Outrage as Tesco backs gay festival... but drops support for cancer charity event
- Thread starter LoGaN_TnT
- Start date
Yes, it does.
I think the key point is to distinguish between "natural", "normal" and "acceptable". It's too common to pass either or both of the former off as the latter.
Homosexuality is not imposed artificially by human activity, so it is natural.
Homosexuality is not what usually happens, so it is not normal.
Neither of those things should be taken as any indication of whether or not homosexuality is acceptable. That's an ethical issue and nothing to do with either nature or normality. To me, the key deciding factor in that is harm - since homosexuality is harmless, it's acceptable. Also, since the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is trivial, I see it as nonsense to make such a fuss about one and not the other. It would make more sense to condemn tea and laud coffee or vice versa, as if it was a hugely important social issue.
This thread makes me sad seeing the massive homophobic idiots in it 
We should all be more accepting of each other, whether we are gay, straight, bi(greedy so and sos). Gay pride is a celebration of being them, just like Black History Month is a celebration of Black History. It still shocks me how racist or homophobic people can still be these days
We should all be more accepting of each other, whether we are gay, straight, bi(greedy so and sos). Gay pride is a celebration of being them, just like Black History Month is a celebration of Black History. It still shocks me how racist or homophobic people can still be these days No.
Nor is there a problem with pointing out that your opinions and beliefs are irrational, harmful babble that demonstrates that you are inferior.
Don't be so harsh on him. All he needs is the little finger in the back door from his girlfriend, and the rest will come.
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.
I'd bet money that spankingtexan wants to be spanked by another man before (or maybe during) some rough, domination-flavoured oral.
I'm not saying that all people who fervently preach against homosexuality are repressed homosexuals themselves. Just rather a lot of them.
Unnatural? It's the most natural thing in the world. Animals do it, humans do it, etc. You're just a bigot. It's because of evil little miserable human beings like you that coming out is one of the most painful things a person can go through. I hope you find peace with your conscience.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,663
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I have many gay friends and all of them wouldn't be seen dead at a Gay Pride event and like you two I also don't see the point of it either however when the pair of you get to the age when you're not squirting potato juice, find a lady and have a baby, how will you react if your child was gay?
This thread makes me sad seeing the massive homophobic idiots in it
And white pride is a celebration of being them, and white history is a celebration of white history (which advocates would love to have as an official month-long event).
If you read the propaganda from pro-"white" racism groups, you'll see they're using the same language that you're using. Which is hardly surprising - group pride is group pride. From time to time, there are changes in which groups it's more socially acceptable for, but that doesn't change what it is.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 5,038
So are you for gay pride festivals or is it another social construct?
Hang on, there's a big difference there. As someone pointed out earlier Gay Pride is an inclusive, pro-homosexuality group which doesn't attempt to exclude anyone. Pro-"white" racism groups are exclusive, pro white groups which try to exclude anyone they think isn't racially who they want.
Pro-inclusion groups are practically always socially acceptable, pro-exclusion groups more often aren't.
How about being an ordinary gay? Or a macho, steel-wristed muscleman gay if that's your thing?
If you looked at a representative sample of homosexual men, you'd find that on the whole they're just as blandly normal as a representative sample of people who aren't homosexual men.
An ultra-effeminate gay man mincing about all floppy-wristed and fake-fanning himself like a Victorian lady fearing an attack of the vapours at the sight of an attactive man will attract your attention and you'll see him as being gay...and you'll have missed the couple of dozen equally gay men who you didn't realise are gay because they're just some ordinary men you passed in the street or met briefly during some aspect of work (yours or theirs).
If they allowed in non-"whites" as long as those people shared the views of the groups, would that make any difference to what the group is for? The important thing is the purpose of the group (to promote group pride for a specific group), not the membership of the group.
It's not a big difference, although there is often a big difference in which groups it is socially acceptable to express group pride in. That often changes over time, too.
I speak very clearly against the whole idea of group pride, explicitly stating that I am opposed to the whole idea regardless of which group is favoured.
You reply by asking me if I am in favour of group pride festivals.
How does your question make any sense?
Associate
- Joined
- 6 May 2009
- Posts
- 371
Homosexuality is natural as it happens in many different species as already mentioned earlier in this topic.
However it is not normal. I firmly beleive it is an error (one that comes up quite a bit) in the DNA sequences of individual organisms that affects their reproductive thought proccesses and as a result makes it so that they are counter productive to the survival of their species. After all sex (straight sex) exists so that we can reproduce.
Should they be hated? No, they don't really have that great of an effect on the survival rate of our species and at the end of the day they can't help the way they are.
Should they be accepted? Sure, they are people like anyone else after all.
Having said that, on a personal level I do find the more flamboyant "I'm fabulous" gays beyond annoying and I would never be able to get along with someone like that or consider them a friend. It also ***** me right off that the majority of male fashion sense these days (especially in high street retailers) is so.... Gay/femeine/metrosexual in its appearence and that in a way that image is being forced upon all men, regardless of their sexual preference.
However it is not normal. I firmly beleive it is an error (one that comes up quite a bit) in the DNA sequences of individual organisms that affects their reproductive thought proccesses and as a result makes it so that they are counter productive to the survival of their species. After all sex (straight sex) exists so that we can reproduce.
Should they be hated? No, they don't really have that great of an effect on the survival rate of our species and at the end of the day they can't help the way they are.
Should they be accepted? Sure, they are people like anyone else after all.
Having said that, on a personal level I do find the more flamboyant "I'm fabulous" gays beyond annoying and I would never be able to get along with someone like that or consider them a friend. It also ***** me right off that the majority of male fashion sense these days (especially in high street retailers) is so.... Gay/femeine/metrosexual in its appearence and that in a way that image is being forced upon all men, regardless of their sexual preference.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 5,038
No, previously you spoke of your distaste for racial pride marches, before that point you didn't mention a blanket belief until a couple of posts ago (unless I missed something).
The big important thing is the exact intentions. With gay pride the intention is pride as in "we're not ashamed to be gay, and we don't see why we should be persecuted for it". In a racist group the intention is more likely to be "we're proud to be white, we think non-whites are inferior and don't have a problem with their exclusion/maltreatment/persecution". It's the latter part that is more important: gay pride isn't about persecuting people who aren't gay, whereas a white-pride group often would be about persecuting non-whites. In my mind that puts them on totally different levels.
The question then comes up: if it's detrimental to the survival of the species, then why has it persisted in the gene pool? It should have been strongly selected against in that case. It's extremely unlikely that all homosexual behaviour could be explained by random mutations. Which brings up studies like this:
For all we know homosexuality could end up being another sickle cell anaemia: on the face of it a really bad idea in terms of survival, but with an underlying benefit we hadn't thought of and therefore perfectly sensible in terms of evolution.
There's straight pride everywhere. A majority of the our society is aimed at straight people. The huge amount of straight love songs, tv shows depicting straight couples. Entertainment mocking mens sexual attitudes towards women and visa-verca.
When was the last time you heard a love song about two men/women on the radio? If anything is to provocatively homosexual, it's usually banned. If the LGBT community want a festival to support their unity, then I don't feel I'm being hard done by not having a 'straight pride' festival as a straight man. There's enough heterosexual stuff thrown at me anyway.
When was the last time you heard a love song about two men/women on the radio? If anything is to provocatively homosexual, it's usually banned. If the LGBT community want a festival to support their unity, then I don't feel I'm being hard done by not having a 'straight pride' festival as a straight man. There's enough heterosexual stuff thrown at me anyway.