Gays - Seriously, what's wrong about them? - General

[QUOTE=Stormcharger;32519902]And yea I know not to hit people in the temple I used to do some competitive fighting so Im pretty confident I would have enough control not to accidently kill someone with one punch.[/QUOTE] Okay well um, enjoy your jail term I guess?

they like other guys so what

Obligatory Community reactions [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXw6znXPfy4[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvrXojax-sA[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed8GAtuhQyM[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaPNtxqpPSY[/media] In all seriousness though they shouldn't be treated any differently, it's just an opinion, like loving hippos rather than elephants. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is a debate forum, not a 'silly video' one." - Seiteki))[/highlight]

Nothing's wrong with them. But I [b][i]hate[/b][/i] all of the Junior High and High school kiddies who use the word "gay" and "fag" for things completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Why do you think of that as a bad thing? It's [b][i]good[/i][/b] for a word like that to lose it's original meaning. Gay is a euphemism for homosexual, but I've never had a problem using it. Faggot on the other hand, should lose it's meaning. If you ask me the word "nigger" should as well. I might get auto-banned for that. But fuck it. It's pertinent. Just proves my point more that words without directive context have no meaning.

[QUOTE=Skepsis;32542075]Why do you think of that as a bad thing? It's [b][i]good[/i][/b] for a word like that to lose it's original meaning. Gay is a euphemism for homosexual, but I've never had a problem using it. Faggot on the other hand, should lose it's meaning. If you ask me the word "nigger" should as well. I might get auto-banned for that. But fuck it. It's pertinent. Just proves my point more that words without directive context have no meaning.[/QUOTE] I realize that but still it's terrible that this generation of tweens has fallen so low.

[QUOTE=Skepsis;32542075]Why do you think of that as a bad thing? It's [b][i]good[/i][/b] for a word like that to lose it's original meaning. Gay is a euphemism for homosexual, but I've never had a problem using it. Faggot on the other hand, should lose it's meaning. If you ask me the word "nigger" should as well. I might get auto-banned for that. But fuck it. It's pertinent. Just proves my point more that words without directive context have no meaning.[/QUOTE] Using the words in a derogatory manner, even towards unrelated things, doesn't help soften their blow. Talking about them in a manner such as this does though.

There's nothing wrong with homosexuals, but there's a great many things wrong with the gay community and subculture.

[QUOTE=limulus54;32542744]There's nothing wrong with homosexuals, but there's a great many things wrong with the gay community and subculture.[/QUOTE] Such as what?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32543363]Such as what?[/QUOTE] the perpetuation of stereotypes from within it, mostly. In some places I see people getting a sense of pride from fitting idea of a typical gay man, which is just disgusting. I mean, It's understandable, but it really shouldn't happen. there's also a tendency to dehumanize anyone against them, which pretty much any group will do, but it still shouldn't happen. So often I see people effectively deciding that anyone against any gay cause is a homophobe who has no humanity or human motivation. I've even heard people advocating the "reeducation" of homophobes, as legislature. It makes no sense, and it's hypocrisy at it's worst.

[QUOTE=limulus54;32543623]there's also a tendency to dehumanize anyone against them, which pretty much any group will do, but it still shouldn't happen. So often I see people effectively deciding that anyone against any gay cause is a homophobe who has no humanity or human motivation. I've even heard people advocating the "reeducation" of homophobes, as legislature. It makes no sense, and it's hypocrisy at it's worst.[/QUOTE] If you're against homosexuals having equal rights to heterosexuals, you are indeed a homophobe.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;32531538]The only problem I've ever had with gays is the way they act. They act almost exactly just like a woman. (The ones I know, not saying they all do.) They walk like women, talk like women, do the "talk with hands" thing like women. And they date other gays, who also act like women. It doesn't make sense to me why they're attracted to men who act like women, when they could date a woman who acts like a woman. Unless it's just the penis, not the actual personality that makes them want someone.[/QUOTE] So this is a late reply, considering how fast this thread is moving, but whatever. By your reasoning, why don't straight guys date gay guys that act like women? Unless all they want from women is the vagina, and not the personality. (By the way, "talking with hands" is more of an Italian stereotype than a womanly one, in my experience. :v:)

[QUOTE=limulus54;32543623]the perpetuation of stereotypes from within it, mostly. In some places I see people getting a sense of pride from fitting idea of a typical gay man, which is just disgusting. I mean, It's understandable, but it really shouldn't happen. [/QUOTE] Why? What's disgusting about it?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32544175]If you're against homosexuals having equal rights to heterosexuals, you are indeed a homophobe.[/QUOTE] you aren't, for starters. Homophobe implies fear. Most of these people aren't afraid of gays. But that isn't really the point, I don't argue with the label homophobe, I just think that they way those people are viewed within that community isn't quite right. They're seen as people who need to be forcibly changed or eliminated rather than understood and appropriately convinced. [QUOTE=CatFodder;32544394]Why? What's disgusting about it?[/QUOTE] Because they're stereotypes. It's like if black people were to make a point of acting like amos and andy. which I guess some do, but the point is still the same.

Something to think about: Homosexuality exists in all species on the planet, Homophobia exists in only one I have no idea who said this first but it says a lot about us

[QUOTE=limulus54;32544471]you aren't, for starters. Homophobe implies fear. Most of these people aren't afraid of gays. But that isn't really the point, I don't argue with the label homophobe, I just think that they way those people are viewed within that community isn't quite right. They're seen as people who need to be forcibly changed or eliminated rather than understood and appropriately convinced.[/quote] Would you say that KKK members need to be 'understood'? People who hold those kind of views aren't worth listening to anyway. [quote]Because they're stereotypes. It's like if black people were to make a point of acting like amos and andy. which I guess some do, but the point is still the same.[/QUOTE] So what, it's 'disgusting' if people want to act in a way to happens to conform to someone or other's stereotype? Does that mean it's 'disgusting' when an Italian man likes pasta or if I like tea?

The only reason why gays aren't liked is because of their stereotype. Makes them automatically buttfuckers and that. Although I'm part of the christian religion I have no kind of fury towards people like that. To be honest, there's a lot more to worry about like furries.

[QUOTE=CatFodder;32544564]Would you say that KKK members need to be 'understood'? People who hold those kind of views aren't worth listening to anyway. So what, it's 'disgusting' if people want to act in a way to happens to conform to someone or other's stereotype? Does that mean it's 'disgusting' when an Italian man likes pasta or if I like tea?[/QUOTE] no, but it is if you allow being Italian or British to become your entire personality, or at least all that you display. But the problem with stereotypes isn't really the people who fit them, but really the people who don't that still have it applied to them. Gay stereotypes and the people who conform to them generate the belief that all gays are like that. I personally find these preconceptions and micro-judgements to be more difficult to deal with than actual hatred. KKk members do not need to be understood, they're already beyond reason. But plenty of people against gay rights aren't like that. There are some of those raving mad types, but I believe I could portion of the people called "homophobes" could be convinced otherwise.

[QUOTE=Ladowerf;32532900]i think facepunch is very hypocritical. because they rush to gay rights, and then they have next-to-no problems with racism.[/QUOTE] Go to the Sensationalist Headlines.

[QUOTE=The First 11'er;32531575]i didn't believe he would really end up gay because he was a good friend of mine. that's not very stereotypical.[/QUOTE] uh. so he wouldn't be gay, because he was your friend, and nice people can't be gay? that seems pretty stereotypical to me. or am I getting this wrong?

I've never understood the anti-gay marriage thing. How can you vote for a president who promises no gay marriages? It feels like the government is regulating how a religion can or can't work. Why does the government have anything to do with that? Plus obviously the government isn't even supposed to take sides in a religion I thought. Each member can follow their own religion but they cannot pick one over another because it's against separation of church and state. I feel like if someone had taken it to the supreme court the problem would be immediately solved. They would instantly say it is unconstitutional and whether or not gay marriage is allowed would still be a question, but congress or president would have nothing to do with it. As for the what the general population things about it, most people don't care what others do in the privacy of their home. Anyone who is against gay marriage usually does so for a religious reason. And by religious reason I mean they have a personal problem and are disturbed by the thought of gays so they use an out of place bible quote to show how it is wrong (unorthodox), just so they can sleep well at night knowing that gays are not marrying... I guess I can understand how the bible says that it is not traditional to be gay, but it says nothing about it being a bad thing. It also says a lot of things which no one follows today, which are in the same list! Which brings us back to the fact that it's not even a religious thing, it's just religion being used by people who are mis-informed, to satisfy themselves. Its a complete joke.

[QUOTE=DJswitch;32544647]The only reason why gays aren't liked is because of their stereotype.[/QUOTE] no it's not. the stereotype comes after the prejudice, not before.

[QUOTE=Arsonist;32544557]Homosexuality exists in all species on the planet, Homophobia exists in only one[/QUOTE] Oh really? I've never seen a gay tree. Maybe I'm just not observant enough.

[QUOTE=limulus54;32544723]no, but it is if you allow being Italian or British to become your entire personality, or at least all that you display. But the problem with stereotypes isn't really the people who fit them, but really the people who don't that still have it applied to them. Gay stereotypes and the people who conform to them generate the belief that all gays are like that. I personally find these preconceptions and micro-judgements to be more difficult to deal with than actual hatred. KKk members do not need to be understood, they're already beyond reason. But plenty of people against gay rights aren't like that. There are some of those raving mad types, but I believe I could portion of the people called "homophobes" could be convinced otherwise.[/QUOTE] I miss you limmy! The preconceptions generated by gays who conform to the stereotype are indeed harmful to those who don't. Not only does it give reason to homophobes whom dislike the flamboyant and promiscuous traits, but some people will initially like you more when they find out you're gay. Girls often start acting towards you in a way which i can only describe as "You're gay and I want a materialistic gay best friend to go shopping with, be that person". I can recall many examples of gays taking advantage of a positive reaction, and I think that's wrong, because being judged goes both ways. I personally would rather be hated for my personality than liked for being gay. Being gay is a sexuality, not a personality, and I want to be judged on who I am, not what.

[QUOTE=Skepsis;32542075]Why do you think of that as a bad thing? It's [b][i]good[/i][/b] for a word like that to lose it's original meaning. Gay is a euphemism for homosexual, but I've never had a problem using it. Faggot on the other hand, should lose it's meaning. If you ask me the word "nigger" should as well. I might get auto-banned for that. But fuck it. It's pertinent. Just proves my point more that words without directive context have no meaning.[/QUOTE] "Gay" is a euphemism for "homosexual" developed by gays themselves, so you can discuss being gay without it [I]necessarily[/I] sounding like an American Psychological Association meeting.

[QUOTE=Keeshond v2;32547971]I miss you limmy![/QUOTE] I decided LP was a shithole, and I missed the mapping section. [QUOTE=Keeshond v2;32547971]The preconceptions generated by gays who conform to the stereotype are indeed harmful to those who don't. Not only does it give reason to homophobes whom dislike the flamboyant and promiscuous traits, but some people will initially like you more when they find out you're gay. Girls often start acting towards you in a way which i can only describe as "You're gay and I want a materialistic gay best friend to go shopping with, be that person". I can recall many examples of gays taking advantage of a positive reaction, and I think that's wrong, because being judged goes both ways. I personally would rather be hated for my personality than liked for being gay. Being gay is a sexuality, not a personality, and I want to be judged on who I am, not what.[/QUOTE] pretty much this.

[QUOTE=Skepsis;32533183]You speak of this forum as if it's some sort of hiveminded collective conciousness. Spoiler: it's full of individuals with their own perspectives. If you say so. This thread is completely vague so, yeah. Just about anything can go. The problem with how you presented that argument is the sequential order. "What's wrong with gays" supercedes "do they deserver rights" where the former was the actual topic of the thread. There's also a more gay-rights centric thread floating around here too. My salient point was the fact that this topic is all over the place, and it's main focal point isn't really about gay rights itself. Maybe I'm just a pedantic fucker though, I've been called that before. :v:[/QUOTE] You're right in that they're not, in and of themselves, the same. Most people who think that there is something inherently wrong with gay people often use their beliefs to deny them rights, which is my point. There aren't - in my experience - terribly many people who do say, "Well, those gays are disgusting abominations, but they deserve the right to marry." In my experience.

I just hate the gay accent.

[QUOTE=Speedhax;32558429]I just hate the gay accent.[/QUOTE] don't be sooo siwwy i think it is thuper

[QUOTE=J!NX;32558621]don't be sooo siwwy i think it is thuper[/QUOTE] No they don't go ttthhh on their s's, they go sssssss