It’s not as if he would’ve made up that idea on his own! At 18 years old, he probably spent his entire life being told, directly and indirectly, exactly that. He didn’t reinforce anything, he succumbed to it. He wasn’t strong enough to withstand a poison that pervades our entire society and erodes the souls of thousands of queer kids who attempt (or succeed) suicide every single year and I cannot for the life of me fathom how or why it’s *him *you’re angry at, and not the people who sickened his mind with the lie that his life wasn’t worthwhile if he was gay. Talk about a massive failure of compassion.
I don’t want to speak for Sampiro, but I think he’s angry because the notion of “gay is so bad it’s better to be dead than outed” is kind of outdated.
I’m sure it’s not sunshine and lollipops for gay kids who come out in high school today, but it’s a lot different now than it was even five years ago. When I was in high school ten years ago, no one dared to come out until college. A few years later I ended up dating a girl who went to the same high school and her best friend had a “coming out day” where she had buttons printed up that said “Britney Whateverherlastnamewas is Gay!” She handed them out to everyone she saw and apparently several teachers even told her what a great idea it was.
Talk about outdated attitudes. Suicide is an effect of severe mental disorder, not selfishness.
One of my pet peeves is laws named after people. If a law has a name that reflects what it is about, I am happy. If a law has a name that does not reflect what it is about, I am not happy – not a happy Muffin at all. If I ever travel to England, I’m going to find Sir William Shelley’s grave and piss on it, repeatedly, with vigour and great deliberation.
As I said, acsenray, “To me..” It is not always an effect of a severe mental disorder. Sometimes it’s an impulsive act of anger. Having known 4 people in my life who chose to do it, all basically because they were ‘let down’ in some way is mental - agreed; but they certainly weren’t suffering a severe mental disorder. Certainly I’m not saying that is the case for all; but neither is the case you are putting forward.
And you’re sure of this because?
And the “to me” bit doesn’t save you. “To me, women just can’t take the pressure if leadership.”
Then it would be as holy writ says: an eye for an eye – Matthew 5:38
You made me wikipedia Sir William Shelley. I didn’t want to learn nuthin’ this morning. Curses!
Oh, so suddenly you’re in favour of doing as holy writ says? :dubious:
Creepy, almost the same thing happened to me. Or happened because of me?
When I was in college, I set up a webcam to record my roommate. Not because I wanted to stream his sexual activities to the world, but because I had good reason to believe that he was stealing from me. There were a couple of times that I filmed him turning my camera to face the wall, giving me even more reason to be suspicious (note that he never asked if I was recording, and I always kept my computer locked so he couldn’t check…he did know I used my webcam to occasionally videophone with friends, so it’s not like the camera itself was suspicious to him). Anyway, I did get the proof I was seeking (he was popping my ADHD medication!!!), but I also caught him having a gay sex romp with someone who had to be twice my age.
Rather than publish this online and embarrass everyone, I flat out said “stop touching my pills, or you will regret it”. He said “I’m not touching your damn stuff” and I said “I know you are. I know what you do, and if I report it, you’re gonna get kicked out of school” and left it at that.
Last I heard, he was still alive.
But your roommate was actually doing something wrong. The guy we’re talking about had the misfortune to be gay among unsympathetic peers.
Was this intended ironically? Since the Bible verse itself says the reverse of what the one phrase taken from it is usually construed to mean. listens diligently for the sounds of things flying by overhead
Should eye-in-the-sky or spy-eye-cams be read into the the law of an eye for an eye?
I think breaking a vow is pretty universally agreed upon to be A Bad Thing. I’m simply objecting to someone doing A Fairly Universally Bad Thing being set up as an equivalent to someone doing A Thing That Is Ethically Neutral Without Involving Invisible Sky Dudes.
I don’t disagree. I just find it objectionable to compare the two.
You might think so. And today you might be right. And tomorrow you might be wrong. Not too long ago, (1) any sexual act between people not married to each other, and (2) any sexual act between people of the same sex were "pretty universally agreed upon to be A Bad Thing.
They’re all A Bad Thing that society does not see as its business, like reading too many Harlequin romances or spending too many Evenings with the Guys instead of with the family. It’s a purely personal choice. And it’s not up to you to decide which one is more deserving of privacy protection than another. Private is private, regardless of your personal feelings about it.
As far as society is concerned, both the things are exactly equal in that they’re none of society’s business.
I find it objectionable to differentiate them. What ain’t your business, just ain’t your business, regardless of your personal feelings about them.
You sure? There was an issue at a local high school where a bunch of kids were out of town at an extra curricular activity and staying in a hotel. A bunch of the kids ganged up on one of the others in a hotel room and did all kinds of disgusting, horrible, and violent things to the kid. I don’t think the victim suffered any long term physical damage (no broken bones or anything), but he was certainly beaten, tied down, and peed on- amongst other things.
ALL of the kids in the room- even the ones who weren’t active participants- ended up having to pay out settlements to the kid. Of course, these settlements all came from the parents’ home-owner’s insurance and ranged from $5k-$25k a piece. I think even a kid who had gone in the hallway because he wanted nothing to do with it had to pay out (though it was the smallest amount- like, $5k) because he didn’t go get help.
The teacher that was supposed to be supervising, the school, and the district all paid out to the family as well- but so did each kid.
The key word there is kids. Was it that the insurance paid out for the deliberate and criminal acts of the children, or the negligence of the school, teachers, and parents? My guess would be the latter, not the former.
In this thread’s matter, the students are adults, not kids under parental or school supervision and control.
Maybe next you could compare it to having a Klan meeting.
It’s *precisely *because some people continue to view homosexuality as something “wrong” that I object to putting it in the same category as adultery. Just because they have an equal right to privacy doesn’t mean they make good comparators.
It’s not remotely comparable to a Klan meeting. It’s exactly analogous to homosexuality in this conversation. It’s a completely private, sexual relationship or encounter that’s nobody’s business and that some proportion of people would find objectionable if they found out about it. The only difference is that only about 15 percent of the population ever engages in same-sex encounters whereas the *majority *of people are likely to have engaged in some act of infidelity some time in their lives. Infidelity is mainstream. It breaks up long-term relationships; it leads to long-term relationships. It goes on all around us all the time and is an integral part of the human experience. Furthermore, it is a private matter that is nobody’s business but the people involved.
Has there been any support FOR the defendants in this case? For every person who feels this incident is a tragedy, there must be somebody thinking “that faggot got what he deserved, and we need to help the two people who helped rid this planet of one more sinner.” I could see plenty of nutjob hypocrites wanting to sponsor them, and even spinning them as HEROES for outing that guy.