First gay protest at Speakers' Corner?You going?
- Thread starter myloplex
- Start date
- Status
Didn't know that this thread would grow so fast ....
Anyway ... alot of my female friends and even my wife says Gays generally are more handsome .... I cannot disagree ... :bsmilie:
May have many 'Guest' Appearances there ... like
:bsmilie:
Disclaimer: He may or may not be Gay ...
Lets just go and shoot beautiful people!
Anyway ... alot of my female friends and even my wife says Gays generally are more handsome .... I cannot disagree ... :bsmilie:
May have many 'Guest' Appearances there ... like
:bsmilie:
Disclaimer: He may or may not be Gay ...
Lets just go and shoot beautiful people!
Last edited:
Can I also applaud those whose stand against gay behaviour?
I think I agree that this type of discussion will never end as the pro gay camp are not open minded to accept the views of the anti-gay behaviour camp and vice versa.
I think I agree that this type of discussion will never end as the pro gay camp are not open minded to accept the views of the anti-gay behaviour camp and vice versa.
Yes you have the right to applaud yourself for being homophobic. However i'm curious about something....define "gay behaviour" :think:
Ok i apologise if i misinterpreted that you are homophobic when you are in fact anti gay behaviour.
However kindly define "behaviour". It sounds lewd and creepy. :think:
You are not making any sense. So surfing internet is unnatural but acceptable? By your own logic, even if animals don't display homosexuality, it's ok for humans to have it? Hence what's "unnatural" about homosexuality?
Ok i apologise if i misinterpreted that you are homophobic when you are in fact anti gay behaviour.
You know a very interesting study was done on homophobia. See here.
It seems that homophobes are in fact deeply closeted gays :bsmilie:
Ted Haggart anyone?
not really -
just that the anti-gay camp has not much to offer other than irrational fear, old doctrines.. in short, nothing really substantial.
show us something different, and we'll reconsider. you stand against homosexuality - why so? what are the reasons? are they valid enough for you to express them other than stating 'personal choice'?
sometimes, personal choice is just an excuse for not thinking the conundrum through. the same applies to pictures, and the same applies here; there's always a reason for liking a picture, just as there are always reasons why people express anti-homosexuality sentiments.
strawman argument; by which definition is to set up an illusionary equivalent of an opponent's argument that is easier to defeat, and claim that by means of the equivalent being defeatable the original argument is defeated; even when the original points have not been addressed. often seen on internet.
anyways, the original argument presented was that -
1) animal species exhibit homosexual behaviour at times, thereby homosexuality is not exactly a freak of nature, since animals ARE nature, and they operate on instinct
2) by the previous statement, humans can exhibit homosexual behaviour and still be normal
drawing a silly parallel to the internet; i doubt that an ape, could it speak, would demand to surf the internet. play with the bright cute lighted panel thing that humans look at all day.. perhaps. but surf the internet?
let me help you out here; a better example which has greater similarities might be the fact that animals give in to their primal desires and perform sexual acts at their very whim and fancy. humans -could- embrace that, but because of social contracts, it cannot be fulfilled. too bad.
on the other hand, how does exhibiting affection for a member of the same sex, and thinking of that very same person sexually; so long as not overdone in public.. how does that violate any social contract?
Last edited:
Want to know what I think is unacceptable? I find your inability to accept gays unacceptable.
People who are against gays/homosexuals should have to prove that they are a direct threat to their personal well being which, of course, they can't.
Yes, teach our kids and the future generation that it's ok to discriminate. What an awesome society we live in.
The social psychology of perceived prejudice and discrimination...
Why do people have prejudice?
Why do people have certain discrimination against certain event?
Why do people want to make a protest?
In one simple word. Can anyone just give one simple word without going off the
forum guideline?
Mine is "Belief system". It is something that money cannot buy.
"Prejudice usually refers to negative attitudes toward disfavoured groups and their members while discrimination is unfair behaviour or unequal treatment accorded others on the basis of their group membership or possession of some arbitrary trait.
"Research shows that perceived prejudice and discrimination are highly relevant for understanding the psychology of racial and ethnic minorities as well as other groups unfairly discriminated against on other arbitrary bases."
Why do people have prejudice?
Why do people have certain discrimination against certain event?
Why do people want to make a protest?
In one simple word. Can anyone just give one simple word without going off the
forum guideline?
Mine is "Belief system". It is something that money cannot buy.
"Prejudice usually refers to negative attitudes toward disfavoured groups and their members while discrimination is unfair behaviour or unequal treatment accorded others on the basis of their group membership or possession of some arbitrary trait.
"Research shows that perceived prejudice and discrimination are highly relevant for understanding the psychology of racial and ethnic minorities as well as other groups unfairly discriminated against on other arbitrary bases."
Thank you for your feedback and I admit it I cannot find myself to accept their lifestyle, maybe we are from different generations, anyway someone had already posted the link to what our society thinks is acceptable and 80% or majority finds it unacceptable.
Let me try to understand what was posted since I last visited this thread:
1) Be pro human - I think that sounds good on the surface, why not we allow phidophiles, they are also human and why can't we be more acceptable to their lifestyle.. someone argued that Gays at most could be some kind of disorder so maybe phidophiles are also some disorder and so why can't we learn to accept. - Sorry I still cannot accept.
2) It is found in nature that homosexuality is a natural instinct, what the ? anyway, so if it is found to some species that incest is natural we humans should accept it to?
Anyway, there is no point disagreeing, I accept that there are 2 camps and from the stats the silent majority finds it unacceptable.
../azul123
1) paedophiles ARE a disorder, take a look at the background of paedophiles, and you'll see that it isn't quite as simple as some adult who got hooked on child porn and decided that he was going to grab a child. most paedophiles have an unhappy childhood, paired with abuse and inability to please their parents. there is often a reason why they turn out the way they turn out. for more information, take your time to read up on father michael ingram's interviews with paedophiles.
i won't go as far to say that society should forgive trepasses by paedophiles just because of this. there are people with unhappy childhoods who didn't break; but take a moment to reconsider the hard line given to paedophiles. it is often my view that the justice system (and society) overreacts to paedophilic behaviour. there are always two sides to the coin, almost always a sad story. so yes, judge if you want, but don't shove yourself into the moral high ground - who's to say that if you had gone through their experiences, you won't be there either? will you ever know?
frankly speaking, to be honest, to me, there is no difference between a rape of a child or a rape of an adult; the same amount of damage is done, in different ways - and both are equally despicable to me. but there are paedophiles and there are paedophiles, just like there are homosexuals and there are homosexuals; there is a line that should not be crossed - i've stated this as the general idea of having a negative effect on people's lives. and the real point i'm trying to make here is - put yourself into someone else's shoes, try to walk around in those.
in any case, psychology, and examination of causes and origins of human behaviour is an extremely iffy subject; i doubt anyone today can profess to comprehend these completely, ever. the point i'm trying to make here, is not for you to suddenly change into a person who can accept behaviour, change takes time - but open up your mind:
if a homosexual does things in public, like kissing, holding hands, and he does not cross your path. he doesn't do silly things like what people always joke about, e.g. grab you on the arse because he thinks you're cute; how can you argue that he should not be allowed to do so, without making overdone assumptions, all the "what ifs"?
if you say that exhibition of public homosexual behaviour will mislead our children, then you might as well argue that the same children should be kept at home. our children see things everything, be it socially unacceptable behaviour, exposure to violence, vices.. my question is, are you willing to do the right thing, and teach them the right things - can you shelter them all their life?
2) humans have exhibited incest a long time before, once again, the romans (along with other peoples); animals also exhibit incestous behaviour at times. the ironic part is that due to genetics, incest inherently has detrimental effects to the genetic pool that results.. which probably leads us to today's rules that it is a bad thing.
many laws set in place today, i would think, have a lot to do with weighing overall benefits versus cons, rather than really touching on moral issues.
in any case, i would like to point out again that you are engaging in a strawman argument; if you must come up with points, at least address the issue head-on, give reasons related to the primary subject.
on another note, i do not seek to change your mindset; merely to offer an alternative voice. this is after all, a subject that can lead nowhere. though to be honest, i think the day will come sooner or later, so we might as well accept it now.
Last edited:
Thanks for at least agree to disagree.on another note, i do not seek to change your mindset; merely to offer an alternative voice. this is after all, a subject that can lead nowhere. though to be honest, i think the day will come sooner or later, so we might as well accept it now.
I don't think this can be accepted soon. Alot of mindset have to be changed, 80% against you know? the law would not be repealled that easily, not with strong opposition from various religious groupings.
I think I'll end it here... not headway in either directions.
../azul123
If 80% of Germans want to send all Jews to the concentration camps, I guess its ok since it is the majority's wish?
A real democracy takes heed not only the will of the majority, but it also safeguards the basic human rights of everyone, including the minorities, so that they are not trampled on in the democratic process. That is why there is a Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Of course a lot of mindset has to be changed, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. Slavery did not end in a day you know, especially with choice quotations from some holy book.
A real democracy takes heed not only the will of the majority, but it also safeguards the basic human rights of everyone, including the minorities, so that they are not trampled on in the democratic process. That is why there is a Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Of course a lot of mindset has to be changed, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. Slavery did not end in a day you know, especially with choice quotations from some holy book.
Sometimes the majority does not necessary mean that it is right. Sometimes people join in just because they are afraid of not being in line or not conforming.
Examples:
Germany sending Jews, Russians, Ukranians, Homosexuals, Gypsies, Disabled to their deaths during World War 2. Many of those living near the concentration camps chose to turn a blind eye so that they will belong to the majority and not the minority which will get them executed by the Nazi party.
Japan going to war and committing atrocities against the Chinese and Koreans and even though there were Japanese that opposed the war, they were summarily executed as enemies of the State and the "minority"
A large group of Christians during WW2 that felt that the Jews deserved to die for their "sins" in putting Christ to death. (Even though it is written in the scripture, Christ said "forgive them for they know not what they do"
In more recent years. American going to war against Iraq or should I say invade Iraq. Again as an American you better be the majority and support the war. If not u might be labeled unpatriotic or worse if you are a Muslim, you might be marked as a potential terrorist. Remember Bush's infamous line? You are either for us or against us.
The movie Jesus Camp in which hardline Christians in the USA were training kids to grow up and "fight and die" for Jesus. The camp leader said this "there is only 2 types of people, those that love and those that don't" Guess what happens to those who don't love Jesus?
Hardline Muslims who believe that it is right to bomb and kill in the name of Allah. An example would be the Taliban who ruled Afghanistan, when they were ruling, they did a lot of things too that was supposedly supported by the majority. Things like beheading and stoning people that didn't agree with them.
The Vietnam war, during the infamous My Lai massacre where an company of American troops moved in and massacred an entire village of Vietnamese suspecting them to be communist.
So after all the above examples, is it still safe to say majority is always right?
I for all am very glad, there was a MINORITY that stood up against the "80" percent or whatever that percent that constitute the majority. The American helicopter pilot that landed his copter and told his gunner to shoot any American that wanted to cross the line and shoot the Vietnamese civilians, the many unnamed and unsung people who hid "enemies" of the Nazi state in their homes and in many cases were executed themselves.
So would you say these Minorities or the Majorities were the right ones?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
