Started By
Message
re: HBO too gay?
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:07 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:07 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
only defensible reason that exists
False.
I just find them repulsive. I don't need to see two dudes giving each other a tonsillectomy in the middle of a restaurant.
ETA: I don't give a flying frick if they can get married or not.
This post was edited on 4/18/14 at 4:08 pm
4
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:10 pm to Rebelgator
quote:
I don't need to see two dudes giving each other a tonsillectomy in the middle of a restaurant.
What about two chicks?
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:12 pm to Rebelgator
The big time flamers piss me off. Like wearing women's clothes and the lisp. I don't associate with them, and I don't think I'm being irrational.
If you're gay just act like a normal person and I will treat you as such.
If you're gay just act like a normal person and I will treat you as such.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:13 pm to Duke
Not particularly.
I'm not a fan of overt PDA to begin with. Same sex PDA is annoying because they seem to be so obnoxious with it.
They're the "legalize it" crowd of PDA.
Exactly
I'm not a fan of overt PDA to begin with. Same sex PDA is annoying because they seem to be so obnoxious with it.
They're the "legalize it" crowd of PDA.
quote:
If you're gay just act like a normal person and I will treat you as such.
Exactly
This post was edited on 4/18/14 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:13 pm to Rebelgator
quote:
I don't need to see two dudes giving each other a tonsillectomy in the middle of a restaurant.
I don't want to see two straight people doing it either. Being classless is being classless. Far more straight people make out in public than gay people though.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:16 pm to CatFan81
quote:
Far more straight people make out in public than gay people though.
Not around here. That results in pointing and laughing at the straight couple.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:18 pm to Rebelgator
Well, I live in gay Midtown... or on the edge of it. I'm amongst many gay couples every day. They're not the ones practically having sex in restaurants and on the street. 
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:21 pm to CatFan81
Exactly. You've got a large population in ATL. Memphis, not so much. For the most part the ones around here are rather obnoxious about it.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:22 pm to Rebelgator
quote:
I just find them repulsive. I don't need to see two dudes giving each other a tonsillectomy in the middle of a restaurant.
That's fine, but it isn't logically defensible because straight people do the same thing.
I said it was the only defensible position.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:26 pm to Rebelgator
Guess that's true. We have the largest gay population in the southeast outside of Miami, I think.
We have the largest gay pride parade in the southeast. It's pretty fabulous.
We have the largest gay pride parade in the southeast. It's pretty fabulous.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:35 pm to CatFan81
Gay pride parades are just dumb IMO, they make an absolute caricature of homosexuals. It would be like black people getting together every year and holding a parade where they ride on the back of plantation floats picking cotton.
Just stupid to me.
Just stupid to me.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:38 pm to Roger Klarvin
The one here in Atlanta is pretty tame. It's not like San Francisco's parade, really. They draw a lot of awareness to HIV prevention and things of that nature. Some of the churches here even participate.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:41 pm to CatFan81
The SF ones were what I had in mind
I know homosexuals who think that shite is annoying.
I know homosexuals who think that shite is annoying.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 4:44 pm to Roger Klarvin
Oh yeah. The big one in San Fran is wild. Plenty of gay people don't care for that one.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 5:06 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:The core concept being discrimination exists for them? There is legal discrimination of all kinds. Some are good, some are bad, and some are indifferent, based on who the object of the discrimination is.
The severity of the discrimination doesn't change the core concept.
Regardless, my point was that I think it belittles the civil rights movement to compare the struggles of blacks to the struggles of homosexuals. Other groups who are or who believe they are discriminated against to technically say the same thing, but the comparison falls way short, to the point of absurdity, in my opinion.
quote:Again, you can say the exact same thing about any number of groups who are discriminated against for some reason. I felt pretty discriminated against when I was 17 during a Presidential election cycle and wasn't allowed to vote, though I'm pretty sure I was more informed about the candidates than many people who were able to vote at the time.
Yes, gays are advocating for "new" rights as opposed to equal rights. In that sense it isn't the same thing. However, the reality is that they are prevented from doing something ONLY because a segment of the population views them as in someway different. In the case of blacks, it was people saw them as inferior. In the case of gays, it is that people see them as deviants.
Anyone can disagree with the practices of anyone else for any reason they want to. That's a freedom that is protected for all people by the Constitution. Not every action is protected for every person in every way by the Constitution, though. Just because one group of people want something doesn't mean that they are entitled to it. Laws get passed one way or the other based on how the people feel about it.
quote:Sure, and that same concept applies to many different groups, except the "undeserving" part of it. Marriage isn't something that people deserve or not deserve, if you want to think about it in those terms (assuming we're talking about gay marriage).
The circumstances are different but at its core its still people resisting a movement because of a belief that the other group is in someway different and undeserving of certain things.
The "concept" is discrimination, and as I said before, we accept and even promote discrimination of all kinds in our culture. The issue is the object of the discrimination and the severity of the impact of those who are being discriminated against. I guess we can also add in there the cultural urge to change that practice, as well.
quote:I beg to differ. First of all, there are other reasons (besides religious convictions) why someone might denounce homosexuality or homosexual marriage. Secondly, it doesn't matter if the motivation to allow or disallow something stems from a religious sentiment if the practical benefits or detriments can be convincingly laid out and agreed upon by the populous and that the legislation conforms to the standard laid out by the Constitution. The government isn't allowed to force a religion on the people, but that doesn't mean it can't pass laws that are in alignment with religious belief.
In order to show a true, conceptual difference you have to delve into the religious reasons why people are against gays and then say that because the objection is of divine origin it is inherently different. That is an argument that just cant be allowed to occur in the creation of American legislation because it violates the constitution.
For example, while prohibition was a failure, there were secular and practical benefits to it. The law against alcohol made a lot of Christians happy who believe that drinking it is sinful (I'm not in that camp, by the way), while many non-religious people agreed with it for their own practical reasons (such as a potential reduction of alcohol-induced violence in the home). The alignment with religion does not necessitate the dismissal of the legislation outright.
But back to my initial point: I don't think it is applicable to compare the discrimination of homosexuals to the discrimination of blacks.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 5:08 pm to CatFan81
quote:
Without religious opposition, there is no gay marriage debate
So very false. There are many people who are called "traditionalists" who want marriage to be what it always has been: man and woman. These same people could care less if there was a union exactly like marriage but called something else. Because it is something else, traditionally. But that wasn't good enough. Now the government had to take a stand and undefine marriage.
Here is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Waite's ruling on polygamy in 1898:
“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people… From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life.”
Can you imagine any judge much less a SP court judge saying such a thing about gay marriage?There is no chance that polygamy doesn't get overturned because of the US v Windsor (gay marriage) ruling. How would you defend it? You can't.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 5:12 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:Might want to do a quick search, then.
The New Girl, Mindy Project, Parks and Rec, Community... I'm on Hulu right now scrolling, and outside of Modern Family I can't find one.
I just did and found a wiki page that had links to different kinds of shows, movies, and programs with LGBT characters.
Just look at the reality show and dramatic tv pages
Posted on 4/18/14 at 5:16 pm to Charlestondawg
quote:
There are many people who are called "traditionalists" who want marriage to be what it always has been: man and woman. These same people could care less if there was a union exactly like marriage but called something else. Because it is something else, traditionally. But that wasn't good enough. Now the government had to take a stand and undefine marriage.
99% of those people are religious.
They always make the argument that "marriage is a religious institution that is designed to produce offspring. Gays can't reproduce so gays shouldn't marry" or something like that.
They almost always shut up when you remind them that not all married straight couples are christians and that not all married straight couples are capable of reproduction.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 5:21 pm to Charlestondawg
quote:
So very false. There are many people who are called "traditionalists" who want marriage to be what it always has been: man and woman. These same people could care less if there was a union exactly like marriage but called something else. Because it is something else, traditionally. But that wasn't good enough. Now the government had to take a stand and undefine marriage.
And all of these people are religious.
Posted on 4/18/14 at 5:24 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I beg to differ. First of all, there are other reasons (besides religious convictions) why someone might denounce homosexuality or homosexual marriage.
This just isnt true. Show me a man who be believes gay marriage should remain illegal, and I'll show you a christian, muslim, jew or someone who was raised religious and has a bigotry born from that upbringing.
There is no logical defensible reason against gay marriage apart from the divine. None.
quote:
Secondly, it doesn't matter if the motivation to allow or disallow something stems from a religious sentiment if the practical benefits or detriments can be convincingly laid out and agreed upon by the populous and that the legislation conforms to the standard laid out by the Constitution. The government isn't allowed to force a religion on the people, but that doesn't mean it can't pass laws that are in alignment with religious belief.
Please lay out the secular benefits for banning gay marriage.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News