Some rather nasty terms are WAY overused here. “Bigot” & “racist” are thrown around like they are spitwads, rather than deeply hurtful personal attacks.
Freedom- you put your foot in your mouth trying to make a point (and so have I- many times). But, from what i have seen, you are not a bigot, racist or homophobe.
So basically, what you’re saying is that due to the oppression of women by men, the oppression of gay people by straight people doesn’t matter.
Leaving aside the fact that this tactic is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, are there any other pairs of groups you’d care to apply that to?
Did I say that? No, I did not. I’m simply pointing out that no one has it easy, okay? You guys probably know from the past that I HATE the whole, I’m so abused blah blah blah stuff.
I’m simply pointing out: there are so many people oppressed in this world, that there IS no true priviledged class. Like the whole idea of the Perfect World of Straight People.
Huh uh. I may not have to deal with some of the shit you put up with, Matt-which I admire you for since you seem like a pretty well-adjusted person with a cool attitude. BUT, I do know people who have gone through hardships and shit in their lives.
In other words: just because I’m straight doesn’t mean my life is lollipops and roses.
I’m well aware that “just because you are straight your life isn’t lollipops and roses”, and I was unaware that others were claiming otherwise.
The question of “heterosexual privilege” is the notion that straight people have access to certain very important lollipops and roses to which queer people do not. I don’t see what’s difficult, or controversial, about this.
Matt, that’s disingenius. She’s saying that Hastur’s reference to “privileged heterosexuals” is an idiotic comment, nothing more.
I’m sure that there are many ways in which you’ve been more privileged than me, a (sort-of) straight guy.
Heh… simul-post, Guin.
Do you deny that heterosexuals have exclusive access to the privileges I mentioned above?
If so, I’d like to see one hell of a cite.
If not, I’d like to know what the difference is between having privileges and being privileged.
Matt, I’m saying that there’s more to privilege than sexuality and the angst that’s produced as a result of it.
I don’t deny that there are troubles that come with being gay in our current society. In fact, I admit it and offer my emotional support as much as I can to people who feel undue, negative pressures because of their sexuality. But, on the other hand, there are many other troubles that affect people, for all sorts of reasons.
Hastur’s comments about “privilege” were meant to be derogatory. He came across as saying “gays are better than straights”, which is utter bullshit.
[quote]
SPOOFE: Hastur’s comments about “privilege” were meant to be derogatory. He came across as saying “gays are better than straights”, which is utter bullshit.
OK. I’m going to say this one more time, very clearly.
“Straight people enjoy privileges related to their sexuality that gay people do not.” This is a true statement, which does not mean that “gay people are better than straight people”, or “only gay people have problems of any sort”, or “heterosexual privilege is the only sort of privilege that exists”.
I am wholly unable to see where you are getting these ridiculous notions from. These are extremely bizarre statements to be imputing to people.
It’s been brought to my attention that some people think I was defending Hastur’s comments in the previous thread. I’m not.
What I am defending is the fact - patently obvious to me - that straight people enjoy privileges related to their sexuality that gay people do not. Foolsguinea cavalierly dismissed this as nonsense, and that’s when I got into the argument.
To say that the oppression of gay people is trivial compared to some other group’s, or to equate complaints of anti-gay oppression to ridiculous and imaginary statements such as has been done above, is incredibly irresponsible and frankly baffling to me.
Go read Hastur’s original comments, my friend.
Replace the word “heterosexual” with “white”, or “male”, or “American”… or, hell, any other means of classifying people.
Do heterosexuals have more acceptance in society? Yes, unfortunately. But this does not mean that just because someone is straight they are more privileged than someone who is gay. Hastur got hasty, and lost his temper, and forgot that little fact.
Oh, I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that there was a difference between “having privileges” and “being privileged”. Nor was I aware that all privileges sum up in one column and it’s impossible to bear unrelated privileges and disadvantages at the same time.
Heterosexuality will not stop otherwise disadvantaged people from being oppressed. However, money, race, gender, and the like will not stop a gay person from getting gay-bashed to death.
How many famous homosexuals have been gay bashed to death? I mean famous ones before death.
Marc
What does that have to do with the point I was making?
SuaSponte
I never thought I would look happily upon being called blumbering:)
I do not attribute a positive or negative to a person’s sexual orientation, so I would find it hard to classify myself as “rejecting” homosexuals. Otherwise, I think you pretty much hit what I was trying to say on the head.
DeskMonkey
I realize I used an equal sign, but this isn’t a math thread. I won’t try to justify or quantify what words or phrases are completely and exactly equal to others since that would be impossible. I do know, and knew at the time, that I was raising the level of rhetoric up a notch. Trying to set-up some vague equation for insults is a hijack I’m not willing to follow in this thread.
As to the “pre-marital sex = murder thing”, there are those little things called consenting adults that set them apart in my book.
Is this another friggin “The Fountainhead” comment?
Jodi
Yes I asked, and thank you for your opinon. Points taken.
Mr. Cynical
I appreciate the remarks, however, I wasn’t so much looking for someone to declare Hastur or myself a winner, as much as I was wondering if my actions said something about myself that I was unaware of.
I will be attempting to follow your advice on ignoring certain posts if that seems the only way not to get dragged down with the person you are argueing with.
**oldscratch **
Thanks for not flaming me. I consider your flames to be among the hottest and most scathing.
I would like to point out that I disagree with Hastur and I also…
Sorry. I just don’t see it happening at this point.
Esprix
I think Jackass would be the most appropriate label.
I disagree that Christians are free to pick and choose what is right and wrong. Certainly different people who all call themselves Christians have arrived at different interpretations. There is a difference between honest differences in interpretation and consciously picking and choosing things to fit your secular world view.[sub]but that’s another thread, at another time[/sub]
As to your question, no I do not think they should change their orientation or attempt chastity if that will drive them away from a relationship with God. I think God wants us as we are, warts and all.
I did not say that. That is how you chose to interpret it.
Interesting to see both people who support me as well as my many detractors.
The denial and anger of those straight men and women of this board over the phrase heterosexual privilege amazes me.
Whether you choose to use it or not, straight people have a great deal of leeway in how they behave in society, and a great many benefits inherent solely on their opposite sex attraction.
That so many got worked up over this phrase, and vociferously deny it makes me wonder if people think before they respond.
And, that you can slam matt_mcl when he cogently elucidates what I have said many times in many threads reinforces the fact that some people on here want to hold on to their prejudices with all the strength they possess.
Regarding my hostility towards Freedom:
He derided and made fun of my cites in a thread about the Shrub when I brought up the Shrub’s desire to see wicca removed from the list of protected religions. He also made fun of me personally in that same thread in Great Debates while he was still Freedom2.
Thus, when he ignored a previous cite and demanded more, I felt that to provide him more cites was pointless and he was again just being a jerk. I still feel that was the case.
Perhaps augmenting the privilege with lily white was excessive. I don’t think so. But, to use a vile slur like he did was uncalled for. He may have apologized, but that was only after he took a poll to see if he did something wrong.
I may be vitrolic, and I may at times be venomous, but I do stand for dispelling ignorance. Not just ignorance about homosexuality, but all ignorance. When someone is right, I say it and learn from it. When someone is wrong, I say so and back myself up.
“Poor is the man whos pleasures depend on the permission of another.”
Versace was murdered by a serial killer who killed gay men.
There was also Harvey Milk. And Alan Turing (who was driven to commit suicide by torture from the British government, whose ass he had just saved in WWII before coming out and being convicted of sodomy.)
You DID see the part where I AGREED that straight people have more acceptance in society, right? Jackass.
So you deny any vehemence in your post that started all this?
Where did I slam Matt, jackass? I “disagreed” with him. I did not “slam” him.
Speaking of Matt…
You’re making my argument for me, Matt. I believe I said as such.
Spoofe:
I made the initial comment to you and the rest was to the board at large. Perhaps I wasn’t specific enough in my deliniation of that, but you proved yourself out to jump to conclusions again, and made yourself a big JACKASS.
Take a breath and stop being a hypocrite. I make a reasonable post and then get stomped on by another board member and then people wonder why I get terse and hostile at times.