"It's totally okay if the girls are hot!": Hypocrisy and The World

[CrystalShadow]

I don't really see why it should matter if the lesbians are hot. If you're male, they're not going to be interested in you, and I'd imagine the vast majority of lesbians aren't porn stars. No matter how good looking they are, you're not going to get to watch.

Do whatever you want, so long as it's consensual and with responsible adult persons. (Hey, new acronym: CRAP. All your sex should be CRAP.)

Lol. That's the best acronym I've heard in a while. Well, since the episode of Red Dwarf called 'Polymorph', which had: "Committee For the Liberation and
Integration of Terrifying Organisms and Their Rehabilitation Into
Society" (work that one out for yourself. ;p)

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I don't really see why it should matter if the lesbians are hot. If you're male, they're not going to be interested in you, and I'd imagine the vast majority of lesbians aren't porn stars. No matter how good looking they are, you're not going to get to watch.

Do whatever you want, so long as it's consensual and with responsible adult persons. (Hey, new acronym: CRAP. All your sex should be CRAP.)

Lol. That's the best acronym I've heard in a while. Well, since the episode of Red Dwarf called 'Polymorph', which had: "Committee For the Liberation and
Integration of Terrifying Organisms and Their Rehabilitation Into
Society" (work that one out for yourself. ;p)

*flips through yellow pages*

I'm having trouble finding that committee.

 

[JaredXE]

Yeah--basically that is what the OP is saying without mentioning a specific authority like the Bible. I mean, calling them hypocrites is being generous to them: being anti-something just because it's not to your *taste* is even worse than being a hypocrite.

Woah, hold on there. I am anti-pickle, they are not my to my taste and so I don't like them. So I am worse than a hypocrite? Same with onions, I only prefer them in one form: deep fried in ring shape, but detest them any other way. So I am worse than a hypocrite?

Do you go around calling people who eat pickles and onions not deep fried in ring shape by insulting names implying there's something depraved about them? If you don't, then you're not "anti-" in the sense we've been using it in this thread.

And I am anti-slavery. I detest the very concept of it. It's not to my "taste". I'm worse than a hypocrite?

I'm guessing you have other beliefs about slavery that are not about taste, but are about your beliefs on human rights and such.

I have to agree with Avykins on a couple things there.

No, I just don't think you've considered what you actually mean by those things you said to realize the difference between you and Avykins. For example:

But there are many things I will not tolerate: Religion as an excuse for violence and hate, PETA, theocracies, slavery, pedophilia and rape.

Unless you consider the supermarket to be the same as a rape camp or a slave plantation, I'm pretty sure you do not tolerate them for different reasons than you avoid eating pickles ;-D

*sigh* My comments towards food were said in jest, to poke fun at the *taste* comment. But then you have to go and cut out the more important part of my comments, the fact that people can be tolerant about certain things, but NO ONE is completely tolerant. That's the point. People can be be unaccepting of gays and you can be intolerant to those that are unaccepting.

NO ONE IS 100% OPEN MINDED! Everyone has prejudices, and no one is right or wrong but only in their minds. So to bash someone for not agreeing with you is being just as intolerant as you claim they are.

 

[Mozared]

Without trying to generalise, most lesbians I know are butt-ugly and are perhaps for that reason 'hated/avoided' as much as gays.

 

[CoziestPigeon]

Because (straight) guys don't want to see 2 ugly chicks making out, or 2 guys for that matter.

I for one am tired of 2 things, gay bashing, and people complaining about gay rights. A union is just as good as a marriage. Why can't we just all get along and ignore other people's sexual preference?

A union ISN'T though. It's like saying 'we don't want to give you rights, but we have to, lets just not call them rights.'
It's the fact that people care enough to make a difference between straight and gay marriages.

 

[Del-Toro]

I don't know alot of people who are homophobic, I know two who appear to be, one of whom is the absolute queerest kid at my school and the other one of whom is your standard drug addled spaz who somehow manages to hide it from the rest of us. The second one, well, who the fuck cares, but the first one is obviously just in the closet and trying to detract attention and suspicion from himself, but obviously failing.

Personally, I have to be cool with it since several friends of the family are gay, and the only wedding I've been to is theirs.

 

[Haydyn]

Because (straight) guys don't want to see 2 ugly chicks making out, or 2 guys for that matter.

I for one am tired of 2 things, gay bashing, and people complaining about gay rights. A union is just as good as a marriage. Why can't we just all get along and ignore other people's sexual preference?

A union ISN'T though. It's like saying 'we don't want to give you rights, but we have to, lets just not call them rights.'
It's the fact that people care enough to make a difference between straight and gay marriages.

Okay, a lot of people have been mentioning that a union is not as good as a marriage. Does anyone care to give a list of all the differences? There are advantages to homosexuality.

The problem with marriage is that they need to make a religious based marriage, and a state (not just in that state, but marriage under the state) based marriage. That way, religious people will be able to get married under their religious beliefs, and hetero and homosexuals will be married under the state. I know gay marriage is not popular with my religious beliefs, but I do try to be open minded.

 

[CrystalShadow]

To be able to do this, you first have to seperate people into such groups.
So what I was really getting at wasn't so much that you should ignore such things as sexual orientation, race, and so on, but that you shouldn't go around making assumptions about people because of these characteristics.

Understood, and perhaps I've taken this out to a tangent too far. My point is not that you are making assumptions about people, it's that you're SUPPORTING assumptions about people. This one in particular is pretty bad because it is homosexual = evil/unwanted/negative.

While it is difficult to pinpoint slang origins, it is more than likely that, since this use of the term is fairly recent (last 10, 20 years 'round about?), and well within the area of both very public and very negative perceptions about gay people, it began with an assumption that homosexual was a bad thing to be and evolved from there.

So the question becomes whether or not you can support that, or alternatively whether or not you can provide an alternate path of origin.

Fair enough. To be somewhat nitpicky, the actual connotation of phrases such as that's so gay is often used to describe things which are somehow stupid or that people can't understand why they should be that way. - So it probably is an offensive thing if you then connect it back to gay people.

I have to point out that I know I'm not totally without prejudices. I in fact, have quite a few.
What I said about not judging people is my ideal, but, I have noticed, not how I think a lot of the time. It's very easy to make assumptions that have no basis in reality, and very difficult to stop yourself doing it without meaning to.

The important thing to me, is that you're aware of your own behaviour to some extent, and don't let yourself use it as an excuse to treat people badly.

No-one is unbiased. But as long as you keep that in mind, you can usually avoid doing horrible things to people because of (probably incorrect) ideas you have about them.

 

[CoziestPigeon]

Because (straight) guys don't want to see 2 ugly chicks making out, or 2 guys for that matter.

I for one am tired of 2 things, gay bashing, and people complaining about gay rights. A union is just as good as a marriage. Why can't we just all get along and ignore other people's sexual preference?

A union ISN'T though. It's like saying 'we don't want to give you rights, but we have to, lets just not call them rights.'
It's the fact that people care enough to make a difference between straight and gay marriages.

Okay, a lot of people have been mentioning that a union is not as good as a marriage. Does anyone care to give a list of all the differences? There are advantages to homosexuality.

The problem with marriage is that they need to make a religious based marriage, and a state (not just in that state, but marriage under the state) based marriage. That way, religious people will be able to get married under their religious beliefs, and hetero and homosexuals will be married under the state. I know gay marriage is not popular with my religious beliefs, but I do try to be open minded.

Guh, I didn't do a good job of explaining my point. The reason a Union isn't as good as a marriage is the principle. On paper, its the same. In reality, it's not. It's not giving them the same rights, it's making something new so we don't need to involve them in our culture.

 

[Haydyn]

Guh, I didn't do a good job of explaining my point. The reason a Union isn't as good as a marriage is the principle. On paper, its the same. In reality, it's not. It's not giving them the same rights, it's making something new so we don't need to involve them in our culture.

Marriage has been between a man and a woman for atleast 6 thousand years. A union is an alternative to marriage. Employers treat them the same. Just because a union is not a marriage doesn't mean it's not as good. It's kind of like how Apple has the Ipod, and Microsoft has the Zune.

That covers the emotional difference, but not the physical difference. If there are major differences law-wise, then yes, I would agree that there needs to be major changes.

 

[Haydyn]

That covers the emotional difference, but not the physical difference. If there are major differences law-wise, then yes, I would agree that there needs to be major changes.

So if they called both gay and interracial marriage 'civil unions' and restricted the word 'marriage' to interracial, heterosexual marriage, you'd be okay with that?

What does race have to do with this thread?

No. I'm saying we should throw out the term "civil union". There would be Relious Marriages, and State Marriages, or RMs and SMs. Religous marriages would be based around what ever religion the newly weds are. SMs would be hetero and homosexual marriages created by the state. Both would have the same rights. Granted, homosexual marriages would not exist in RMs, dispite some homosexuals being religious.

 

[chefassassin2]

I've never understood the appeal of watching two people of the same sex engaging in any kind of sexual conduct. I have absolutely no problems with the sexual orientation of any human being. Gay, straight, bisexual, into furries, bondage, do what's right for you in your heart. I personally am a straight male, so I'm attracted to women. That being said, I obviously wouldn't want to watch gay male porn. And two women? Also out of the question. I've just never found it a turn-on. I do know men who enjoy it, but it's not for me.

 

[Senial]

Lesser of two evils?