WRONG...... go to any middle school. If someone is truly gay then their an immediate target by the so called "cool" kids. It doesn't really seem like any one gives a s*** in high school because everyone is maturing. It's the middle school that's h***!xmetatr0nx said:
Poll: Does anyone really care if people are gay anymore?
- Thread starter Xyogen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Your original post in this thread was quite large. It is extremely close to my full opinion on this though. So *internet high five* for you!SimuLord said:
I've been hit on by gays several times, and only once had an issue with it. After being told I wasn't interested this guy tried to grab my ass. Thats too far and he found out.
One week without a discussion on homosexuality, please. They're here, they're queer, and I think most of us are used to it. I don't know why anybody would hate someone because of their sexual orientation. The only problem comes up when you start marrying same-sex couples and calling it marriage, guess that's the biggest hangup most people have.
And would people stop using the term "homophobic". Nobody is scared of gay people, nobody is scared that they are secretly gay. It is a bullshit term meant to make people who aren't into the gay culture look like bigots. Why don't we start saying "straightophobe" too?
And would people stop using the term "homophobic". Nobody is scared of gay people, nobody is scared that they are secretly gay. It is a bullshit term meant to make people who aren't into the gay culture look like bigots. Why don't we start saying "straightophobe" too?
Wheee! A fun topic!
Saying you like/dislike gays is like saying you like/dislike black people or Mormons. You'll like and dislike people within a group that's more or less exclusive to a specific race, group, culture, etc. I have a few gay friends, one of whom I'd trust with just about any problem I have. He's easily one of the best friends I could ever ask for. However, there's definitely gay people I don't like too. I have nothing against homosexuality, per say. It's an abnormality, to be sure, but so is my defective rib.
And as for gay marriage, marriage by its literal definition (requiring conception between two people) can't apply to gays but, then again, it can't apply to the crippled or castrated either. That's what marriage means, though. The government has no place in marriage and weddings, I think, so I say make their part in it a civil union contract, regardless of whether people are straight or gay, and leave weddings and marriages to purely religious aspects of life. I say this not just because of beliefs but because government incompetence robbed one of my cousins and their fiancee of their dream wedding because the contracts were delayed. Why should a government contract get in the way of something that is ostensibly religious and therefore unaffiliated with matters of state?
Just decided to say some things. Away I go.
Saying you like/dislike gays is like saying you like/dislike black people or Mormons. You'll like and dislike people within a group that's more or less exclusive to a specific race, group, culture, etc. I have a few gay friends, one of whom I'd trust with just about any problem I have. He's easily one of the best friends I could ever ask for. However, there's definitely gay people I don't like too. I have nothing against homosexuality, per say. It's an abnormality, to be sure, but so is my defective rib.
And as for gay marriage, marriage by its literal definition (requiring conception between two people) can't apply to gays but, then again, it can't apply to the crippled or castrated either. That's what marriage means, though. The government has no place in marriage and weddings, I think, so I say make their part in it a civil union contract, regardless of whether people are straight or gay, and leave weddings and marriages to purely religious aspects of life. I say this not just because of beliefs but because government incompetence robbed one of my cousins and their fiancee of their dream wedding because the contracts were delayed. Why should a government contract get in the way of something that is ostensibly religious and therefore unaffiliated with matters of state?
Just decided to say some things. Away I go.
Words gain a cultural context that allows it to gain new definitions, even if they aren't exactly in line with the original definition. This is partly how language evolves. Are you denying this?chronobreak said:
Not just fear, but discrimination, also. At least, according to our good friend Webster.Xanadeas said:
yes let me just type this up onto my completely natural personal computer. maybe one day i will use it to look up some completely natural pills for any conditions that i may have. let me also ignore the fact that sodomy is frequently practised in the animal kingdom across many species.aww yea said:
And besides, even if sodomy is unnatural (it isn't), that is not necessarily a bad thing.
That computer you're typing on isn't natural. Or did you think there were a such thing as computer trees?aww yea said:
I don't know. Your comment just made me laugh, because it really doesn't make any sense. There is no "way things are supposed to be". That's fictional.
Edit: Damn, MusicalFreedom beat me to it. Guess you're getting a double dose today.
You're not an English major, are you? Homophobic is the official word in the English language for somebody who fears or discriminates against gay people. You don't have to use the word, that's fine. But you're going to be hard pressed to have Mirriam-Webster stop publishing it.chronobreak said:
I don't use the word to make straight people who "aren't into the gay culture" look like bigots. I use the word to make bigots look like bigots.
Its nice to know, mostly becuase so I know not to throw around certain words when they're nearby.
Maybe there should be some kind of LGBT megathread or something, if it's necessary.matnatz said:
I know there's too many of these topics when I have to repeat myself every couple weeks.runtheplacered said:
No, I'm not an English major, not that I ever claimed to be anyways. What if someone doesn't fear gay people, and doesn't discriminate against them? For example, somebody who just doesn't agree with it, but has no problem dealing with gays on a regular basis, and can be quite nice to them, because we are all people. Would that person be a homophobe, or is it alright to disagree with the lifestyle while at the same time being respectful of their individual rights? Is that person a bigot because they can repectfully disagree, or can they just have the right to an opinion like everyone else?
I am against abortion, and would take part in protests or whatever, but I would never go up to a woman who has had an abortion and scream in her face. See what I'm saying?
I know you didn't claim to be an English major, which is why I phrased that in the form of a question.chronobreak said:
If you don't fear them or don't discriminate against them, then I guess that doesn't fit the definition, does it? Which is why I wouldn't use the word.
I honestly don't know what it means to "not agree" with gay people. You're not part of the agreement between two men or two women, just those two men or women are part of the agreement. But, assuming "not agreeing" doesn't mean discriminately hating them, then sure I can agree that some other word should be used.
But, your initial post said people should stop using the word, which sounded like you didn't want the word used under any circumstances. Now that you're elaborated, we can see a little more eye to eye, I think.