cause (some could argue this thread is all about that, but I won't : ).

I hate to bring up a WoW example, but I will : ) I constantly see threads all the time about people being kicked from a group for 'doing blah blah'... And yet, when you read their comment, they admit to being a total asshole to the group... But somehow, it's the 'blah blah' that they were kicked for? Why? Because people have to convince themselves they're not assholes, and that their actions are alright, to soothe their own ego's...

Short form; Don't be an asshole : )

/rant

-Alamar

ventry wrote on Oct 28, 2011, 02:27:

space captain wrote on Oct 28, 2011, 01:09:

ventry wrote on Oct 28, 2011, 01:05:
*sigh*
Homosexuality is not "normal".
Nature says so.

you do know that there are many instances of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, right?

So is mutated birth and cerebral palsy etc. Still not normal.

it depends on how you define "normal", which in your case is pretty specialized

furthermore its ridiculous that you cant see that, there is no rational discussion to be had with such a person such as yourself - all emotional conviction, no room for objective fact

Xombie wrote on Oct 27, 2011, 12:00:
GLADD is a great organization, but they're not above criticism for manufactured outrage.

Beamer wrote on Oct 27, 2011, 11:44:
It's not what he meant to say or what he meant to imply. GLAAD doesn't give a shit about the Alliance. What matters is the context in which he used the words he used. Joking or not he still chose those words for that meaning and that's what GLAAD is taking offense to.

I agree with both of these statements, and I'm pretty sure they aren't contraditory. Should he have said it even in the context acting as mass murdering Avatar of some kind? Probably not. Is it a reason to raise a big stink? Probably not. With all the problems in the world, it seems like maybe this one could be ignored.

Normal seems like a such silly label for what are essentially some religious/social moral imperatives that underpin our society

Well, that, and when you use it in such a broadly generalized way, it loses what little merit it may have had. By the definition being bandied about here, having red hair would be considered "not normal". Which I suppose is true on the face of it, but I don't think you can draw any sort of conclusions based on that.

Normal seems like a such silly label for what are essentially some religious/social moral imperatives that underpin our society. Straight pornography used to be a moral taboo too, in fact it still is in many ways. If you look at popular culture and other sources of media you'll see being gay isn't really all that abnormal in the larger social picture anyway.

Oh fine, go on then.

At this point I was trying to get a better understanding of where you were coming from (like your definition of normal here) but I'll desist since it seems we're talking at cross purposes.

FWIW, I'm sorry for all the unnecessary insults and digs at you and that goes for you too, Prez. Honest. I'm still puzzled by your POVs and what I identify as mis-characterizations but let's just leave it at that for now, shall we?

I've had some time to cool down and really, while the general content of my criticism remains somewhat unchanged, I was on edge already when I came across this thread and probably should have just done the smart thing and opted out (this wasn't some sort of targeted trolling), if I couldn't get my point across without whipping out the flame-thrower. Even if I felt you were being unfair.

Now we know you're not innocent little pink bunny rabbits either but that's neither here nor there concerning my own apology but it still bears mentioning.

Others have done a much better job at addressing some of what I would call misconceptions by you, with clarity and without escalating things into name-calling contests (Bhruic, good show dude).

So for my part, I'm sorry guys, I wish to retract the unnecessary insults and provocations, cathartic as they were in the moment. As for your retorts slung back at me, it's all water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned, (in my best and oh-so-topical Bernie Crane/Florian Cravic impression) I forgive you sweeties! Who wants a kiss on the mouth?

Let's move on please, if you don't mind.

This comment was edited on Oct 28, 2011, 09:04.

Animals for Crackers wrote on Oct 28, 2011, 03:13:
Ok ventry, define "normal" in the way you mean it then if you want. The word has like 8 definitions, some value laden and some not.

Say you were a doctor delivering babies and humanity had by then developed some way of reliably detecting a newborn's sexual disposition/orientation (just a hypothetical). Upon delivery of said gay baby (LOL), perfectly healthy and without blemish, would you then tell the mother, "Here's your baby, healthy in every distinguishable way!"

Mother(looking up expectantly at you): "So he/she is normal then?"

OK! For the last time.
You don't have kids do you?
That's the first thing OB nurses do when a baby is born.
Check for abnormalities. 10 fingers, 10 toes, no sign of Downs Syndrome etc.
As future sexual orientation is untestable, your point is moot.

Animals for Crackers wrote on Oct 28, 2011, 03:13:
Edit: I guess what I'm trying to get at with this one is... Say you walk up to someone and tell them they aren't normal, do you really think they're going to take it as, "Oh, he's just saying I'm not part of a normal statistical distribution for such-and-such trait!" No, people are going to usually go with the most common usage first, absent any specific definition of the word. You'll likely piss them off, people generally don't like being called aberrant freaks.

YERR!! DUUUHHHH!!
If you walk up to someone and tell them they are ugly it's likely to piss them off too. People generally don't like being called ugly.
HOWEVER, it doesn't change the fact they may well be ugly as a hat full of assholes.

I am friends with a Downs Syndrome sufferer. I would never think of telling him he's not normal despite what the REAL TRUTH is.

Time to hang it up dude. That's what I'm planning to do.
Feel free to have the "last" word if you must.

Recently a friend of mine got fired from a decent job for being....straight....*I* *shit* *you* *not*.

Ok its not your typical job, he was working as an assistant to a clothing designer, she fired him because he made the models and others in the workplace feel "uncomfortable".

How's that for discrimination....

Ok ventry, define "normal" in the way you mean it then if you want. The word has like 8 definitions, some value laden and some not.

Say you were a doctor delivering babies and humanity had by then developed some way of reliably detecting a newborn's sexual disposition/orientation (just a hypothetical). Upon delivery of said gay baby (LOL), perfectly healthy and without blemish, would you then tell the mother, "Here's your baby, healthy in every distinguishable way!"

Mother(looking up expectantly at you): "So he/she is normal then?"

You, ventry, future MD/PHD: "Nope. /trollface"

Yep, I had fun with that one. Not sure it makes sense myself.

Edit: I guess what I'm trying to get at with this one is... Say you walk up to someone and tell them they aren't normal, do you really think they're going to take it as, "Oh, he's just saying I'm not part of a normal statistical distribution for such-and-such trait!" No, people are going to usually go with the most common usage first, absent any specific definition of the word. You'll likely piss them off, people generally don't like being called aberrant freaks.

This comment was edited on Oct 28, 2011, 03:57.

Had any of us somehow known beforehand that this young man was going to be treated in this manner there isn't a single person here that wouldn't have acted in some manner to stop it. That is in an entirely different class than pretending outrage at the slightest perceived insult by average goofballs trying to be funny. And you know it.

Yes, but you're acting as if there's no cause for actions, they just spontaneously happen. Why do you think there were lynchings of black people multiple decades ago? People didn't just randomly pick someone and hang them, they targeted black people. Why? Because it was (sadly in some parts of the US) a societally acceptable thing to do. Do you think all those people just got bored and decided to stop? Of course not, they stopped because people worked to ensure that it would no longer be a societally acceptable thing to do.

That's not yet the case for gay people. The whole reason for the It Gets Better campaign was to help young gay people who were getting bullied and picked on in school. Sadly, despite the campaign, gay people still get bullied and picked on, and some of them commit suicide. How do we stop that? By making it no longer societally acceptable to pick on and bully gay kids for being gay.

Are you seriously suggesting that you think someone made a difference because they are "sorry that someone got offended"? Seriously? Nah, you can't be. I know enough about you to know you are smarter than that. No one's view was changed; no one had an epiphany and decided to start handing out flowers of peace in the airport. A guy apologized so he can come back next year and do the same thing all over again. It's absolutely fascinating to see how much people can read into insignificant and meaningless things. Human nature will never change, regardless of how much you try to stifle someone from speaking their mind.

Right, straight to insulting my intelligence, are you?

I never suggested anyone's viewpoint was changed. What I did suggest is that someone did something that was perceived as insulting to gays, and got called out on it. They ended up apologizing because of it. Now, as others have suggested, they might have not been sorry in the least - but that's completely irrelevant. What the public sees is that someone was gay-bashing, and got forced to apologize over it. In other words, "society" sees that it's no longer "acceptable" to bash gay people. And as I said, that's exactly what GLAAD is aiming to accomplish.

Societal behavior is mostly about perception. And this is true especially for kids. They quickly learn who it's "ok" to pick on. If society makes it appear as if picking on gays is fine, then that's what kids will do. And vice versa, if they make it appear if it's not fine. And those are generalizations, of course, there will always be kids who do or do not, without regard to what society says.

What a bunch of heterophobes.

PHJF wrote on Oct 28, 2011, 01:17:

Sure they did. However did they do so for the purpose of procreation?
Besides you still can't get past the facts:
Penis ----> Vagina
Sperm ----> Egg
Procreation

Penis -----> Anus
Tongue -----> Clitoris
Is not gonna get it done. (leaving science's interference aside).

Thank god you've cleared that up, for a while I thought sex was more often about pleasure than procreation but you've really enlightened me. From now on I'll only have sex to inject my sperm at eggs. And masturbation? Right out; it's unnatural!

WOW! dude.
You act as if I said you could not have sex????
You may have as much sex (toss off) as you want dude. I couldn't care less.
Homosexuals can have as much sex as they want. Was never about that.
Get ya head back in the game dude. LOL

space captain wrote on Oct 28, 2011, 01:09:

ventry wrote on Oct 28, 2011, 01:05:
*sigh*
Homosexuality is not "normal".
Nature says so.

you do know that there are many instances of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, right?

So is mutated birth and cerebral palsy etc. Still not normal.

I'm done with the moral discussion. Believe what you want.
This is all opinion based. I stated mine.
For the rest of the time I've been laughing at how butthurt some people have got. (not you Space Captain)
Like my opinion is going to change their life or something.
So nice to know that my opinion carries such weight. LOL
It's a riot.
Silly intranet kids.

*sigh*
Homosexuality is not "normal".
Nature says so.

I'm trying to tell you nature doesn't say shit about anything. It can't. You're applying subjective/human moral values to utterly indifferent natural processes.

Sure they did. However did they do so for the purpose of procreation?
Besides you still can't get past the facts:
Penis ----> Vagina
Sperm ----> Egg
Procreation

Penis -----> Anus
Tongue -----> Clitoris
Is not gonna get it done. (leaving science's interference aside).

Thank god you've cleared that up, for a while I thought sex was more often about pleasure than procreation but you've really enlightened me. From now on I'll only have sex to inject my sperm at eggs. And masturbation? Right out; it's unnatural!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

So, would you say these animals sometimes exhibit "homosexual" behavior because they watched it in humans or because it came to them naturally?