I once wore a straight pride shirt around and people would yell at me for being hateful and discriminatory. Even though the shirt was for a joke and is supposed to mean I'm celebrating my sexual orientation, people took it as an attack. If you disagree, you are a hateful bigot.
I wouldn't wear around a "gay pride" shirt or a "straight pride" shirt, because neither is necessary or relevant. Why should I feel the need to announce my sexual orientation- without a reason? If others are trying to compare this to people wearing "black pride" shirts or "white pride" shirts, how do they feel when they see either of them? Can't "heterosexual" people also be offended if people wear around "gay pride" shirts, the same as "homosexual" people can get offended if people wear around "straight pride" shirts? Why do some people love to call other people "hateful", "bigots" and other names as if they are somehow not the very thing they are calling them when they are doing so? #irony
Look, just because "homo" is short for "homosexual" does not take away the fact that the term is used in a pejorative sense. What's next, you're gonna tell me that the "n-word" is not offensive because it's derived from "negro" which is just Spanish/Portuguese for black, so it's ok? And no, I don't remember anyone getting fined for saying "no n-word" in my lifetime either, true. But how would people react if someone did?
"No homo" is locker-room talk that has no business being broadcasted in an interview. It's completely unnecessary and I have no problem with a player being disciplined for it. I'd respond the same way if somebody made a racial joke too. Race, sexual orientation, gender and what not shouldn't be publicly mocked no matter what the person's intentions may be. These issues are all far too sensitive and from PR standpoint the league is best served by not touching those topics.
I don't agree that "no homo" is eqivalent to "that little monkey" or "chick in the armor". If you do, then we just have to agree to disagree because you will never make me agree that they are equal. I have explained why many times in the posts in this thread already, so I assume that you didn't get my reason why or just simply disagree with me as well. No I don't feel that it's important for all of my friends or potential girlfriends to be aware of this fact. The fact is, those that know me are already aware of this fact naturally and I don't have to mention it or bring it up in any way. The point was that, because of the society we live in and the gay movement, sometimes if you say something that could be construed as you possibly being gay or bisexual, then it can be appropiate to make an additional statement that you are not, if you feel that you would like to. - Many people do view being a homosexual is immoral and it is against their values. It is part of their religion and that is constitutionally protected to believe what they want. The government has no business trying to influence their belief systems. The government can only create laws to protect against discrimination and crimes against them doing anything against people that they don't like. - I feel that homosexual people can wear whatever they like, but that it is no more necessary for them to wear "gay pride" shirts than it is for me to wear "straight pride" shirts, and that however you look at one, you should view the other as well...simple. - Again, homosexual people can speak out about whatever they like, this too is constitutionally protected. But I don't see the need for them to tell me what they like to do in the bedroom behind closed doors any more than I see the need to let them know that I like sleeping with 2 or more women at the same time. Do you? - Yes, it is no more there right or privilege to try to change anyone's minds about how they feel about homosexuality than it is for the other person to try to change theirs. Live and let live in peace. - Absolutely, I would definitely 100% be against government laws that try to make me become a homosexual so that they feel normal. Is this even a question that gay people want this to happen? Where did you get this idea from? smh So sure, let's compare your poor analogies to white racists: "negro lover" now that's a funny term. What if I said "ass lover", anyway, I wouldn't, but wow. The fact that you think this is even equivalent is funny. Let me make this clear to you because it's obvious that you don't get it yet, but this is a FACT, not opinion. NOT EVERYONE agrees that you are born a homosexual, not even scientists! For all you know, it could be a defective gene similar to a cancer gene that one day there is a cure for. I know that makes your blood boil, and I am not even saying it's the case. What I am saying is that the science is not clear and closed on this subject at all, no matter how much you want it to be. EVERYONE agrees that being born black is NOT a choice. It is genetic and there is nothing that can change that. It is also very visible for most people so that they don't have to announce it to anyone, but people can clearly see it. Being homosexual and being black or African American are NOT equivalent! - Again, this false equation of being homosexual equal to being black. Putting aside the being born that way issue, I don't recall millions of homosexuals being rounded up and sold into slavery and the attrocities that came along with that for hundreds of years in America. There is nothing wrong with a public forum to speak out about discriminating against homosexual people, I never said that there was. But a public announcement that you are gay is not a heroic event to me as some have claimed or as some treat it. - I don't recall it being a part of the civil rights movement for African-Americans to make it a point to change people's beliefs or morals, but it was to change the laws to protect against people whose beliefs and morals would cause them to discriminate against or commit crimes against black people. Even till today, there are still many who dislike black people and feel that it is immoral for their race to mix with black people. That's their business. But it's against the law for them to discriminate or commit crimes because of their beliefs. They don't have to love me, I don't care. But the law is there to protect me. - Yes, I would be against laws or government programs that forced non "negro-lovers" to make love to or love "negros". Do you not see why? I guess you feel that there should be a movement to make it seem normal or get our kids to accept that being a "p*rn star" is okay and moral. And no, it wasn't a part of the civil rights movement to make all white people change their beliefs and moral values to think that marrying an African American is okay. But the laws made it publicly known that if you discriminated against people who did or committed crimes against them for doing so, that there was a price to pay. The evidence is clear that still a very large majority of white people do not and will not date black people, intermarry, or have sex with them. So now you are comparing people in the 60's that liked black people to p*rn stars? I mean, if you think this is logical, there is not really much anything I write is going to do to change your thinking. But maybe something I say will assist someone else reading this to understand the point that I am trying to make. I guess you probably also believe that some white people didn't vote for Obama only because he is black. I'm sure many white people didn't vote for him because they don't agree with his policies, but you if you think some didn't vote for him ONLY because he is black, then you probably just don't see things the same way that I do. Finally one statement that we can agree upon, minus the obvious stupid phrase "negro lovers", but in 1960, there was nothing wrong with this phrase even for black people. Negro and the "n-word" were not and are not the same thing. Were you aware of that sir? Absolutely nothing. I don't recall a white movement in the 1960's where white people had public announcement conferences to announce that they were having sex with black people. If they were having sex with black people or felt that it was okay if other white people did so as well, they just did what they wanted and lived their lives while fighting against oppression by encouraging the government to create laws to protect against discrimination and crimes committed against them for their CHOICES. I have no problem with anyone loving whomever they want to love. For you to suggest that I do is disingenious because I have made it clear in many of my posts that I don't. People should and are able to be whatever they choose in religion and sexual orientation....those are CHOICES. People don't get to choose what race they are born. I don't see Jewish, Christian, Muslim or converts to any other religions making public announcements about what their religious choice is so that they can be applauded and seen as a hero for making such choice. It's their private life and no one should care unless there is someone discriminating or committing a crime against them because of it. They are not a hero because they chose one religion over another and wanted to stand up and say it because they are a minority. And many religious people are discriminated against, even by homosexual people, because of their beliefs and choices to not like the homosexual lifestyle. Gay rights is not the modern day black movement, no matter how much the media and gay people/supporters want it to be. It will never be no matter how much you want it to be. To equate it as such is an insult to African Americans and what many who are still living and our ancestors endured during slavery, racism, etc. I don't know what promised land that you think homosexuals need other than what is already here in America. They have all the laws necessary to protect them against discrimination and crimes. I guess you won't be happy until everyone loves homosexuals, the homosexual lifestyle and participates in homosexuality...maybe that is your promised land. Good luck sir.
it is relevant because a lot of americans believe being gay is something to be ashamed of and should be viewed as a stigma. people have been committing suicide over being ashamed of their sexual orientation, and this is a movement to show that it's not something to be ashamed of or should be hidden
What you say is somewhat true, but here is what you fail to realize. Homosexual is the correct term for someone who is attracted to or has sex with members of the same sex. It is common in all languages to sometimes shorten terms when speaking in local language, without it being derogatory. The "n-word" although it derived from "negro", negro in French and Spanish means "black". The word, as can be seen by the definitions below, was intended before it was shortened, to be offensive from the start: black [blak] Show IPA adjective, black·er, black·est, noun, verb, adverb adjective 1. lacking hue and brightness; absorbing light without reflecting any of the rays composing it. 2. characterized by absence of light; enveloped in darkness: a black night. 3. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a. pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. b. African American. 4. soiled or stained with dirt: That shirt was black within an hour. 5. gloomy; pessimistic; dismal: a black outlook. 6. deliberately; harmful; inexcusable: a black lie. 7. boding ill; sullen or hostile; threatening: black words; black looks. 8. (of coffee or tea) without milk or cream. 9. without any moral quality or goodness; evil; wicked: His black heart has concocted yet another black deed. 10. indicating censure, disgrace, or liability to punishment: a black mark on one's record. 11. marked by disaster or misfortune: black areas of drought; Black Friday. 12. wearing black or dark clothing or armor: the black prince. 13. based on the grotesque, morbid, or unpleasant aspects of life: black comedy; black humor. 14. (of a check mark, flag, etc.) done or written in black to indicate, as on a list, that which is undesirable, sub-standard, potentially dangerous, etc.: Pilots put a black flag next to the ten most dangerous airports. 15. illegal or underground: The black economy pays no taxes. 16. showing a profit; not showing any losses: the first black quarter in two years. 17. deliberately false or intentionally misleading: black propaganda. 18. British . boycotted, as certain goods or products by a trade union. 19. (of steel) in the form in which it comes from the rolling mill or forge; unfinished. I could go on by giving the definition of white and *****rdly, but I think you should get the point. This is why the term African-American is preferred instead of black people, although it is still used today. So again, saying "homo" as shortened for "homosexual" is not equivalent to saying the "n-word" for African-American people because the "n-word's" parent word itself was used and given in a derogatory manner to people who originate from Africa or had dark skin.
I think seeing a mental health doctor to help them build more self esteem and believe in themselves so that they won't commit suicide would be more helpful than wearing a t-shirt, imho. I don't recall black people committing suicide because we were born black. I think most black people that used to wear black pride tshirts during the civil rights movement, stopped wearing them because they saw the irony in it when white people wore white pride tshirts. But of course there will still always be some who wear black pride and white pride tshirts. I have no problem with either, but I also don't see the necessity of it. But it's still their choice to wear what they like. One shouldn't be looked at any differently than the other.
A thread is only out of control when the discussion goes from discussing the topic/issue to insults and name calling. I think most can follow the yellow brick road.
A wrongly drawn conclusion. What I don't like and the reason I am discussing this, is when the gay movement uses the black civil rights movement to prop itself up on. They are not the same. Nor is it the same is the women's right movement. I don't see women calling press conferences to announce that they are a woman and be seen as a hero for it. But I fully support equal rights for women. I don't have to wear a tshirt to do so. I support gay and homosexual rights against discrimination and crimes. I don't have to choose to live their lifestyle, wear a tshirt, or be afraid to say "no homo" to do so.
Huh? In 29 states you can be fired simply for being gay. Nearly 40% of LGBT workers have experienced some form discrimination or harassment in the workplace according to one 2011 study. 9% of those said they were terminated for that reason. These are two examples of why ENDA will be passed in our lifetime. And the benefits being denied to gay couples through marriage inequality are well documented. Over 1,100 federal benefits are currently denied to gay couples. It's precisely why DOMA is crap legislation and will be wiped off of the books by SCOTUS. These are two key reasons why the gay rights movement has gained as much momentum as it has. These are blatant examples of discrimination and why the status quo is NOT okay.
I'm not disagreeing with that. That's why I said that I SUPPORT laws to protect against discriminating and crimes against homosexual people. I think any laws that are incorrect or need to be added will be added, but that is not the only agenda of many in the gay rights movement, as I stated in my post already. Gay marriage is a different issue to me and complicated, rightly or wrongly. I do believe that gay couples should have all the same rights as heterosexual couples, I think the problem is in the "language" of the word "marriage", because it is traditionally a "religious" word, defined by those religions. Forcing another definition upon it is the real issue at hand for most religious people, so when one tries to do this, they are infringing upon the constitutionally protected rights of those religions. It is not a cut and dry issue either way though. I am more in support of the term "civil unions" being used as long as they are given the exact same rights as "married couples" are given under the law. This way, equal protection under the law is granted to all people. The problem is that gay people want religious people to see them a certain way, and that requires that religious people change their beliefs about what is written in their texts, a right that the government does not have the authority to infringe upon.
No, you clearly didn't say that you support them. At least in that post. In fact, a statement like, "Gay people have all the laws necessary to protect them..." is quite the opposite due to the reasons that I pointed out. It's the furthest thing from fact or reality. Everybody is entitled to their opinion; but respectfully, I find humor in the "semantics + religion" defense people try to use to justify marriage inequality. It's not a winning argument. Gay people do not care about religious approval. Once marriage equality becomes reality (and it will in our lifetime), nobody is going to be forcing your churches to perform ceremonies or acknowledge anything that they don't want to. This is about the 1,100+ federal benefits being denied to tax-paying citizens for no logical reason.
I shouldn't have to say it in EVERY post, when I have said it many times in this thread already. If you didn't read my other posts and only responded to the last post in a long discussion, that's not my fault. To me, this is a big problem with the gay rights movement. Some of it's supporters are so fanatical, that they attack even people like myself who support gay rights legislation and laws to protect them against discrimination and crimes. It's not enough to say that you support the movement and laws to protect them, it's that you have to agree 100% with every item on their agenda in the exact same way as they do, even if the differences are semantics or less, or you are a bigot and can't be a supporter....which is ridiculous.
