Because guns are designed with the sole intention of putting holes in things from a distance or the threat thereof. So if a gun is around, there is a nonzero chance of a hole being put in me, either accidentally or on purpose.
LGBTQ don’t pose any such threat, unless they are carrying a gun, of course. But can we stay on topic?
Everyone drop the hijack about guns. That’s not what this thread is about.
[/moderating]
Why not? Hate is just an emotion, a feeling, at it’s weakest an opinion. I hate squirrels. I hate my former boss. You telling me I have no right to hate squirrels? Or my former boss?
Acting on hate, well that’s a different thing, and it’s what I think you actually meant. I probably shouldn’t be allowed to light squirrels on fire. Or my former boss, I guess.
I do wonder what it would be like if Sam Kinison were alive today, though.
I’m sure you’ll be providing us a link to this, right?
CMC fnord!
When you upload a video to Youtube*, you have the option of not allowing comments and likes/dislikes. It’s a personal preference, that people are allowed to choose on their own videos. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with forcing anyone approve of disapprove of certain viewpoints.
:rolleyes:
*I’m assuming he means Youtube, since I don’t think Google offers any other video service? Plus that’s pretty much the same deal with every upload site – you’re free to decide to allow comments or not. Your content, your choice.
Guns are designed to shoot thing out of the end at high velocity. If you are a criminal and carry a gun, that’s an issue. If you are not a criminal and mishandle/misuse/make an effort of judgement/have your toddler pull it out of your purse, that is also an issue.
My point is that gun control is a legitimate debate because it affects the entire community. Being gay does not.
I wonder if the OP will come back for more discussion.
Nothing substantive to add here, but I thought the timing of the OP was exquisite, given the news out of SCOTUS today.
See the previous note in post #22. Drop the hijack about guns.
[/moderating]
It’s not “instantly”, it’s a lifelong journey of soul-seeking and reflection.
Geez. Not all gays are wealthy white men (and women, who brought the Supreme Court case, by the way.) I haven’t seen the demographics but I suspect the percentage of gay people is roughly the same across racial boundaries. Though it is possible the percentage comfortable enough to be out is different.
While desegregation had more of an impact on white in the south than allowing SSM, there was not the religious component. For the most part, though I’m sure there were some exceptions, letting blacks into lunch counters was not thought to outrage god like letting gays marry.
As for danger, that was mostly to activists who outed themselves which was sometimes unsafe. (Look at Alan Turing.) There at least wasn’t the level of government oppression you saw in the early '60s south. Though I might be wrong about that.
In both cases the drive for equal rights came from the oppressed minority, not white straight people being beneficent.
And I fail to see what gay rights have to do with the structure of society, except in supporting the notion that people should be free to love others as long as no one is hurt.
I think I see where the OP’s coming from, except that outside of the religious angle, there’s precious little to criticize LGBTQ people for. It really does come down to a situation of none of your business in very much the same way as it’s none of your business what ANY couple, gay or straight, does in their bedroom. Because ultimately, that’s what the whole LGB part of it is about. The TQ part is a little bit more contentious, but even there, it still comes down to either a religious issue, or a matter of whether someone’s squicked out by the idea of a transgender person.
This is in pretty much direct contrast with a lot of other hot button issues- gun control, race relations, police behavior, etc… Each of those has their pros and cons, and none, with the possible exception of race relations has the sort of kid glove treatment that you’re attributing to LGBTQ issues. And even there, people speak up anyway without necessarily incurring knee-jerk accusations of racism. Because you can say that there are broken aspects to African-American culture without it necessarily being bigoted, but for the most part, unless you’re very religious or homophobic, there just isn’t much if anything to say about LGBTQ issues.
I’ll post it once again…
Which is better for us as Individuals, and for Society?
That we should be who we are?
Or that we should be forced to be who we are not,
for the comfort of the small minded?
LGBTQ people aren’t asking for anything but the same rights as everyone else. This isn’t “special rights”, this is EQUAL rights. The same thing other minorities are asking for.
If you (generic you) get angry about this or dislike it, you’re a bigot.
The people who get looks on their faces and declare it to be “disgusting”, well, that’s their problem. I don’t spend any time trying to imagine any couple I meet having sex together. If you do, then perhaps you should reconsider doing that.
As a counter-example, there’s Janaele Hinkle, who (may have) stayed off the USWNT soccer team because she did not want to wear the gay-pride emblems that would be on the jerseys. She was booed as a result - however, there is a big difference between someone being anti-LGBT, and someone simply not wanting to *actively participate in pro-LGBT activities. *If someone burns down a church, they’re anti-Christian, but if an atheist does not want to be forced to wear a crucifix necklace, that’s different.
No, but if you actively oppose them, you may as well admit you don’t give a shit about the ideals that America is ostensibly founded on.
It seems to me that she exercised her freedom of expression in refusing to wear the jersey, and the crowd exercised theirs.
USWNT made a decision to promote tolerance and equality on their jerseys. Presumably your issue is the question of whether the USWNT should be obliged to accommodate her bigotry.
The essence of the issue here is the perennial effort to recast bigotry (sounds bad) as “sincerely held religious belief” (sounds good). That’s what lies behind your false analogy with an atheist declining to wear a Christian symbol. And the zeitgeist is: if your religious belief entails bigotry, then fuck your religious belief. Most civilized people see that as progress.
Exactly. Sincerely held stupidity is still stupidity.
And ALL civilized people see it as progress, not most.
You’re “forced” to support LGBT viewpoints in the same way that you’re “forced” to support things like equal rights for black people and universal suffrage. You’re absolutely free to shoot your mouth off about, for example, how you think slaves were treated well, or how you think that America was better when black people had to sit in the back of the bus, or how you think the earth is flat. And the rest of us are free to say, “Ha, what a fucking moron”.
Of course, often it isn’t limited to “ha, what a fucking moron” when the views you express are not just stupid but also harmful. As Miller so kindly put it:
It’s a societal taboo not because of some shadowy cabal threatening our rights, but because it’s a really shitty thing to do and most people will think a lot less of you if you do it.
You are right that not all gay people are white and wealthy, as I said, they break evenly across all demographics. The issue is that SOME gay people are white and wealthy and arguably, the poster children for gay rights are white and upper middle class. Look at the board of GLAAD sometime. It’s extremely white, disproportionatly male and I think all 1%er. Compare that to the NAACP board and you’ll see the disparity. When the people pushing for the rights are CEOs and VPs of Fortune 500 companies, is it really that hard to get behind them?
As for your last paragraph, you are exactly right. Gay rights have almost nothing to do with the structure of society. That’s another reason they are easy to get behind. Gay rights are largely about not getting bullied in school and being able to get married or being able to use whatever bathroom they want. They are I don’t want to say petty, but extremely limited in scope. If we look at other civil rights issues, they are huge in scope and require extreme structural and systemic changes. Changes that bring real losers to the game. They are extremely challenging and without clear-cut answers, so they are much more difficult to advocate for. It takes more than simply virtue signalling to address the issues and the reality is that most people that do want to virtue signal have a lot to lose by actually following through on true equitability. The individual losses in advocating for gay rights are minor to the point of nearly non-existent. You might have to see a penis in the bathroom or get called a name. The individual losses in advocating for minority rights have the potential to be devastating since it would mean a loss of privilege that could manifest itself in ways that could incur significant financial loss or loss of status and opportunity. In short, advocating for LGBTQ rights is easy with little risk. It’s the perfect civil rights struggle for modern times, it usually involves putting a rainbow overlay on your social media avatar and maybe some pithy quotes. Occasionally attending a rally where the counter-protestors number in the teens and at every one that I’ve been at usually stand around looking dour while being yelled at. You may show up to yell at them for ten minutes before heading back for the fun. I’m not saying that this has always been the case, the Stonewall Riots were real, but they were in the past. The OP is talking about why things are the way they are today, and today advocating for LGBTQ rights requires almost no sacrifice and actually confers strong benefits, so that’s why the OP may perceive that it is ‘forced’ in some way.
Support? No. Accept? YES!
You don’t have to support any viewpoint. If you think beating your wife (the Bible says woman should submit to their husbands), killing witches (Exodus says to), or anything else is okay, that’s your right. If you actually beat your wife or kill a witch, don’t think “The Bible says so” is a good defense.