Argus Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 You are declaring gay to be not normal 35 years after the American Psychological Society declared that homosexuality was not a mental illness or a pathology. Scientific evidence on the subject of human sexual behaviour gathered since then finds a number of physiological links to sexual orientation and behaviour -- the evidence is pretty clear that people don't choose to their sexual orientation, and therefore, disparaging gays for their sexual orientation is no different than labeling people of other races as inferior. Conservatives need scapegoats to revile and ridicule, so I guess rightwing xenophobes are afraid of losing another convenient target for righteous indignation. First, whatever the shrinks say, it is clear, if only for very obvious and basic physiological reasons, that homosexuality is NOT normal. Second, paedophiles also don't choose their sexual whatever. Does that mean that disparaging them for it is no different than labelling races as inferior? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 You see right there though...that's uncalled for. I wouldn't want you locked in jail for saying such a thing, but that is very near hatred and it's the right of others to call you out on it. You don't tolerate the 'liefstyle' in your surroundings? Really? Is that your choice? I think not. What you feel seems to go beyond dislike all the way to intollerance. There is a difference between a gay man or woman, and the politicals of homosexuality, which is the politics of self-righteous victimhood as portrayed by mostly upper middle class white men with an apparently endless source of funds for fashionable shoes. And like it or not, the political gay movement has worked very hard at portraying themselves as different even while trying to pretend they are just the same as everyone else. But if they were the same as everyone else - aside from their choice of bed mates, there wouldn't be a distinctive gay subculture in every city. What AG is saying is not that he doesn't like gay people but he doesn't like that subculture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 You see right there though...that's uncalled for. I wouldn't want you locked in jail for saying such a thing, but that is very near hatred and it's the right of others to call you out on it. You don't tolerate the 'liefstyle' in your surroundings? Really? Is that your choice? I think not. What you feel seems to go beyond dislike all the way to intollerance. Why is it uncalled for, because i don't like Gay's, or the fact i said so in a public forum....or is it that i am not allow to make those specfic personal chioces ....is there a law that states i must like gays....not that i'am aware of....there is a law about spreading hate , but i've already made that clear that i'm not, all if done is state i don't like Gays....much like i don't like carrots, terrorists, or peace niks.... big diffences from dislike and hate we need to make that clear.... No i don't tolerate or allow the lifestyle in my surroundings....not in my home, not around my family and certainly not on the job....Yes it is my chioce, i don't think it is a normal lifestyle....i don't preach it to anyone , i inform my children all the pros and cons and let them decide...so i do not promote my chioce....until that is my chioce comes under attack, or i'm called out on it....why would it not be my chioce?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Sounds like you missed his point entirely.Some will shamelessly use actual victims as a propaganda tool to softly but steadily bludgeon all men about the head, reducing every single one of them to a potential mouth-frothing Neanderthal just itching to smack a woman down, in stark contrast, of course, to the gentle and ever-innocent nature of all females. It's gender identity politics that does little more than cheapen the experiences of those who really are victims, and I highly doubt that making a man constantly feel guilty about being a man is going to improve anything. Oh, that was the point! You must be an expert code-breaker, because the claim that the messages are generalizing that all men are abusive -- is not made in that post. And the ad says that boys should be raised to respect women, not that all men are abusive. My interpretation of his annoyance with this ad was that it was a desire to just make the subject go away and not be mentioned in public, rather than a claim that calling for raising boys to respect women implies that all men are abusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Why is it uncalled for, because i don't like Gay's, or the fact i said so in a public forum....or is it that i am not allow to make those specfic personal chioces If we separate the legal from the moral issues here, what is the difference between saying you don't like gays, and you don't like blacks? In both cases, you are condemning people for circumstances that they cannot change. ....is there a law that states i must like gays. No law says you must like blacks either! ...not that i'am aware of....there is a law about spreading hate , but i've already made that clear that i'm not, all if done is state i don't like Gays....much like i don't like carrots, terrorists, or peace niks.... big diffences from dislike and hate we need to make that clear.... Damn right you need to make that clear! You "dislike" terrorists? So I guess that means you don't hate terrorists then. No i don't tolerate or allow the lifestyle in my surroundings....not in my home, not around my family and certainly not on the job. Could you explain how you do not tolerate gays on the job without violating laws against discrimination and harassment? ...Yes it is my chioce, i don't think it is a normal lifestyle....i don't preach it to anyone , i inform my children all the pros and cons and let them decide...so i do not promote my chioce....until that is my chioce comes under attack, or i'm called out on it....why would it not be my chioce?... You're expressing your belief on a public forum, so you should expect to be called out for it. You're acting like it's some God-given right to condemn a minority without having to answer for it. I hope you don't have any children who turn out gay, because a lot of them have to grow up feeling ashamed of their secret desires, and hide them from family, friends, neighbours, kids at school, until they're old enough to flee their surroundings and move to some gay-majority neighbourhood in one of the major cities. Just because that's the way it's been until now, doesn't mean it should stay that way! I would hope for a future where most kids who turn out gay can feel comfortable with the family and surroundings they grow up in, and don't have to seek exile in some gay zone to find acceptance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I've observed that the more people talk about how bad intolerance is the more intollerant they tend to be. Completely true. Just look at this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) On this thread, I'm with Jerry. In his other "gays are not normal" thread, I disagreed. IMV, gays are like left-handed people. About 10% of the world's population are left-handed, about 5% of the world's population have blue-eyes and about 3% of the world's population are gay. What's normal? Some people write with their left hand and some people write with their right hand. Now then, if Jerry decides that he will not marry a left-handed woman, or if he finds blue-eyed women attractive, who am I to say he's wrong? If Jerry refuses to date a brown-eyed woman, should she have the right to bring Jerry before a Human Rights Tribunal and present evidence that Jerry has never dated a brown-eyed women because he openly prefers blue eyes? Private discrimination is a private matter. As much as possible, the State should stay out of private choices. As a famous Canadian once said, "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." If Jerry refuses to date or hire a gay, that's his choice. As I said, it's like a civil court dedicated to human rights...but their mandate has probably been extended too far.Hein? Smallc, I don't think you know what you're talking about.NO, the problem is there are too many people like you who think they should just be allowed to shoot off their mouths without backing up their opinions with any evidence. If you have contrary evidence, put it up or shut up; no one cares for your empty-headed opinions based on your personal likes and dislikes.You are declaring gay to be not normal 35 years after the American Psychological Society declared that homosexuality was not a mental illness or a pathology. Scientific evidence on the subject of human sexual behaviour gathered since then finds a number of physiological links to sexual orientation and behaviour -- the evidence is pretty clear that people don't choose to their sexual orientation, and therefore, disparaging gays for their sexual orientation is no different than labeling people of other races as inferior. Conservatives need scapegoats to revile and ridicule, so I guess rightwing xenophobes are afraid of losing another convenient target for righteous indignation. Who cares what the American Psychological Society says about gays? It has nothing to do with "normal" or whether the State should intervene.I agree with jerry on this issue, there is a major difference between dislike....and hate...and it does fall under free speach to voice your opinion of all your dislikes as long as it is done tastefully, and respectfully...i don't think jerry has breached that with his opening post....Army Guy, you're such an (English) Canadian.Our bilingual country works because of teh nature of its two basic cultures. Edited June 17, 2009 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 it seemed to me that he merely didn't want such practices around him. And that's not his choice. What is a 'homosexual lifestyle' exactly? What are people not supposed to do near him? If I were homosexual, what could I not do around him? What would be unnaceptable? Homosexuality is accepted by the governmenta nd by society in general in this country. Violence isn't the only route to opression unfortunately, and I think attitudes like the one I was responding to are dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 No i don't tolerate or allow the lifestyle in my surroundings....not in my home, not around my family and certainly not on the job....Yes it is my chioce, i don't think it is a normal lifestyle....i don't preach it to anyone , i inform my children all the pros and cons and let them decide...so i do not promote my chioce....until that is my chioce comes under attack, or i'm called out on it....why would it not be my chioce?... no, it isn't your choice (outised of your home). It isn't your choice to decide how people can go freedom of expression (outised of indecency of course). It's your choice to do whatever you want in your own home, but at work...in public...in other peoples lives...that isn't your choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Really? They say it's about "human rights". It's about both...it's about fightin intollerance that infringes on peoples rights. They simply go too far, that's the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 You must be an expert code-breaker Not unless you count the English language to be a difficult to break code; I don't think it's terribly hard to see that this: "Does that mean that women expect to be disrespected unless someone tells men that they need to be respected?" means his feeling was men were assumed to be violent brutes unless otherwise tamed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 And that's not his choice. Well, I rather think it is. Whatever it is he doesn't like, why should he be forced to remain around it or have it intrude into his space? Smallc, I know you wouldn't deny someone their right to privacy or freedom of movement... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 There is this tall man who wanders the street - he demand "respect" - he believes to garner respect from someone you must instill fear. This is typical trashy old school poor school thinking. Fear is fear - it has nothing to do with respect - respect is the mutual transfer of power back and forth...It is the ability to preserve life - to encourage - For instance the old term LORD - most people assume it means to abuse - to "lord over" - to dominate -----go back 400 years and see the origin of the word --It meant "keeper of the bread" - or one who manages the food supply and makes sure ALL are fed and ALL surive..that is respect...a good Lord is loved not feared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Well, I rather think it is. Whatever it is he doesn't like, why should he be forced to remain around it or have it intrude into his space? Smallc, I know you wouldn't deny someone their right to privacy or freedom of movement... You're right, he can leave....but he can't dictate what others can do around him when they aren't on his private property. That's what I take objection to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I think maybe this is a misunderstanding. I was quite angry over the idea of his not tolerating it around him.....He can think and feel what he wants....but in public...at work...he has to tolerate it because it's legal and it's allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I think maybe this is a misunderstanding. I was quite angry over the idea of his not tolerating it around him.....He can think and feel what he wants....but in public...at work...he has to tolerate it because it's legal and it's allowed. The sign of a professional is to do what has to be done even if you don't "feel" like it. Tolerating things is part of the job discription..saw a very angry male nurse the other day who looked like he was on his way to beat up an old person....that's not professional --- sure - one of my sons said - "Dad those people are so stupid - I would like to wack them in the head" _ I said to the boy (this was a while ago) - If you decide to go around hitting all the stupid people - your arm will fall off the first day - tolerance means to NOT - react - and NOT be moved - so you can focus with good judgement and not emotion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) You're right, he can leave....but he can't dictate what others can do around him when they aren't on his private property. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't know that ArmyGuy was inferring any such thing. And even still, there's a difference between wanting something and taking it; I'm not sure what level of "gayness" ArmyGuy can handle, but if someone that irked him was in his presence, he can tolerate it without liking it. [copyedited] Edited June 17, 2009 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I suppose you are right...I just don't think it's necessarily his choice what people do around him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Perhaps I missed it, but I don't know that ArmyGuy was inferring any such thing. And even still, there's a difference between wanting something and taking it; I'm not sure what level of "gayness" ArmyGuy can handle, but if someone that irked him was in his presence, he can tolerate it without liking it.[copyedited] Like my local token gay guy on my street - I like him - he is kind - but if he starts to get overly interested in my young handsome son - well - he doesn't because that would be disrespecting me - but if I was not around to keep an eye on things and there were no repercussions for bad behavour - he might just drug the kid and ruin him --- you tolerate and you manage as civily as possible - but you do not trust 100% - people are what they are and all the liberal wishful thinking and over toleranance does not wipe out deviant and distructive or offensive behaviour....as for Armyguys....tolerance...of gayness --- put it this way - we were filming a military movie years ago - there were real soldiers on set ....they hated the gay make up person - they attempted to persecute him ------so a few smart soldiers stood up and said ---"he may be a phag - but he is OUR phag ...You must protect the weak - even if you do not approve of them or like them - that's civil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 I suppose you are right...I just don't think it's necessarily his choice what people do around him. In your little left wing world you think I'm trying to tell people what to do? No. that's the CHRC and Obama's job. What I'm saying is I should have the right to my opinions and to express them. People get offended too easily. Since when did this left wing dogma come along that everyone has to accept everything and pretend it's normal. Here is the crux of my "de-sensitivity training" argument: If 10% of people are left handed, and 3% are gay, why is it that if I say to some guy who is left handed "you are not normal - you're a south paw" he'll chuckle, but if I say that to a gay person, they have a fit and call the CHRC. The point is: everyone should take some de-sensitivity training, stop being so "offended" and calm the f*ck down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 You can call me insensitive - but no matter how normal poop eating is to the majority - I have the right to say that it tastes bad and I am not going to eat it - that it's not normal - nor condusive to my health...but NOOOOO....I am told and the children are taught - eat shit - it's honey....nope - it's ck ckkaa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) In your little left wing world you think I'm trying to tell people what to do? I wasn't aware that my comments were addressed to you. The point is: everyone should take some de-sensitivity training, stop being so "offended" and calm the f*ck down. Maybe you should calm down and engage in a little self censorship. Edited June 18, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 If 10% of people are left handed, and 3% are gay, why is it that if I say to some guy who is left handed "you are not normal - you're a south paw" he'll chuckle, but if I say that to a gay person, they have a fit and call the CHRC. How many people have you met who believe what hand they write with is a fundamental part of their identity? You are comparing apples and Appalacians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 If Jerry refuses to date or hire a gay, that's his choice. Obviously, Jerry can date whomever he pleases, but if he chooses not to hire someone because they are gay, or African, or Chinese, or Dutch, or female (barring circumstances where one is a relevant qualification), then that is a problem for the state. You can say all you want that the Human Rights Commission is the wrong response, but the fact remains that a response is required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted June 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 (edited) How many people have you met who believe what hand they write with is a fundamental part of their identity? You are comparing apples and Appalacians. Maybe I am, but so what? Since when it is a right in this country not to have your feelings hurt? What is this, elementary school? "Mr. Layton, Mike called me a weiner lovin' goober head...waaaaaaaa!" Let's say a buddy of mine confesses over beers that he likes sucking on women's toes (ok bring on the taunting comments). I'll probably laugh and say "you're wierd, man". So what. Edited June 18, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.