The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Imari]

I'm not sure racist is the right term, what with Muslims not being a race and all.

It clearly is a tactic designed to annoy Muslims though. This doesn't strike me as the way to convince Muslims that their beliefs are wrong, it strikes me as a way for the gay organisers to stick two fingers up to the Muslim community.

I hope it makes them feel better, because nothing else positive is going to come from this.

 

[Encyclopedia]

It's a racist act to hold a legal parade on city streets, presumably with a permit, and do legal things while in the parade...in a democratic country? If you tried to organize a pride parade through a city or neighbourhood known for having a large number of devout Christians would it still be racist? Which race is affected by this racism? Should we poll all the inhabitants of a given parade route to determine if they are for or against the parade?

Not in itself no. But the agenda behind this particular stunt clearly is. Xenophobic is perhaps a beter word to use though.

SD is not a party known to be pro homosexuality. I believe their one of the least accepting parties, if not the least.

 

[niky]

So bigots trolling bigots under the banner of gay pride?

Not all that surprising, really.

 

[novcze]

A gay pride march might well be expected to be happy and benign but, upon looking at the facts of this proposed march, it seems to be targetted in areas that would specifically dislike it. That's a definite agenda, in my opinion.

Of course it is. Agenda of exposing intolerance. Why is that gays can march wherever they like but not in muslim ghetto.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Of course it is. Agenda of exposing intolerance. Why is that gays can march wherever they like but not in muslim ghetto.

No, their agenda is simply anti muslim (read non european immigrants/brown skinned people). They don't care about tolerance towards homosexual people. If they did they wouldn't be so anti gay themselves.

 

[novcze]

No, their agenda is simply anti muslim (read non european immigrants/brown skinned people). They don't care about tolerance towards homosexual people. If they did they wouldn't be so anti gay themselves.

Sure, they see muslims as bigger evil than gays, even though it can be win-win situation for them because if they march gays through muslim ghetto is likely some gays will be hurt and muslims (read sacred cow in Sweden) will show that they don't have much tolerance

 

[Imari]

Of course it is. Agenda of exposing intolerance. Why is that gays can march wherever they like but not in muslim ghetto.

They can march wherever they like.

It might not be smart to do so in a muslim ghetto, just as it might not be smart to have a white pride parade in a black ghetto. It's the equivalent of going out at night looking to get in a fight.

Generally, we call those people :censored:holes.

There's a difference between tolerance and having something slammed on your doorstep. People who live in cities put up with increased noise from traffic, but nobody wants the freeway to go right through their back yard. It'd be lovely if religious people could just treat gays like everyone else, but that's not likely to happen for at least another couple of generations.

Until then, perhaps it would be smarter just agree to not attempt to piss each other off and get on with their lives like rational people.

 

[Johnnypenso]

They can march wherever they like.

It might not be smart to do so in a muslim ghetto, just as it might not be smart to have a white pride parade in a black ghetto. It's the equivalent of going out at night looking to get in a fight.

Generally, we call those people :censored:holes.

There's a difference between tolerance and having something slammed on your doorstep. People who live in cities put up with increased noise from traffic, but nobody wants the freeway to go right through their back yard. It'd be lovely if religious people could just treat gays like everyone else, but that's not likely to happen for at least another couple of generations.

Until then, perhaps it would be smarter just agree to not attempt to piss each other off and get on with their lives like rational people.

Sounds like a slippery slope to me. If you're going to pander to Muslim senstivities then you should pander to all sensitivities, rational or not. If you're going to cater to all sensitivities, then it shouldn't rest on just a majority of people objecting to something, we should also pander to a minority who objects to something. If we cater to a minority of people objecting to something then goodbye Gay Pride Parade.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Sounds like a slippery slope to me. If you're going to pander to Muslim senstivities then you should pander to all sensitivities, rational or not. If you're going to cater to all sensitivities, then it shouldn't rest on just a majority of people objecting to something, we should also pander to a minority who objects to something. If we cater to a minority of people objecting to something then goodbye Gay Pride Parade.

This isn't about pandering though. It's simply about spoting a "hidden" agenda.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In a slight subject change; Britain's legality of gay marriage hasn't caught up in other laws.

Adultery is only adultery between a man and a woman. Ridiculous.

 

[Johnnypenso]

In a slight subject change; Britain's legality of gay marriage hasn't caught up in other laws.

Adultery is only adultery between a man and a woman. Ridiculous.

You mean it's ridiculous that in 2015 they don't have no fault divorce laws in Britain? I agree. 👍

 

[LeMansAid]

You mean it's ridiculous that in 2015 they don't have no fault divorce laws in Britain? I agree. 👍

Huh, I actually didn't realise that was a thing there.

Then I read that it MUST involve vaginal intercourse. Seems that with either male or female there's a loophole. A back door workaround if you will.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You mean it's ridiculous that in 2015 they don't have no fault divorce laws in Britain? I agree. 👍

No... otherwise I'd have said that

It's complicated in different countries, Britain isn't a country for the purposes of divorce laws, the countries have different rules. It seems that Scotland has the most "modern" re-writes for sure.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Huh, I actually didn't realise that was a thing there.

Then I read that it MUST involve vaginal intercourse. Seems that with either male or female there's a loophole. A back door workaround if you will.

Apparently the back door workaround isn't a cause for divorce either

 

[Imari]

Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

Meh. If you consider not being an :censored:hole to one group a slippery slope to not being an :censored:hole to anyone, I suppose so.

Most people would have considered that the whole point. It's basically the Golden Rule.

If we cater to a minority of people objecting to something then goodbye Gay Pride Parade.

No, it just means perhaps choosing where you have it in a way that isn't obviously trying to stir up hatred.

If I wanna run a three day rock concert, I probably don't want to put it beside the old folks home. Or a church. Or a preschool. It doesn't mean that these people are intolerant of rock concerts, some of them probably like rock. But on the whole it's not their thing and I should consider how much I want to impose on them.

Maybe it ends up that for a number of factors the best place to hold it is beside a church on the weekend. Maybe that's fine. As long as the decision was made on what best for people, and not because I want to stick it to the churchies on my one opportunity to blast them with metal in their place of worship. That's not cool.

Being tolerant of something is not the same as liking something. Muslims (and other religious types) can tolerate gays just fine without necessarily liking what they do. Gays should be treated equally, but at the same time you can't remove other people's rights to their own opinions. If a group of people feel that homosexuality is wrong, forcing a parade through their suburb is unlikely to convince them otherwise. It'll just reinforce the idea that homosexuals are a bunch of pricks, and rightly so.

I will not support a movement that attempts to change other people's minds by promoting antagonism between them. That never works.

 

[Joel]

 

[Johnnypenso]

Meh. If you consider not being an :censored:hole to one group a slippery slope to not being an :censored:hole to anyone, I suppose so.

Most people would have considered that the whole point. It's basically the Golden Rule.



No, it just means perhaps choosing where you have it in a way that isn't obviously trying to stir up hatred.

If I wanna run a three day rock concert, I probably don't want to put it beside the old folks home. Or a church. Or a preschool. It doesn't mean that these people are intolerant of rock concerts, some of them probably like rock. But on the whole it's not their thing and I should consider how much I want to impose on them.

Maybe it ends up that for a number of factors the best place to hold it is beside a church on the weekend. Maybe that's fine. As long as the decision was made on what best for people, and not because I want to stick it to the churchies on my one opportunity to blast them with metal in their place of worship. That's not cool.

Being tolerant of something is not the same as liking something. Muslims (and other religious types) can tolerate gays just fine without necessarily liking what they do. Gays should be treated equally, but at the same time you can't remove other people's rights to their own opinions. If a group of people feel that homosexuality is wrong, forcing a parade through their suburb is unlikely to convince them otherwise. It'll just reinforce the idea that homosexuals are a bunch of pricks, and rightly so.

I will not support a movement that attempts to change other people's minds by promoting antagonism between them. That never works.

So again I would ask, where do you draw the line? In the U.S. for example, 40% of the population does not support gay marriage. That means in an average neighbourhood, you're going to piss off at least 4/10 people with your Gay Pride parade. I'd guess that at least a small part of the other 60% would not really want their small children seeing some of the things that go on a Pride Parades so the number of people that don't want the parade in their neighbourhood could easily average 50% or more. Should you choose to march by churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship?

 

[Daniel]

So again I would ask, where do you draw the line? In the U.S. for example, 40% of the population does not support gay marriage. That means in an average neighbourhood, you're going to piss off at least 4/10 people with your Gay Pride parade. I'd guess that at least a small part of the other 60% would not really want their small children seeing some of the things that go on a Pride Parades so the number of people that don't want the parade in their neighbourhood could easily average 50% or more. Should you choose to march by churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship?

That statistic doesn't really tell much. The survey could have been done in a more conservative area, there would have been areas with a higher "acceptance" rate than other areas (e.g. Mississippi might have 6/10 houses on a street against gay marriage while California may have 2 houses against gay marriage). And a pride parade will most likely be held in more accepting areas of a city.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That statistic doesn't really tell much. The survey could have been done in a more conservative area, there would have been areas with a higher "acceptance" rate than other areas (e.g. Mississippi might have 6/10 houses on a street against gay marriage while California may have 2 houses against gay marriage). And a pride parade will most likely be held in more accepting areas of a city.

Doesn't change the question of where do you draw the line. We are assuming a certain percentage of Muslims in a neighbourhood that is predominantly Muslim is a reason for not holding this parade in this neighbourhood because they might be unhappy about it. So what's the percentage where that kicks in? Is this only for Muslims or do Christian and Jewish and other religious faiths also count? What if it's only 20%, shouldn't we respect the minority opinion as well?

 

[TenEightyOne]

We are assuming a certain percentage of Muslims in a neighbourhood that is predominantly Muslim is a reason for not holding this parade in this neighbourhood because they might be unhappy about it. So what's the percentage where that kicks in?

You might be, I'm not. The group holding the march are known for antagonism of a nationalist and racist nature. Their sudden interest in gay rights seems, to me, to be a very thin cover for their true motives. After all, who could possibly see any harm in a rights march? Apart from people with brains, obviously.

 

[Imari]

So again I would ask, where do you draw the line? In the U.S. for example, 40% of the population does not support gay marriage. That means in an average neighbourhood, you're going to piss off at least 4/10 people with your Gay Pride parade. I'd guess that at least a small part of the other 60% would not really want their small children seeing some of the things that go on a Pride Parades so the number of people that don't want the parade in their neighbourhood could easily average 50% or more. Should you choose to march by churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship?

You're misunderstanding.

The line isn't drawn depending on the composition of the neighbourhood. I draw it based on the intentions of the event organisers.

If the organisers legitimately think that gay pride is best served by marching through a predominantly Muslim neighbourhood, and can explain why that would be preferable to the other options available then that's fine.

If the organisers are doing it because they want to stick it to the Muslims, and they're willing to potentially put the marchers in harm's way to do so, then I think that's :censored:ed up.

As you say, you'll never please anyone and that shouldn't be the goal. Every year we have a significant amount of people complaining that Melbourne hosts the F1. The Melbourne council continues to do it presumably because it's weighed up the effects and judges it to be an overall positive contribution to Melbourne tourism and business, even though it's quite disruptive in the area of town in which it is held. They don't do it because 🤬 anyone who doesn't like motorsport.

In this particular case, it's hard to see why a gay pride march would be best served by marching through a highly Muslim suburb. The residents are unlikely to support it, either because of their own opinions or through peer pressure. The marchers are in real danger of being injured, as the article explains referring to previous marchers in less Muslim areas having stones thrown at them. There's real danger of actual violence breaking out between the marchers and the residents if tensions get high enough. With the limited information available, it seems like an unwise choice.

If they organisers can justify all this as necessary for what they want to achieve, then fine. But it sure looks like what they want to achieve is sticking two fingers up to the towelheads, because 🤬 those guys.

 

[Famine]

You guys should look up the annual Orange Order marches.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You guys should look up the annual Orange Order marches.

I linked them a few posts ago, I think

 

[Dennisch]

In Entebbe, Uganda there was a Gay pride for the first time ever. It all went without problems.

So, maybe, just maybe all that anti gay news coming from Uganda might be coming to an end.

 

[Dan]

In Entebbe, Uganda there was a Gay pride for the first time ever. It all went without problems.

So, maybe, just maybe all that anti gay news coming from Uganda might be coming to an end.

I highly doubt that from the outcome of just one parade. However, I'm glad nothing went wrong.

 

[Swift]

Getting back to the in my face stuff. Maybe I'm not as tolerant as I think. I don't tolerate hate on any level. That includes the black lives matter crowd, westburo Baptist church, black panther party or any that would force another to do something specifically against their religion.

Oh, and the white house being lit with the rainbow flag was ridiculous. Talk about supporting one group of Americans over an othe .

 

[Daniel]

Getting back to the in my face stuff. Maybe I'm not as tolerant as I think. I don't tolerate hate on any level. That includes the black lives matter crowd, westburo Baptist church, black panther party or any that would force another to do something specifically against their religion.

Oh, and the white house being lit with the rainbow flag was ridiculous. Talk about supporting one group of Americans over an othe .

Celebrating an achievement of a group that has been marginalised for decades? How ridiculous.

 

[Swift]

Celebrating an achievement of a group that has been marginalised for decades? How ridiculous.

It shows that they are for a judicial oligarchy. I'm fine with gay marriage. But it should be done the right way. Through laws passed by state or federal legislators.

Maybe I am a bigot. But at least I don't want to stop anyone from doing what makes them happy. Seems like the lgbt community doesn't seem to feel the same way.

 

[Dan]

But at least I don't want to stop anyone from doing what makes them happy. Seems like the lgbt community doesn't seem to feel the same way.

Where did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Swift]

Where did you come to that conclusion?

Are they against any of the lawsuits involving the bakers or florists? I haven't seen an . I have seen individual gay men, I even mentioned on one Facebook. But not the lgb . If they have, I'll take back my previous statement