Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 6,439
- Location
- SE England
Who?
Thomas Hitzlsperger announces he is gay
- Thread starter EdwardTeach
- Start date
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 3,783
It's an issue / news worthy because of bigots and stupid comments like yours.
It's YOU and people like you that is the issue, not peoples sexuality !!
So I'm a bigot for not knowing or caring what another person does? Sounds about right to me...
Fact is no one cares about what he says or does, most people genuinely don't care, only a few people would care strong enough to actually say/do anything. (just like we turn our back on the few radical people who tarnish other things like religion etc)
Especially so considering he has come out after his career etc.
I'll reiterate. Most people don't give flying **** about small percent of people and their homosexual ways. As for what happens in football, who cares? I certainly don't care about the actions of morons that live in squalor paying large portions of their wages to buy overpriced tat and extortionate tickets to go and see overpaid bladder kicking pillocks.
A genuine question - when you say "don't give a ****", do you mean that in an 'accepting of homosexuality' or 'don't want to heard about homosexuality' sense? I only ask as quite often people believe they don't care, and maybe they genuinely and deeply don't want to care and be accepting, but still have some hang-ups for whatever reason.
I'll explore that with an example. It's quite common for advertisements in public places to feature men and women... shall we say... 'sensually engaged'. I'm sure you can imagine the kind of perfume advert where an enstubbled guy with a chiseled jaw has a flawless lady in some kind of embrace for olfaction.
Almost amazingly, I Google'd "perfume advert" and this is the fourth result:
This is the sort of thing you will see in Boots and House of Fraser. One could say this is an 'overtly heterosexual' image, but not definitively heterosexual.
So, on the flip side, would you be fine with the image below being used in Boots to advertise an aftershave? One could say it's 'overtly gay', but not definitively gay.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 3,783
A genuine question - when you say "don't give a ****", do you mean that in an 'accepting of homosexuality' or 'don't want to heard about homosexuality' sense? I only ask as quite often people believe they don't care, and maybe they genuinely and deeply don't want to care and be accepting, but still have some hang-ups for whatever reason.
I'll explore that with an example. It's quite common for advertisements in public places to feature men and women... shall we say... 'sensually engaged'. I'm sure you can imagine the kind of perfume advert where an enstubbled guy with a chiseled jaw has a flawless lady in some kind of embrace for olfaction.
Almost amazingly, I Google'd "perfume advert" and this is the fourth result:
This is the sort of thing you will see in Boots and House of Fraser. One could say this is an 'overtly heterosexual' image, but not definitively heterosexual.
So, on the flip side, would you be fine with the image below being used in Boots to advertise an aftershave? One could say it's 'overtly gay', but not definitively gay.
Want to know my real problem? People that keep trying to lift a minority to the same level as the norm.
No, I really don't care about homosexuals, genuinely what a dude/gal does is what they do. In fact I lost a tooth defending a friend from some ********* who didn't feel like that.
However there needs to be a debate about the role and presence of homosexuality. Why should there be a catering for a demographic that makes up a statistically insignificant part of the population? (This is aside from the assumed human rights). This is especially compounded with the fact that homosexuality is not in societies interest in terms of reproduction etc.
Therefore in my opinion, I do not think there is anything wrong with a default mode of hetrosexuality .it, despite all the media and pressure groups attempts to persuade us otherwise......is the norm.
Edit: and both those guys are very good looking, so I'm glad they're more blowing each other S they'd be stiff competition otherwise.
Fragrance adverts have always been retarded.
Half the time I'm not even sure what they're selling The lastest one I remember had a guy proudly state, before walking out of a press conference:
"I'm not going to be who I'm expected to be anymore."
OK? Am I supposed to want to cover myself in some foul smelling **** now because I'm so confused I don't know what else to do?
Half the time I'm not even sure what they're selling
The lastest one I remember had a guy proudly state, before walking out of a press conference:"I'm not going to be who I'm expected to be anymore."
OK? Am I supposed to want to cover myself in some foul smelling **** now because I'm so confused I don't know what else to do?
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 3,783
How can you tell both of them guys are very good looking? It doesn't show either face
Most woman would rather go for half their face than my whole face.
Are you disappointed in me like dad?
Fragrance adverts have always been retarded.
Half the time I'm not even sure what they're selling
"I'm not going to be who I'm expected to be anymore."
OK? Am I supposed to want to cover myself in some foul smelling **** now because I'm so confused I don't know what else to do?
So much this! A few seconds of what exactly? I'm never going to look like "insert ridiculously photogenic model in perfect conditions"! I'm guessing it's more subliminal?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Do you have a problem with black people being treated as 'normal' too? After all the a statistically a small proportion of the population so I guess screw them right?
Is it that you think gay people should "keep it to themselves" or that you think they get more representation than they deserve based on their population size?
If the latter I'd suggest you do a reality check. Statistically speaking 10% of the country are homosexual or bi-sexual, which is much higher than black people yet I'd bet a pound to a penny that black people are more represented in the media than gay people. I don't see gay people having their award shows shown on prime time ITV (MOBOs) or being given their own radio stations by the BBC (One Extra).
Last edited:
Don't you find the idea that 'normal people' (defined by being the statistically most significant part of the population) should be the only part of the population that should be catered for a dangerous one?
Respect for the rights and freedoms of minority groups is an important part of making a sophisticated and modern civilisation and society work, whether that be about gender, race, sexuality, religion or a dozen other things. You also often have to 'over-represent' these minorities to ensure that there's at least 'a' voice. Homosexuality is also not that small a minority - most studies indicate a prevalence rate of 3-8%. At the lower end, that's one or two people per class at school, the population of Northern Ireland as part of the UK, the proportion of black people in the UK, more than the number of Hindus and similar to the number of Muslims, three times as many people in the UK who speak Welsh. It's also a minority that you cannot opt in and out of. Very little choice is involved.
I don't think that argument holds much water, for several reasons.
1. I don't believe we have an active problem with biological reproduction. Homosexuality has been around as far back as records exist, and it hasn't prevented the population of the planet exploding.
2. People do not become homosexual because they decide to! If they have a sexual orientation that makes them enjoy the company of the same gender, they will seek out that gender. It's a classic case of "When did you decide to become straight?" - it doesn't happen. You may discover, but you never decide. Even active promotion of the validity of homosexuality as a perfectly fine and acceptable way to get your kicks and live happily ever after wouldn't change that.
If we were talking about an incidence rate of 0.01% or something equally irregular (although that would still be 6000 people in the UK) then maybe I could accept that, but it's not. You've probably more chance of being homosexual than you have of rolling two sixes on a pair of dice.
What people are asking for isn't to be pandered to, but just accepted, and acceptance that being homosexual is normal. It's in nature. It's natural. For people not be opposed to two gay guys or girls holding hands at the beach, or having a kiss in the park.
Unfortunately the gay gene has taken it's fair share of 'sub-adonis' typesEdit: and both those guys are very good looking, so I'm glad they're more blowing each other S they'd be stiff competition otherwise.
Last edited:
The only shocking thing about the Daley announcement was the media hasn't yet gone on about the age gap and made a thing of young guy exploring his sexuality being exploited by old man. I'm sure the time will come. His national treasure staus with the media will wear off sadly and they will go for him.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Stephen Fry makes a brilliant counter point when people try and use the "unnatural" line. As you've said homosexuality is abundant in nature, but only one animal has ever been found to display signs of homophobia (i.e. Humans).
So homophobia is far more unnatural than being gay is.
Various people are asking for various things, including being pandered to. In any group-based politics (especially when it's a biological and therefore unchosen group), there are always people asking for that group to be pandered to. Being homosexual doesn't automatically make people superior, despite the prevailing idea that approved minority = inherently superior.
But it isn't.
The problem isn't whether or not any particular thing is normal. It's the idea that normal means "acceptable". Normal is just whatever happens most of the time. Everyone is abnormal in a variety of ways.
The whole "natural" argument is hypocritical nonsense anyway. It's of no relevance to anything and should be dismissed with disdain and ridicule until people stop pretending it matters. Or maybe everyone blathering about "natural" (by which they mean "something I agree with") meaning "right" and "unnatural" (by which they mean "something I disagree with") meaning "wrong" should be murdered - hey, murder is natural therefore it's good! The "natural" argument is utter rubbish, every time.
I realise you're using the argument to counter it within its own framework and I understand that approach, but the whole thing just gets my goat. It's blather, unworthy of a supposedly civilised society of intelligent life.
The key point is harm. Is homosexuality harmful? No. So it's not wrong. Simple as that.
It's not beneficial either, so it's just not important. It's not even significantly different to heterosexuality. The whole thing is a stupid, irrational obsession over a triviality. It only matters for sex and sexual relationships and only on a personal, individual level (i.e. people who have sex or a sexual relationship with each other need to have compatible sexual orientations).
If we're ever in a situation in which most people are 100% exclusively homosexual and we have a population shortage, then there would be some genuine relevance. But we're not, nobody ever has been and probably nobody ever will be. And even if we were, we have the technology to work around it - artificial insemination is quite easy with people of normal fertility.
I know some people think their god doesn't like it. Well, that's their problem. It's not a valid reason for making their problem anyone else's problem. Actually, it's not even their problem. It's their god's problem. They should leave it to their god in whatever afterlife they believe in.
I have heard of him, but I agree, I have no idea why his sexual preference is anyones business or why he is being hailed a hero for announcing it...fifty years ago perhaps, but not today.
Last edited:
Gay people probably care because they want it to be seen as normal and probably included in sex education if it isn't already.
I don't really care if someone is gay or not, it makes no difference to me
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,300
- Location
- Woking
There does not need to be a debate about the role and presence of homosexuality. The fact is that a large number of people in the world are gay, and a large proportion of those people are treated inadequately by their respective societies on the basis of a sexual preference that they had no choice in, and in many cases is still considered a criminal activity.
Being persecuted for something that you are born into is utterly outrageous. It's the same as being persecuted for the colour of your skin.
Anyway, we do not know the true number of gay people in this country, or the world. This is in part because census data may actually not be that detailed, but in part because many gay people live in terror of someone finding out about their sexuality. In Uganda you can be imprisoned by the state, and many locals take the law into their own hands, executed gay people.
Is this acceptable to you? From my perspective, it is certainly not. It is no different from racism, other than being less obvious.
Once again I'll state, this story is a story because it opens (closet) doors for gay people who are scared of coming out, and will hopefully give them more courage and more trust that they might actually be accepted for the person that they were born to be.
Try living as someone that you're not. I doubt it's easy.
It can be harmful in different ways, check the medical records, is it wrong? to many yes, lgbt is wrong conduct simple as that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,300
- Location
- Woking
The people who think that LGBT conduct is wrong are morons.