Gay Olympics....Wtf!!
- Thread starter SonOfVoorhees
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Would you want to hang out with all the jocks at school who talk about nothing except football? Wouldn't you want to hangout with people with your own interests?. I imagine this is why they want their own Olympics.
free will/sentience is also unnatural, doesnt make humans horrible monsters.101flyboy said:
...well....not for that reason at least.
honor is unnatural.
just because something is unnatural, doesnt make it BAD (conversely just because something is natural doesnt make it good). In fact, considering the rampant increase in the human population and the rapidly diminishing resources homosexuality is more beneficial for the human race at this point than heterosexuality. Also, thanks for turning this into gay vs straight, totally helps both sides get along with each other and doesnt promote bigotry in the slightest....
dont worry, happens nearly everytime it involves groups of people. Seems to be a common flaw in people in general. The only way for people to accept other groups is for people to STOP thinking about themselves or others as a group, and to stop focusing on groups. the "gay olympics" is counter productive for acceptance, just like if there was a straight olympics.
I.....Wow.....TomLikesGuitar said:
I can not agree with this more, Very well put.
This is something that deserves repeating.
First of all: This event is not barring anyone from entry. It is just geared towards a more open acceptance of alternate sexualities. Anyone can join.Ryotknife said:
Second: You said that people should stop thinking about themselves as different and just come together as one. This argument is simply not very realistic. It seems almost natural to have the desire to be around people of the same belief/sexuality/race/class ect. Humans can hardly be seen as one harmonious group of like minded individuals. People will always segregate themselves in groups of similar beings. It is somewhat tragic, but it's also the truth. Maybe the best thing we can hope for right now is acceptance and tolerance. And even that seems somewhat far fetched.
It most certainly is not. He is calling people entitled because they think homosexuality is a big deal. Well hey, guess what: it is kind of a big deal to some people. Just because you are indifferent doesn't mean that everyone is. Mentality like this either stems from complete inexperience with the aforementioned issue or a tragic lack of empathy.Carlos Storm said:
No, what he is saying is there already exists a place of acceptance for everyone(The Olympics), and that by further segregating yourself(The Gay Olympics) you're potentially undermining the progress that pro-gay activists have been fighting for decades to achieve.Vareoth said:
"Being gay is a big deal to some people"
The same way being black is a big deal to others? your race or sexuality has 0 impact on who you are as a person. Just because there are some out there who will think less of you because of it, doesn't mean you should give in and allow their narrow-minded view to mold yours.
Maybe it's so that gay athletes who aren't quite good enough to compete in the proper Olympics get some exposure.
If that's the right word to...
...forget I said anything.
(Seriously though, I think it's stupid. There is nothing prevents gay athletes from participating in the Olympics or Paralympics where applicable, and if anything, it's discrimination to say 'this person can have a gold medal where someone else would not even have placed, because they happen to be homosexual'. Most Olympians who come fourth aren't gay, and neither are the first 3).
If that's the right word to...
...forget I said anything.
(Seriously though, I think it's stupid. There is nothing prevents gay athletes from participating in the Olympics or Paralympics where applicable, and if anything, it's discrimination to say 'this person can have a gold medal where someone else would not even have placed, because they happen to be homosexual'. Most Olympians who come fourth aren't gay, and neither are the first 3).
Sometimes simply ignoring bigots is not an option. Especially when those people are in any position of power. You are molded and shaped partially because the way society treats you. Being gay can most certainly have an effect on a person if he or she is discriminated as a result thereof.Carlos Storm said:
Anyway, the event in question is accepting all people regardless of their orientation, so it's not really closing off the gay community to the outside world. It's more about creating a more open and friendly environment.
See, what's with all the people saying "anyone can be in the Olympics"? Because to get into the Olympics, I'm fairly sure you have to be get onto your country's team first. So while the Olympics may be perfectly accepting of all, many of the countries involved aren't and potentially the host country isn't either.
Oh, and they're the Gay Games, not the Gay Olympics, for everyone who keeps repeating that. You know, Games, as in the Commonwealth Games. No one's trying to replace the Olympics. It's not like it's this or the Olympics, and those are your only options.
Oh, and they're the Gay Games, not the Gay Olympics, for everyone who keeps repeating that. You know, Games, as in the Commonwealth Games. No one's trying to replace the Olympics. It's not like it's this or the Olympics, and those are your only options.
When will I learn to do my research. In that case I think it's stupid to attach an arbitrary social problem to the Olympics and leave my case at that.Vareoth said:
There are some people simply being idiots here but there are many who seem to be trying to understand other's points of view but just can't. Perhaps this will help:
Some people are asking "we're accepting of LGBT people now so why can't they get over it now and intergrate into culture instead of segregating themselves?".
Explaining this without resorting to buzzwords (which are meaningless unless you already understand their meaning and thus pointless when trying to explain something like this) like 'white male privilege', 'hetronormative culture' and 'intersectionality' is probably best done with an analogy that most people will probably understand.
When women started being accepted into the workplace, breaking down that barrier was only the first step. It was not simply being excluded that was the problem; once a woman was allowed into the office she was expected to conform to the existing office-culture. Now that sounds reasonable until you realise that the existing culture was not simply male-dominated but 'male-normative' (ie, it assumes that everyone was male) and that this meant that the women joining the workplace were expected to pretend to be male. Not by changing how they looked or anything, but simply by integrating into that culture. That in itself doesn't sound too bad: after all, they were being accepted into the office and weren't being discriminated against right? Anyone who didn't go along with it was seen as a trouble-maker feminist, waving their feminine identity flag in everyone else's faces. But when that culture included things like rating women's tits, bragging about sexual conquests while also 'slut-shaming', entertaining clients at strip-clubs, etc that was discriminatory and demeaning. This is a problem still being dealt with today, and not just in the third world. This stuff is still typical at legal, marketing, PR, and financial firms in places like New York, London and Washington, all supposedly progressive, liberal professions in progressive, liberal cities. You can't solve sexism by simply saying: we'll treat everyone the same with the same rules - so long as they integrate into the existing male culture. You have to change the dominant culture.
This is why a couple of LGBTQ activists are getting angry on here (and perhaps not phrasing their argument in the best way possible). In the UK and the more progressive areas of the USA things are at the stage of "we'll accept LGBTQ people on their own merits and treat them the same as everyone else - so long as they integrate into straight culture". Unfortunately tht leaves gay people in much the same situation as women integrating into sexist workplaces. There is latent homophobia in existing culture. And even where it isn't outright homophobia, there is a presumption that everyone is heterosexual (and thus 'normal') unless they are waving their flag. While the discrimination LGBTQ people face in culture is very different from that experienced by women in the work place, it is no less real. For homophobia to be a thing of the past we can't simply have LGBTQ people join straight communities on the proviso that they will accept hetero-normative culture and not try to bring their own culture with them, we need to bring both straight and LGBT culture together so that the dominant culture can evolve and change. That is what the activists are fighting for, ad I agre that it is worth fighting for, even if I often disagree with the manner in which they do it (being angry and rude on here does not make progress).
Other people have made all the points about this being founded decades ago, homophobia in sport, it being open to all, it being the 'gay games' rather than olympics etc and there's no point me reiterting them if those criticising just ignored all those posts already so i'll leave it at that.
Some people are asking "we're accepting of LGBT people now so why can't they get over it now and intergrate into culture instead of segregating themselves?".
Explaining this without resorting to buzzwords (which are meaningless unless you already understand their meaning and thus pointless when trying to explain something like this) like 'white male privilege', 'hetronormative culture' and 'intersectionality' is probably best done with an analogy that most people will probably understand.
When women started being accepted into the workplace, breaking down that barrier was only the first step. It was not simply being excluded that was the problem; once a woman was allowed into the office she was expected to conform to the existing office-culture. Now that sounds reasonable until you realise that the existing culture was not simply male-dominated but 'male-normative' (ie, it assumes that everyone was male) and that this meant that the women joining the workplace were expected to pretend to be male. Not by changing how they looked or anything, but simply by integrating into that culture. That in itself doesn't sound too bad: after all, they were being accepted into the office and weren't being discriminated against right? Anyone who didn't go along with it was seen as a trouble-maker feminist, waving their feminine identity flag in everyone else's faces. But when that culture included things like rating women's tits, bragging about sexual conquests while also 'slut-shaming', entertaining clients at strip-clubs, etc that was discriminatory and demeaning. This is a problem still being dealt with today, and not just in the third world. This stuff is still typical at legal, marketing, PR, and financial firms in places like New York, London and Washington, all supposedly progressive, liberal professions in progressive, liberal cities. You can't solve sexism by simply saying: we'll treat everyone the same with the same rules - so long as they integrate into the existing male culture. You have to change the dominant culture.
This is why a couple of LGBTQ activists are getting angry on here (and perhaps not phrasing their argument in the best way possible). In the UK and the more progressive areas of the USA things are at the stage of "we'll accept LGBTQ people on their own merits and treat them the same as everyone else - so long as they integrate into straight culture". Unfortunately tht leaves gay people in much the same situation as women integrating into sexist workplaces. There is latent homophobia in existing culture. And even where it isn't outright homophobia, there is a presumption that everyone is heterosexual (and thus 'normal') unless they are waving their flag. While the discrimination LGBTQ people face in culture is very different from that experienced by women in the work place, it is no less real. For homophobia to be a thing of the past we can't simply have LGBTQ people join straight communities on the proviso that they will accept hetero-normative culture and not try to bring their own culture with them, we need to bring both straight and LGBT culture together so that the dominant culture can evolve and change. That is what the activists are fighting for, ad I agre that it is worth fighting for, even if I often disagree with the manner in which they do it (being angry and rude on here does not make progress).
Other people have made all the points about this being founded decades ago, homophobia in sport, it being open to all, it being the 'gay games' rather than olympics etc and there's no point me reiterting them if those criticising just ignored all those posts already so i'll leave it at that.
Thank you. I do get the impression a majority here are open-minded and tolerant, regardless.Zachary Amaranth said:
An very easy opinion to have. When those that think less of you include your parents, your family? When they include your co-workers, or the athletes you want to train and compete alongside?Carlos Storm said:
You're seriously underestimating the damage that social stigma can do. Gay people have the right to expect the same level of dignity and respect that straight people take for granted every day, not to mention the same feeling of safety and security.
And when some try to attain this by creating a parallel (not competing) event specifically for the open-minded or allied, they're pilloried for it...?
it most certainly does have an impact! do you honestly think gay people would've been exactly the same if they were heterosexual?Carlos Storm said:
Let me put it this way. Anyone who has lived long enough to learn how to use their brain can tell you that what happens to you, changes you. And good thing too, because that's how we learn stuff. If you really think black and gay people (or women, for that matter) are treated the same way straight white men are treated, you are naive to the point of foolishness.
as for the whole gay olympics thing... if they want to have their own party (to which everyone, including YOU, is invited), who the hell are you to say they can't or shouldn't? it doesn't influence you in the slightest, so how are you even involved? yes, you have the right to your opinion. the rest of the world has the right to ignore you.
God, stop bitching already, you people. You're like those assholes who complain that there's no "white history" month. Gays are a community. If they want to have their own parades and sports festivals then it's their goddamn right to have them, just as much as a city can host a sports competition only for local residents.
That's one hell of a first post there buddy. My hat is off to you (if I wore a hat).jimhacker said:
And maybe I should be less aggressive when debating this with people. But that is somewhat difficult when being presented with insulting statements, even if they originate not from malice but ignorance.
Or maybe I'm just a little crybaby. Who knows anymore?
You're missing the point I was originally defending, here:Silvanus said:
To go and undermine the entire point of the Olympics(to bring people from all backgrounds together) for your own selfish desires? yeah, I'd call BS on that.
