But it IS about achievements. Its not really merely about being gay, but about being yourself despite adversity. About getting to where we are now compared to where we were. It would be like criticizing Black History month as merely celebrating being black. Did you know its in Febraury cause its when Lincoln and Frederick Douglas was born? Its about celebrating humanity, since before Lincoln, in the US, black people were not considered human, but property.Dreiko said:
Interesting....kurokotetsu said:
I have no idea; ask them. They represent only themselves. Again, every Pride event I've been to has had a lot of supportive straight people there, and so judging "the cause" based on some guy being a bit defensive or controlling would be ridiculous.RaikuFA said:
In Australia especially, that's my experience. Moreover being LGBTQ aren't the prerequisites for joining, helping out, etc. There's a march for federal police officers recently, as it helps promote community building and acceptance with often straight cops dealing with members of the LGBTQ community in criminal investigations and damage control. Not merely LGBTQ serving officers.Silvanus said:
I disagree. It's "Someone Else is getting attention day".Phasmal said:
More or less what I wanted to say, but in better words.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
and alternatively if homosexuality is feeling THAT threatened by hetrosexuality, then they're gonna need alot more than pride to see their way through... ooooh wait.FalloutJack said:
You do realise that best way to respond to this for homosexuals would be to attend and do 'yay You!' day out of it - we're happy that you are heterosexual. Pushing for confrontation and acting like a bunch of chauvinist over it just makes both groups in eyes of bystanders look equally dumb.Yopaz said:
Well, even without my objection to same-sex adoption, any combination of gender and number of people can potentially raise a child - while only a man and a woman can give birth to a new one. A heterosexual union has a potential that is both superior and unique among all forms of unions, which makes it necessary to society.Phasmal said:
I get your point; but most people that bring this subject - yourself included - usually don't state what would be an acceptable level of population versus technological level, and why it is that. I think we are very well capable of supporting more population right now, which in turn - if handled properly - will lead to a bigger worldwide market and even quicker technological advancement.Saelune said:
Well that just sounds fuckin' squicky to me. You know what, dude, you just do you. I'd bring up that there are trans people and people who identify outside the gender binary who are able to have kids, but I don't see that conversation going down a productive road.Emanuele Ciriachi said:
I'm not saying we have to put some sort of regulation on breeding, but the "maintaining humanity" argument is a weak one. We have the technology to artificially impregnate a woman. So sex is no longer required for that. "Working with others to create them" could be as simple as either a lesbian asking a male friend to donate sperm, or a gay man asking a female friend *who wants to do it" to be a surrogate mother. There are women who may not want to raise children, but still have some desire to mother a child.Emanuele Ciriachi said:
Not by themselves, probably medium intensity, though again it depends on how it is said. Together though, that seems to imply some intensity. They're not just indignant, they're bitterly indignant.shrekfan246 said:
Sure, in face to face conversations, where the visual and audible aspects of the language offer greater insight, such that I can actually see their emotion regardless of what they're saying. Without those things I can't, with any certainty, tell if a person is bottling something up, or just doesn't care that much.shrekfan246 said:
I see it, just not as much as other places.shrekfan246 said:
Well, the first part "annoying" is quite a subjective term that covers a broad spectrum. Are we talking fly buzzing around your head, or dog shitting in your bed level of annoyance?shrekfan246 said:
I would say it's more like getting an inhaler that looks like a lightsaber and plays music. Sure it's primary purpose is to save lives, but it looks like a hell of a lot of fun regardless. Can you really blame the brother for wanting their own?Lightknight said:
Why "straight-acting"? Not trying to start a fight, but do you really think just because a homosexual person is not dancing on rainbows, they are just "acting" and "pretending" to be straight to fit in. Or am I just massively misunderstanding what you meant with "straight-acting" here?Saelune said:
I didn't coin the term. It is just one used to describe gay men who aren't into interior design, fashion, or sound lispy, and prefer sports and beer and burping.Amaror said:
Inter-discrimination does happen. Its really unfortunate though. Not that it only happens in gay communities. Plenty of people of different groups think that either acting too stereotypical, or even not stereotypical enough are major negatives.Amaror said:
That can't be repeated enough. People will fight amongst themselves over any and every stupid thing. There's a few scenes in Life of Brian that have become simultaneously much funnier and much less funny for me as I've gotten older.Saelune said:
Your example isn't really much better. It's still childish. No, maybe you couldn't blame a literal child for being jealous that someone who suffers something also gets something cool. But adults should know better.wulf3n said: