Are gay folks getting too much attention?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Angilion said:
No, it doesn't. It means that you accept the existence of something different without hostility towards it. For example, I tolerate spiders in my house.

This intolerance of tolerance is a new thing to me. Is this another campaign to radically change the meaning of a word to catch people out and promote irrational prejudice by pretending it exists in cases where it doesn't?
Click to expand...
I guess its down to your interpretation of the word and what side you land on. You tolerate gays. I tolerate the hatred, discrimination and physical violence I am on the receiving end of. I don't accept it, I tolerate it because there is nothing I can do to stop it.

To me saying you tolerate something is that you dislike it but you tolerate that it is happening. You as in society not you as in you personally.
 
RDM said:
I don't think you know what communism is. Communist dictators during the 20th Century killed 10s of millions of mostly their own people without needing religion at all.
Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by communism. Strictly speaking, communism a social, political and economic system in which the means of production is owned by the people and there aren't any socio-economic classes. In that case, dictatorship and communism are mutually exclusive. If everyone owns everything and everyone is equal, there can't be a dictator. Strictly speaking, communism has never existed except on small scales in communes and, to some extent, workers co-operatives.
 
I think the problem comes about in the practical implementation of such a system, humans aren't all equal in their abilities, work output, value they can add to society etc.. and any system that tries to ignore or suppress that is likely going to need to use more force, become more authoritarian than alternatives.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
I guess its down to your interpretation of the word and what side you land on. You tolerate gays. I tolerate the hatred, discrimination and physical violence I am on the receiving end of. I don't accept it, I tolerate it because there is nothing I can do to stop it.

To me saying you tolerate something is that you dislike it but you tolerate that it is happening. You as in society not you as in you personally.
Click to expand...

It would be impossible for me to tolerate gays because tolerance is an acceptance of differences. Since I am gay, there isn't a difference for me to be tolerant of.

You're the first person I've spoken with who regards tolerance as meaning a dislike of something. You might succeed in changing the meaning of the word "tolerance". I hope not, because I think that acceptance of differences without hostility is a good thing and that it's something we need a word for.
 
Rifte said:
100% prejudice is born out of ignorance, but the method and vehicle of educating people is massively important.

Gay pride IMO damages the method.

To the ignorant watching the LGBT community turn themselves into a stereotype is tantamount to a red rag to a bull in exposing the very differences that these people are afraid of.

Normalization needs to show that the LGBT community are just like everybody else. By all means have a 'gay' character in a TV series or movie, but dont let their sexuality define them when it really isnt relevant.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. Education is what will make the difference. Homosexuality is no alien thing for those under 25 and I don't really see negativity towards it, so I think education is having a positive effect. From what I see and experience of friends who are bi/gay/etc, the vast majority are no different to the 'norm' and you often couldn't tell without knowing them.

LGBT parades are often massively over the top, accentuating homosexuality and as you say, can act as a red rag to those against it. But like anything else someone can organise, it's their parade and can do anything they want within reason, just like anyone else.
 
Angilion said:
It would be impossible for me to tolerate gays because tolerance is an acceptance of differences. Since I am gay, there isn't a difference for me to be tolerant of.

You're the first person I've spoken with who regards tolerance as meaning a dislike of something. You might succeed in changing the meaning of the word "tolerance". I hope not, because I think that acceptance of differences without hostility is a good thing and that it's something we need a word for.
Click to expand...
For me tolerance is the means of accepting something if positives equal the negatives if both are pretty much the same, then there is no problem overall.
 
Angilion said:
It would be impossible for me to tolerate gays because tolerance is an acceptance of differences. Since I am gay, there isn't a difference for me to be tolerant of.

You're the first person I've spoken with who regards tolerance as meaning a dislike of something. You might succeed in changing the meaning of the word "tolerance". I hope not, because I think that acceptance of differences without hostility is a good thing and that it's something we need a word for.
Click to expand...
The very first presented result for defining the word on Google states dislike, he's hardly flying in the face of convention.

"allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference."

If you didn't disagree with or dislike something, there would be no need to tolerate it surely, as you would just accept it.

If you are having to say that you tolerate something rather than just accept it, I think it's entirely logical to include the implications of disagreement or dislike.

I don't 'tolerate' gay people as there is nothing for me to tolerate, I have zero issues with them.
 
Kenai said:
I don't 'tolerate' gay people as there is nothing for me to tolerate, I have zero issues with them.
Click to expand...
The only thing that I dislike about gay people is anal sex.
If the anus was meant for that sort of thing then sure go for it but, its not. It seems even most women don't like anal sex. So gay men do it just as some act of affection or love.

I personally don't mind it, the way I see it is we're all free to use our bodies as we see fit whether to abuse drugs or go all suicidal, or for love whatever. These days it does not matter as our planet is over populated anyway so just let people get on with anything they want to do and be happy.
 
I doubt if homosexuality would ever be common enough to have a significant effect on population. Maybe >10,000 years ago for a specific very small hunter-gatherer group, but never for humanity as a whole.
 
Angilion said:
I doubt if homosexuality would ever be common enough to have a significant effect on population. Maybe >10,000 years ago for a specific very small hunter-gatherer group, but never for humanity as a whole.
Click to expand...
Hence why among many reasons it was the mans job to go to war for his colony/country or to fight for his woman. Its always been common place to send the men to war ultimately so that the leaders/rich men could have their way with the local women. When there are too many men in society then they will go to war, in that sense its always been a mans world for the rich and best soldiers. The lowest classes get shafted as... in modern days terms as racist, bigots, abusers etc., just for being protective.
 
Chris Wilson said:
I remember when living in Cheshire the great and effective Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Sir James Anderton CBE, KStJ, QPM, DL describing the public sexual acts the homosexuals of the then new Canal Street area were seen "enjoying" by members of the passing public as "swirling around in a cess pit of their own making". How times have changed and heaven knows what he would think of the tawdry "gay parades" that are now rife. I have always tolerated homosexuality so long as the perpetrators keep it to themselves and avoid messing with the under age or vulnerable. But that no longer seems to quiet them, they seem insistent we all love them and find their public displays of homosexuality "normal" and in good taste. If only they'd just shut up, and get on with whatever they want to do behind closed doors... And avoid pool parties, of course, as a "family entertainer" has found to the cost of his career. Making it legal was never going to be enough for the more attention seeking homosexuals now rampant in our media.
Click to expand...

How on earth do you manage to post from so far in the past?
 
Shocky-FM said:
Every show seems to have the token gay guy/couple now, it's not very subtle at all, real life is rarely like that, you can know people for years and never really know them.
Click to expand...

It only seems that way because of your confirmation bias.

http://tvline.com/2016/12/23/ratings-2016-2017-tv-season-winners-losers/

I don't watch all of those shows, but of those that I do, the only ones I can think of having prominent gay characters would be Modern Family, Greys Anatomy, and to lesser extents Crazy Ex-Girlfriend and Lucifer (Maze is bi as I recall).

Waaaah! They are taking over tv!
 
Angilion said:
It would be impossible for me to tolerate gays because tolerance is an acceptance of differences. Since I am gay, there isn't a difference for me to be tolerant of.

You're the first person I've spoken with who regards tolerance as meaning a dislike of something. You might succeed in changing the meaning of the word "tolerance". I hope not, because I think that acceptance of differences without hostility is a good thing and that it's something we need a word for.
Click to expand...

And conversely, you are the first person many of us have spoken with who things pride = being better than something else.
 
LOAM said:
How on earth do you manage to post from so far in the past?
Click to expand...

Hah, and in the same thread people speak of the Romans and their affinity for young boys. Really? It's not called an unnatural act for no reason though, hard as it might be to accept. But as I said before, legal acceptance isn't enough to sate them, they feel the need to parade.
 
Last edited:
"They" parade because "they" don't have full legal acceptance yet... if "they" were truly equal there would be no need for pride.

"They" can't win. If "they" dare to have the audacity to be visible and fight for rights "they" are just asking for prejudice. If "they" just cower behind closed doors then "they" won't get equal rights.

Just what do you expect "them" to do Chris?
 
I expect them to be grateful their activities are now legal over a certain age and STFU to be honest :) I personally wouldn't let them have all this marriage nonsense and tax rights, but even then they'll whine. And don't tell me they wouldn't parade, the ones on these tawdry jaunts are there for the posing or the hope of casual sexual encounters, ask the road cleaners who have to sort out their hazardous detritus after an event.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom