Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Are you BORN gay?
Options
Comments
-
Tbh saying you 'like' being gay sounds like a desire to swim against the tide/be confrontationally counter culture manifested in sexuality. Which is exactly the arguement the 'homosexuality is a choice' crew seem to be so fond of isn't it?:rolleyes:
you are talking sh.it here dan. I like being gay. I didn't when I was a teen but I suppose noone likes being different when you are a youngster and you want to be part of the gang.
But I think it is a bit of a nonarguement as its not really that I like being gay but I like me as a person. I cannot imagine myself as any other way and if I wasn't gay I would be a different person with a different life and not necessarily happy.
Your statement above is kind of insulting like being gay is somehow a fashion or trend, it is an integral part of someones person just like any sexuality is.0 -
What is there to like? The stigma and alienation? Or maybe the tiny selection of 'gay' pubs and clubs? How about the increased risk of early death and disease?
You say that sexuality isn't a fundamental part of who you are, but then contradict yourself by saying you don't know who you'd be if you were straight? If you truly believed that sexuality were incidental, than you would be you.......but straight. The same mannerisms, tastes and interests, no?
Tbh saying you 'like' being gay sounds like a desire to swim against the tide/be confrontationally counter culture manifested in sexuality. Which is exactly the arguement the 'homosexuality is a choice' crew seem to be so fond of isn't it?:rolleyes:
Do you hate being gay?0 -
you are talking sh.it here dan. I like being gay. I didn't when I was a teen but I suppose noone likes being different when you are a youngster and you want to be part of the gang.
But I think it is a bit of a nonarguement as its not really that I like being gay but I like me as a person. I cannot imagine myself as any other way and if I wasn't gay I would be a different person with a different life and not necessarily happy.
Your statement above is kind of insulting like being gay is somehow a fashion or trend, it is an integral part of someones person just like any sexuality is.
So you like every single aspect of yourself as a person? Nothing about you that you don't like? Is it not possible that someone can like themselves generally but maybe not like say their greed?
And again you are assuming that sexuality is so important, why do you think being straight would change you so drastically?cotwold wrote:Do you hate being gay
I am indifferent to it. I don't think sexuality defines me as a person.0 -
Interesting argument. Deserves it's own thread.0
-
So you like every single aspect of yourself as a person? Nothing about you that you don't like? Is it not possible that someone can like themselves generally but maybe not like say their greed?
And again you are assuming that sexuality is so important, why do you think being straight would change you so drastically?
Well I don't like everything about me obviously I have flaws but in general I like myself, I think that is important for anyone.
If I was straight I would be a different. I would have different friends, I would have had so many different experiences. My outlook on life would be different. It is impossible to know what I would be like so I dont dwell on it because I am gay.0 -
Advertisement
-
dan 719 wrote:You say that sexuality isn't a fundamental part of who you are, but then contradict yourself by saying you don't know who you'd be if you were straight? If you truly believed that sexuality were incidental, than you would be you.......but straight. The same mannerisms, tastes and interests, no?
Not quite. There's a difference between something being a fundamental characteristic and a defining characteristic. Being gay shapes you, obviously, in ways too many to count. It's fundamental to many of the relationships in your life; your friends, your partners, your family, and how you view the world. But equally, it doesn't have to be defining; you can be gay and acknowledge that it has a huge effect on shaping you without suggesting that it's the only thing that defines you. It's the difference between being "a gay man" and "a man who is gay".
That said, I do agree with you to some extent. I think you can like yourself and who you are and not want to change it without necessarily liking being gay.0 -
Read what I said again. I said I don't put it at the forefront of who I am -- I don't think "gay" would be the first thing on someone's "define Goodshape" list (could be wrong!You say that sexuality isn't a fundamental part of who you are, but then contradict yourself by saying you don't know who you'd be if you were straight?
) -- but I also said it is a fundamental part of who I am.
Well I don't, and never said I did, so that sort of rubbishes most of your post.If you truly believed that sexuality were incidental
I didn't like being in the closet (particularly when it was hiding from myself). It's stressful, emotionally draining, confusing and all-round kinda horrible experience. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
Actually being gay I've found to be a lot better. I'm happy with the person I am, the friends I have, I like willys and naked men and to be perfectly ****ing honest I do like being a little bit 'different'.
At this stage in the game I wouldn't change it, and I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to like it.0 -
This is true. I don't mean to be on a pedestal above those who weigh up the options and decide the grass might be greener on the other side, but I've never been one to do that.I think you can like yourself and who you are and not want to change it without necessarily liking being gay.
Being gay isn't something that can be changed (whether I've grown to like it or not, it certainly wasn't a choice. I didn't choose to be Irish either... but I like that too) but imo it opens up a whole range of experiences which the 'normal straight bloke' simply isn't ever going to have. That's a plus for me.
You can always look at the negatives (we're a tiny little nation with rotten weather, high prices and a ****ty health service) and over at the other side (UK is huge world player, London biggest city in Europe, world famous, free health care) but there's always another side to that coin.0 -
I am indifferent to it. I don't think sexuality defines me as a person.
Do you like the person you are? If you could change your sexuality would you?
If you're happy with yourself as a person and how your relevant characteristics have shaped who you are by extension you can say you're happy you're gay or 'you like to be gay'.0 -
Do you like the person you are? If you could change your sexuality would you?
If you're happy with yourself as a person and how your relevant characteristics have shaped who you are by extension you can say you're happy you're gay or 'you like to be gay'.
I am in a bit of a rush so will address other points this eve, but this post is utter rubbish.
If I am happy with who I am in general then I can say I am happy to be gay? How about if I am happy with myself in general, can I say I am happy to be greedy (or whatever trait you wish to choose)? Your logic is completely flawed.
Regarding the first part of your post? Hmm no and yes. I believe there is always room for self-improvement and I can't understand why anyone would not choose to be straight if given the opportunity. Unless of course my earlier point about counter culture is a bit truer than you claimed.0 -
Advertisement
-
I am in a bit of a rush so will address other points this eve, but this post is utter rubbish.
If I am happy with who I am in general then I can say I am happy to be gay? How about if I am happy with myself in general, can I say I am happy to be greedy (or whatever trait you wish to choose)? Your logic is completely flawed.
Its flawed if you perceive the trait as negatively as something like greed. Personally speaking being gay and being has contributed both positively and negatively to my life and growth, on one side i've felt marginalised or excluded at times and as you said before "tiny selection of 'gay' pubs and clubs? How about the increased risk of early death and disease? ". However on the other side of things straight people deal with those issues as well and a lot of the negative aspects have allowed me become stronger, im more confident after having stood up as my own person. No straight person i know has had to do anything as courageous as come out. I'm a better person for it.Regarding the first part of your post? Hmm no and yes. I believe there is always room for self-improvement and I can't understand why anyone would not choose to be straight if given the opportunity. Unless of course my earlier point about counter culture is a bit truer than you claimed.
Well that exhibits a major issue you have with yourself and i'm not trying to be faceteous. Firstly you said you'd change your sexuality if you could but you're totally contradicting yourself when you said earlier you were indifferent to it.
Secondly as for the room for self improvement this is just terrible, i'd like to know what you'd actually think would change if you were straight and how you're life would 'improve'. You're a total victim of heteronormativity, you're comments about counter culture totally reinforce it as well.
I'm not trying to be mean or discredit you in saying this but you're obviously not in a good place mentally if you're not happy with who you are and you might benefit from talking this all out with a professional counselor or even your gp.0 -
Its flawed if you perceive the trait as negatively as something like greed. Personally speaking being gay and being has contributed both positively and negatively to my life and growth, on one side i've felt marginalised or excluded at times and as you said before "tiny selection of 'gay' pubs and clubs? How about the increased risk of early death and disease? ". However on the other side of things straight people deal with those issues as well and a lot of the negative aspects have allowed me become stronger, im more confident after having stood up as my own person. No straight person i know has had to do anything as courageous as come out. I'm a better person for it.
When did I say greed is negative? Why are you putting your own preconceptions on to traits? Should we not encourage greedy people to accept themselves and be happy? :rolleyes: After all it is not 'through the benevolance of the baker' we expect to be fed but rather as a result of their self interest.
What would you consider to be as 'courageous' as 'coming out'? Going to war? Fighting cancer? Where in the grand scheme of things does your act rank? The idea that verbalising your sexuality makes you a better person is pathetic IMO.Well that exhibits a major issue you have with yourself and i'm not trying to be faceteous. Firstly you said you'd change your sexuality if you could but you're totally contradicting yourself when you said earlier you were indifferent to it.
Secondly as for the room for self improvement this is just terrible,
It's facetious, it's the only word in the English language that has all the vowels in alphabetical order. *Not trying to be grammar Nazi*
Regards my supposed contradiction, I am indifferent to it now. Does that preclude me, were the option avaliable, from deciding to change. I am of average weight, and am not particularly concerned. If I choose to change that in the future, am I I make, be made in reference to decisions and feelings in the past? Or can I look at things anew? (Not to mention you messed up your chronological order above)
Where did I say that changing one's sexuality would be a form of self-improvement? I answered the question 'do I like myself', with the response that I was not wiling to be self satisfied in myself and would strive for self improvement (implying in all areas of my life). My sexuality is incidental to this.You're a total victim of heteronormativity, you're comments about counter culture totally reinforce it as well.
Psuedoscientific much? Sorry to burst your bubbe, but in terms of sexual orientation heterosexuality IS normal, where normal means practised by the majority of the population. Claiming this to be some sort of vast conspiracy against gay people is simply paranoia, and the word itself has been stripped of it's original meaning with regard to Queer theory (literary theory).I'm not trying to be mean or discredit you in saying this but you're obviously not in a good place mentally if you're not happy with who you are and you might benefit from talking this all out with a professional counselor or even your gp
Personal abuse much? You don't agree with me, so I must be depressed right? Is it not possible I just don't give a damn? Sorry I don't fufill your view of what a 'gay' person should be or should feel. :rolleyes:0 -
Psuedoscientific much? Sorry to burst your bubbe, but in terms of sexual orientation heterosexuality IS normal, where normal means practised by the majority of the population. Claiming this to be some sort of vast conspiracy against gay people is simply paranoia, and the word itself has been stripped of it's original meaning with regard to Queer theory (literary theory).
I had been planning to stay out of this, but Queer theory is a particular interest of mine, so I feel obligated to get involved.
You are failing to make a distinction between "the norm" and "normal". If something is the norm, it is done by a majority of people. This could be anything from desiring someone of the opposite sex to eating white versus brown bread. The word "normal" on the other hand, carries connotations of "acceptable", "usual", "appropriate", and "right", and thus shouldn't be used the way you're using it.
The concept of "heteronormativity" doesn't ignore the fact that heterosexuality is more common than other forms of sexuality - what it takes issue with is the presentation of heterosexuality as the "standard pattern" from which all else is a deviation. For example, when I filled out a survey at the TCD Sports Centre about my reasons for exercising, one of the options were "to make yourself more attractive to the opposite sex". That is what heteronormativity is - denying the possibility of alternates. (To the researcher's credit, she apologised when I pointed it out, and said other people had told her the same thing.)
In summary, heterosexuality is the norm, it is not necessarily "normal".0 -
What would you consider to be as 'courageous' as 'coming out'? Going to war? Fighting cancer? Where in the grand scheme of things does your act rank? The idea that verbalising your sexuality makes you a better person is pathetic IMO.
It's not so much verbalising your sexuality as choosing to face adversity in your life and deal with it that makes you a better person. Whether it's fighting cancer or going to war, or something less life threatening like accepting your sexuality and "coming out", these are the kinds of difficult experiences in life that people learn and grow from.
As you said yourself:What is there to like? The stigma and alienation?In terms of sexual orientation heterosexuality IS normal
Whatever a persons reasons are, coming out or at least being honest about being gay, does require some measure of courage regardless of how it compares to other challenges in life. Knowing you've been through something you found difficult and "survived" can give you a strong sense of strength and self-worth. I'd imagine that's part of what people mean when they say being gay has influenced who they are, without that having to define them.0 -
Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »I had been planning to stay out of this, but Queer theory is a particular interest of mine, so I feel obligated to get involved.
Whatever.:rolleyes:You are failing to make a distinction between "the norm" and "normal". If something is the norm, it is done by a majority of people. This could be anything from desiring someone of the opposite sex to eating white versus brown bread. The word "normal" on the other hand, carries connotations of "acceptable", "usual", "appropriate", and "right", and thus shouldn't be used the way you're using it.Oxford Dictionary wrote:
(Norm) The usual or standard thing. 2. A required or acceptable standard.
(Normal) Conforming to a standard;usual, typical or expected.
Wow your so right. They are completely different and not at all similar. My argument obviously collapses straight away.:rolleyes:The concept of "heteronormativity" doesn't ignore the fact that heterosexuality is more common than other forms of sexuality - what it takes issue with is the presentation of heterosexuality as the "standard pattern" from which all else is a deviation. For example, when I filled out a survey at the TCD Sports Centre about my reasons for exercising, one of the options were "to make yourself more attractive to the opposite sex". That is what heteronormativity is - denying the possibility of alternates. (To the researcher's credit, she apologised when I pointed it out, and said other people had told her the same thing.)
And you had to point it out to her? Did you wear a nice big t-shirt proclaiming your sexuality too? Maybe it simply was an oversight? See my earlier point about paranoia.
And it is pretty much undeniable that heterosexuality is the normal pattern, and that other orientations are a deviation (that is are not the norm- wouldn't want you to think that I was describing homosexuality as deviant)In summary, heterosexuality is the norm, it is not necessarily "normal".
See above.
I'll finish this off later, I have work to do.0 -
Dan 719, Sir Ophiuchus made a perfectly reasonable point and phrased it as simply as possible.
You still couldnt understand. You've obviously made up your mind as to whos right in this argument. You're just retaliating gratuitously at this stage and being obnoxious.0 -
This argument is going around in circles tbh.
Without wanting to sound clichéd, I don't think there's any set way someone should feel about being gay. To some its an integral part of their personality, to others its not. That said I do have serious issues with people trying to actively hide their orientation in most cases.
Obviously if someone is deeply unhappy with themselves(because of their sexuality), they ought be helped, whether that means fully coming to terms with their sexuality or not. But I believe there's a difference between this self-loathing and one simply preferring to be straight if they had another chance.0 -
cotwold wrote:You're just retaliating gratuitously at this stage and being obnoxious.
...this from the guy who, 10 posts back, was questioning dan_719's mental health and suggesting he see a counsellor? 'Cause that's not gratuitous, obnoxious or a personal attack at all...
To weigh in, I reckon he has a point. Heterosexuality is normal. So is having brown hair. So is being right-handed. Deviation =/= A Bad Thing. Deviations are what make the world interesting. That said...dan 719 wrote:And you had to point it out to her? Did you wear a nice big t-shirt proclaiming your sexuality too? Maybe it simply was an oversight? See my earlier point about paranoia.
Yeah, actually, if he found the question kinda annoying, he did have to point it out to her. It's not being overly militant to point out when something has the potential to offend or marginalise, and from what Sir Ophicius said, he wasn't the first one to mention it and likely won't have been the last. Gay rights and freedoms don't just appear out of nowhere, and it's people like Sir O being willing to stand up for the little insidiuous things like that that make the big stuff possible. I say fair play to him.0 -
Some people will always find something to not be happy about themselves.
Be it thier hair is not blonder, they are not taller, they cant' sing, or thier sexual orinatation.
IF they let any of the above stop them from being happy in thier lives then tbh I feel sorry for them.
heteronormativity is a right pain tbh and this country has a long way to go before it
is more inclusive.0 -
Dan 719, Sir Ophiuchus made a perfectly reasonable point and phrased it as simply as possible.
You still couldnt understand. You've obviously made up your mind as to whos right in this argument. You're just retaliating gratuitously at this stage and being obnoxious.
He made two points.
One was based on the perceived difference between the definitions of normal and the norm. This I disagred with by quoting the corresponding definitions from the oxford dictionary.
Secondly he defined heteronormativity as a situation where anything outside 'the norm' is excluded. I suggested this was not part of a 'campaign of hate' since heterosexuality is normal. I also suggested that his example was simply him being oversensitive and wearing his sexuality as a badge.
Please do not question my understanding when I have replied to the points made. If you require a simplified and explicit version of every post, I am afraid I can't help you there.
P.S I didn't realise this was an argument. I mean I don't like the connotations of the word argument, whyu can't we consider the alternative 'a frank exchange of views.'0 -
Advertisement
-
It is an unthinking campaign of exclusion, and it won't change until people become aware
of it which won't happen until people speak out and speak up.0 -
He made two points.
One was based on the perceived difference between the definitions of normal and the norm. This I disagred with by quoting the corresponding definitions from the oxford dictionary.
Ok fair enough you've used the dictionary but if you look up normal in a biological context it will tell you;
a. free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation.
b. of natural occurrence.
When you talk about being gay as not normal Dan719, in my mind you're suggesting its not natural or that its something, that if the means existed, would be best changed.
My main bone of contention was you're reply to Goodshapes post in which you said
I dont see the problem with liking being gay. To be honest if you were to ask me how i felt about it im indifferent. But if asked would i change it if i could, i'd never do it.What is there to like? The stigma and alienation? Or maybe the tiny selection of 'gay' pubs and clubs? How about the increased risk of early death and disease?
Tbh saying you 'like' being gay sounds like a desire to swim against the tide/be confrontationally counter culture manifested in sexuality. Which is exactly the arguement the 'homosexuality is a choice' crew seem to be so fond of isn't it?:rolleyes:0 -
I thing its perfectly reasonable for a questionaire to include a selection of usual responses, which may or not apply to you.
i'm overweight and quite short - shops don't owe it to me to have pants available in my size. Its reasonable to allow for an average spread of people.0 -
Oh, in response to the op.
I amn't gay, so I don't know.
I can tell you that I would have taken a pill to not be bisexual in a heart beat, except for my wonderful girfriend.0 -
Ok fair enough you've used the dictionary but if you look up normal in a biological context it will tell you;
a. free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation.
b. of natural occurrence.
When you talk about being gay as not normal Dan719, in my mind you're suggesting its not natural or that its something, that if the means existed, would be best changed.
What about if I use the sociological definition of 'conforming to the predominant behaviour in society'? Then homosexuality is definately not normal. It wouldn't be fair for you to be the only one allowed to pick the definition to suit your argument. Funnily enough we have ended up at the point of the thread; is homosexuality exclusively biological or are societal factors involved. Kinda affects what definition should be used.
And I do feel, that if the means existed, then it would be best changed
for some people.shay 562 wrote:Yeah, actually, if he found the question kinda annoying, he did have to point it out to her. It's not being overly militant to point out when something has the potential to offend or marginalise, and from what Sir Ophicius said, he wasn't the first one to mention it and likely won't have been the last. Gay rights and freedoms don't just appear out of nowhere, and it's people like Sir O being willing to stand up for the little insidiuous things like that that make the big stuff possible. I say fair play to him.
Well that is simply where we differ in opinion then. I don't think such a survey is ever going to be all inclusive, and don't see a need for it to be. I also don't think that in present day Ireland there is a constant institutionalised attempt to marginalise gay people, and that searching for percieved slights continuously is unnecassary and possibly counter-productive in the sense that people don't like to have one's sexuality 'in their face'. By that I mean if I am feeling out a form I am sure the survey taker doesn't want to know who I sleep with.
P.S Since the survey was taken in TCD, the great bastion of homosexuality itself, I am sure no offence was meant.0 -
dan 719 wrote:Well that is simply where we differ in opinion then. I don't think such a survey is ever going to be all inclusive, and don't see a need for it to be. I also don't think that in present day Ireland there is a constant institutionalised attempt to marginalise gay people, and that searching for percieved slights continuously is unnecassary and possibly counter-productive in the sense that people don't like to have one's sexuality 'in their face'. By that I mean if I am feeling out a form I am sure the survey taker doesn't want to know who I sleep with.
P.S Since the survey was taken in TCD, the great bastion of homosexuality itself, I am sure no offence was meant.
A couple of thoughts. First, it's not like it would be hard for the survey to have been more inclusive, simply by saying "to make yourself more attractive" or, if absolutely necessary, by saying "to make yourself more attractive to men/women". I agree that there isn't a massive institutionalised conspiracy, but you can't deny the fact that, institutionally, gay people are treated worse in Ireland than straight people. Can't marry, can't adopt, can't donate blood ('cause we're full of disease), it's legal to discriminate against us as long as you're hiding behind the Church...we've a long way to go before equality is achieved, and like I said last time, I do think that it's a million little niggling things like this that make it easier to forget about us, or to make us seem like random deviants as opposed to a significant proportion of the population. I can't think of an exact analogy (too much finals study = brain melt) but if a college survey assumed things about your race or religion, they'd be widely castigated.
As for the "shoving your sexuality in people's faces thing", balls to that. If they're going to have a survey question specifically designed around your desire to sleep with the opposite sex, they're hardly avoiding the issue of sexuality (in fact, a gender neutral question as I suggested above would do that much better); instead, they're assuming that everyone's sexuality is the same as theirs. In general, the notion that we should hide who we are to avoid 'shoving our gayness in people's faces' is just ridiculous - it plays into the idea that gay people are OK as long as we provide fashion advice and witty remarks, but never actually do anything too gay. Given that there's a thread on this same page where people talk about getting kicked out of a bar for kissing (which would never have happened if they were a straight couple), it's not unfair to say that gay people are less tolerated when they demonstrate their sexuality, and the way to solve that isn't to hide it, it's to refuse to hide until people are forced to just ****ing deal with it.0 -
A couple of thoughts. First, it's not like it would be hard for the survey to have been more inclusive, simply by saying "to make yourself more attractive" or, if absolutely necessary, by saying "to make yourself more attractive to men/women". I agree that there isn't a massive institutionalised conspiracy, but you can't deny the fact that, institutionally, gay people are treated worse in Ireland than straight people. Can't marry, can't adopt, can't donate blood ('cause we're full of disease), it's legal to discriminate against us as long as you're hiding behind the Church...we've a long way to go before equality is achieved, and like I said last time, I do think that it's a million little niggling things like this that make it easier to forget about us, or to make us seem like random deviants as opposed to a significant proportion of the population. I can't think of an exact analogy (too much finals study = brain melt) but if a college survey assumed things about your race or religion, they'd be widely castigated.
Of course it would have been a better alternative but sh*t happens. In terms of treatment;- 'Can't marry'- civil partnership is on the way.
- 'Can't give blood'-yes gay people can, those who have engaged in anal or oral sex with another man can't. The ban is based rightly or wrongly, on the exclusion of those in high risk groups, not on banning gays per se. Do you think people who may have been exposed to CJD(i.e. lived in the UK) should be allowed give blood? If not, why not?
- 'Can't adopt'- I don't agree with gay adoption, but that is just my opinion, your entitled to yours.
As regards the expulsion of two guys kissing;of course that is ridiculous, but sounds more like a homophobic barman than company policy.0 -
dan 719 wrote:'Can't marry'- civil partnership is on the way.
And yet is on the back-burner by all accounts, and still falls short of fully equal rights.'Can't give blood'-yes gay people can, those who have engaged in anal or oral sex with another man can't. The ban is based rightly or wrongly, on the exclusion of those in high risk groups, not on banning gays per se. Do you think people who may have been exposed to CJD(i.e. lived in the UK) should be allowed give blood? If not, why not?
My issue is that if you've ever had anal sex with another man, ever, you're banned for life. I can sleep with a different random woman every night (and have anal sex with her as much as I damn well please) and, as long as I've used a condom, I'm considered a 'low risk' group. I can be in a monogamous relationship with a man for decades, still using condoms, and be a 'high risk' group. That's completely fair and logical how exactly...?'Can't adopt'- I don't agree with gay adoption, but that is just my opinion, your entitled to yours.
I get that there are solid reasons against it, and I'd possibly even accept that all else being equal, straight couples should get priority. But again, it's the blanket "No gays allowed, no matter what the circumstances" thing that strikes me as being wrong. You can be nice people, wealthy, well able to look after a child and be, by all other standards, a great parent, but while you or your partner can adopt individually and legally raise the child in a same-sex household, you aren't entitled to legal protections for your child because your partner is of the same gender.As regards the expulsion of two guys kissing;of course that is ridiculous, but sounds more like a homophobic barman than company policy.
And yet it's entirely indicative of the type of attitude you're supporting. It's fine when straight people flaunt their sexuality, because theirs is the normal one. It's wrong when gay people do it, because they're shoving their sexuality in others' faces. And honestly, do you think homophobic attitudes just spring fully formed out of nowhere, or are they created and nurtured by a general societal attitude that gay people are inferior, re-inforced by all the stuff I'm ranting about now?Of course it would have been a better alternative but sh*t happens.
The point is sh*t shouldn't happen, but sh*t doesn't stop happening when people like you sit around and shrug and start bitching out other gay people for actually standing up for something. You acknowledge that it would have been better if the survey hadn't been sexuality-biased, yet you mock and deride the guy who actually tried to do something about it.0 -
And yet is on the back-burner by all accounts, and still falls short of fully equal rights.
I assume you want marriage between two people of the same gender? Would civil partnership not be acceptable, as in one identical to marriage in all but the name? Or would that not provide the fun of insulting a large percentage of the population?My issue is that if you've ever had anal sex with another man, ever, you're banned for life. I can sleep with a different random woman every night (and have anal sex with her as much as I damn well please) and, as long as I've used a condom, I'm considered a 'low risk' group. I can be in a monogamous relationship with a man for decades, still using condoms, and be a 'high risk' group. That's completely fair and logical how exactly...?
You avoided my question. Would you, or would you not allow people who have in all likelihood never been exposed to CJD through living in the UK to donate blood? With regards to the current rules on blood donations,I agree they seem a little outdated. However I also feel we must consider the historical context of the blood transfusion scandals in this country. Again this is not anti-gay as lesbians are allowed to donate, the motivation is not to exclude gay people, but rather those who are considered to be high risk.I get that there are solid reasons against it, and I'd possibly even accept that all else being equal, straight couples should get priority. But again, it's the blanket "No gays allowed, no matter what the circumstances" thing that strikes me as being wrong. You can be nice people, wealthy, well able to look after a child and be, by all other standards, a great parent, but while you or your partner can adopt individually and legally raise the child in a same-sex household, you aren't entitled to legal protections for your child because your partner is of the same gender.
Again I don't want to get into this debate, but to reiterate I am against gay adoption.And yet it's entirely indicative of the type of attitude you're supporting. It's fine when straight people flaunt their sexuality, because theirs is the normal one. It's wrong when gay people do it, because they're shoving their sexuality in others' faces. And honestly, do you think homophobic attitudes just spring fully formed out of nowhere, or are they created and nurtured by a general societal attitude that gay people are inferior, re-inforced by all the stuff I'm ranting about now?
How exactly do you feel straight people flaunt their sexuality? Have you ever scored another guy in a so called straight bar? I have. Was there any issue? No. Nothing was said. Do I feel marginalised and put upon because of my sexual orientation? No. Do you? Do I feel the need to tell the world of my sexuality? No. As regards homophobia, I am sure there are several causes; the evolutionary advantage of us/them mentality, general ignorance and lack of education, and so on. Not sure how having a go at someone who probably didn't even write the survey in question really drastically reduces homophobia.The point is sh*t shouldn't happen, but sh*t doesn't stop happening when people like you sit around and shrug and start bitching out other gay people for actually standing up for something. You acknowledge that it would have been better if the survey hadn't been sexuality-biased, yet you mock and deride the guy who actually tried to do something about it.
Dude, he wasn't in Stonewall or anything. IMO I felt Stephen was being overly sensitive and could easily have said nothing. You disagree, and are now holding him up as some sort of gay martyr. :rolleyes:
And **** will always happen. Cost benefit analysis just leads me to pick my battles.0 -
Advertisement
-
I assume you want marriage between two people of the same gender? Would civil partnership not be acceptable, as in one identical to marriage in all but the name? Or would that not provide the fun of insulting a large percentage of the population?
They could call it the chicken dance for all I care. However, whats being proposed in Ireland is not "equal" in all but name. If you wish to educate yourself on this matter, see the other active thread.You avoided my question. Would you, or would you not allow people who have in all likelihood never been exposed to CJD through living in the UK to donate blood? With regards to the current rules on blood donations,I agree they seem a little outdated. However I also feel we must consider the historical context of the blood transfusion scandals in this country. Again this is not anti-gay as lesbians are allowed to donate, the motivation is not to exclude gay people, but rather those who are considered to be high risk.
The blood ban isn't homophobic. The reason attempts to reverse the ban have been so ineffective is due to this fundamentally flawed belief.Again I don't want to get into this debate, but to reiterate I am against gay adoption.
Good for you, then don't adopted, in fact someone as hung up about their sexuality as you probably should be allowed to have a dominant influence on any child's up bring. Gay people raise children in Ireland, it isn't new. Off the top of my head I know two Bi-Sexuals with children and another man who had a family then decided he was gay. I'm a guardian to my ten year old nephew, a role which would in theory require me to raise him if anything happened to his parents.How exactly do you feel straight people flaunt their sexuality? Have you ever scored another guy in a so called straight bar? I have. Was there any issue? No. Nothing was said. Do I feel marginalised and put upon because of my sexual orientation? No. Do you? Do I feel the need to tell the world of my sexuality?
How exactly do you feel straight people don't? I've never done anything in a pub or club which heterosexual didn't do. I've made out on dance flours, I've kissed over a pint, and I've held hands while chating. Most of the time it isn't a problem, though every now and again some Muppet feels this is shoving my sexuality into their face.Not sure how having a go at someone who probably didn't even write the survey in question really drastically reduces homophobia.
Survey was flawed, he pointed it out. So what?0
Advertisement