LGBT Thread

[NZTailender]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

"What's your opinion of people playing golf?"

****ing clubos, absolutely disgusting the way they go around with their shoes and little carts. Makes my skin crawl.

[GIMH]

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Flem274*

Gays are evil etc etc

EDIT: Type in Westboro Baptist Church to google if you want someone to hate on. A really nice website pops up.

Would pay good money to see SS go up against one of those nutcases on a forum debate. Would an absolutely epic.

Originally Posted by NZTailender

****ing clubos, absolutely disgusting the way they go around with their shoes and little carts. Makes my skin crawl.

[Uppercut]

Geg

[Matteh]

Originally Posted by cover drive man

What do we think about homosexuality being used as an insult? The old "You're gay" there was also in my school "you Jew" Not to gays or Jewish people but to each other as insults.

In my school....

That's the key bit. People who grow up and mature start calling each other ****s.

[James90]

Originally Posted by Matteh

Milk

What a film.

Indeed. It's brilliant.

Originally Posted by Burgey

It's interesting how little an issue homosexuality is here now, aside from when gay marriage is raised.

Not really sure about that. In Qld very recently we had the surrogacy debate. In Qld and NSW adoption has been very topical over the last few years.

Then there's more obscure things like sodomy laws and the age of consent being 18 rather than 16.

Moving out of home due to homophobia isn't a legitimate psychological reason for claiming independence for Youth Allowance.

Putting aside the legal recognition and legislated discrimination, I'm sure there are a lot of issues that exist due to the fact that we still live in a heteronormative society. Even those that are serious about ending discrimination often consider people who identify as LGBTI as "others"

[PhoenixFire]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Nobody's sang anyone's virtues. The general consensus is that we don't care in the slightest what people do in the privacy of their own homes. We just don't give a flying ****. Why would we? It doesn't affect us even slightly.

If that principle is in place, I don't see what there is left to "discuss". "What's your opinion of gay people?" becomes as blunt a question as, "What's your opinion of people playing golf?"

Top post.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by thierry henry

Reckon when our society *actually* matures, we'll get to a more advanced stage where these things can be properly discussed and we won't all feel a reactionary compulsion to sing the virtues of men butt-sex0ring each other or spending their life savings on a fake vag etc etc. The "Western World" is currently at a very juvenile stage where it feels it needs to reject its past by going way too far in the other direction.

I say this from my position as an analyst of sweeping societal trends who sits above you all casting judgement btw

To go in the 'other direction', equality has to be achieved first. Which it hasn't yet.

[sledger]

Originally Posted by Voltman

No dramas/issues with LGBT people. They are who they are, and I don't think it makes them any less or any more of a person than Joe Punter (obviously).

What I dislike is insecure people like New Zealand MP Chris Carter instantly defaulting to the "they're picking on me because I'm gay" position whenever they're criticised when it's actually related to their own behaviour, and nothing to do with their sexuality.

Yes, this.

The whole issue of "gay rights" is a troublesome matter for me. Obviously nobody should be made to suffer or be victimised because of their sexuality. But it strikes me that some campaigners take this sort of thing to an extreme where they are almost suggesting that homosexual people should have some sort of positive rights conferred on them, which strikes me as being both wrong and stupid. As Duffer has previously said, I don't think this sort of thing is really an issue for anyone who is not gay/not a raging homophobe. Am pretty glad I'm no longer living with my rabidly Lid Dem, LGBT, Amnesty International. Human Rights activist housemate though, as he is probably the biggest **** I have ever met in my life, just on an unrelated note.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Nobody's sang anyone's virtues. The general consensus is that we don't care in the slightest what people do in the privacy of their own homes. We just don't give a flying ****. Why would we? It doesn't affect us even slightly.

If that principle is in place, I don't see what there is left to "discuss". "What's your opinion of gay people?" becomes as blunt a question as, "What's your opinion of people playing golf?"

Actually "discussing gay people" or casting our votes on whether we're pro or anti gay wasnt the intended purpose of the thread. It was meant to be a discussion thread for anyone with an interest in the issues affecting this part of the community. Just as in CC we discuss things beyond whether we like cricket.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by sledger

Yes, this.

The whole issue of "gay rights" is a troublesome matter for me. Obviously nobody should be made to suffer or be victimised because of their sexuality. But it strikes me that some campaigners take this sort of thing to an extreme where they are almost suggesting that homosexual people should have some sort of positive rights conferred on them, which strikes me as being both wrong and stupid. As Duffer has previously said, I don't think this sort of thing is really an issue for anyone who is not gay/not a raging homophobe. Am pretty glad I'm no longer living with my rabidly Lid Dem, LGBT, Amnesty International. Human Rights activist housemate though, as he is probably the biggest **** I have ever met in my life, just on an unrelated note.

In one sense that depends on your view of 'affirmative action' as a basic concept. If you're aware that there remains significant informal (and sometimes formal) prejudice against a group, do you try to correct this by giving the preferential treatment in some other very select circumstances?

In another sense, groups with special needs or vulnerabilities (and due to the level of prejudice that exists i'd argue LGBTs fall in this category), maybe they need more legal protections than the norm.

[sledger]

Originally Posted by Matt79

In one sense that depends on your view of 'affirmative action' as a basic concept. If you're aware that there remains significant informal (and sometimes formal) prejudice against a group, do you try to correct this by giving the preferential treatment in some other very select circumstances?

In another sense, groups with special needs or vulnerabilities (and due to the level of prejudice that exists i'd argue LGBTs fall in this category), maybe they need more legal protections than the norm.

The thing is, for me, "positive discrimination" is a very bad thing, it's not positive at all. Though I do appreciate at times it may be impossible for people from minority groups to achieve certain goals or whatever without it.

However, giving minority groups extra rights that normal people would not have is abhorent however I look at it. It creates barriers between groups of society, it creates a "them and us" situation that the whole process is designed to avoid. This is a fundamentally bad thing.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by sledger

The thing is, for me, "positive discrimination" is a very bad thing, it's not positive at all. Though I do appreciate at times it may be impossible for people from minority groups to achieve certain goals or whatever without it.

However, giving minority groups extra rights that normal people would not have is abhorent however I look at it. It creates barriers between groups of society, it creates a "them and us" situation that the whole process is designed to avoid. This is a fundamentally bad thing.

In theory maybe but it really doesn't do that in practice. Most people are pretty meh about it and look at it as readdressing the balance rather than conferring special privileges upon a select group.

TBH, the only negative I've seen from such processes isn't with what's given to special needs people (it's usually pretty minimal anyway) but when others just make **** up. As a Nunga man, I'm still waiting for the free 4WD's/interest free home loans I'm supposed to be entitled to. Once people who arc up are told what people actually receive/earn, there's rarely any dissent.

And certain people will always make **** up for any concession at all; my Dad used to get bollocked for receiving special treatment when he was given his Honorary White Person Card. Oh yeah, he was just getting loads of free stuff, the freeloader he was, like the opportunity to go to school and learn how to write, walk through a capital city freely, health care in line with white people, etc.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Actually "discussing gay people" or casting our votes on whether we're pro or anti gay wasnt the intended purpose of the thread. It was meant to be a discussion thread for anyone with an interest in the issues affecting this part of the community. Just as in CC we discuss things beyond whether we like cricket.

Yeah, I was actually responding to thierry's post about the anti-homophobic backlash.

[Uppercut]

I don't believe in positive discrimination under many circumstances, fwiw. With regards to the gay community in the UK it's an entirely inappropriate measure.