sapphi_snake said:
Farmageddon said:
1) I read that as he not being confortable with excessively affeminate men or guys hooking up (granted, i may be reading it wrong). I realise you'll probably tell me "well that's homophobic" but it's in this sense that i think the whole thing is overblown.
I sure as hell am not confortable with those things, but I don't ostracise homosexuals. If I was in a position to give someone a job, I wouldn't take that into account, etc.
For the most part, I can coexist with gays with no problems (as he puts) but I might rather not be around some extreme examples, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, no one should be forced to like something about someone, all we have to do is respect. Not being confortable and disrespecting are two very different things.
And these extreme cases are not off-putting because of their sexual orientation. I'm sure lots of people wouldn't want to be around extreme machos, or hippies, or beggars. Actually, those groups are probably much worse off than gays in public acceptance. It's just about being too different, so spining that as homophoby kind of misses the point in many cases in my opinion.
Hell, I have long hair and don't shave on top of being an atheist. It's more likely I'd be denied a job than them, yet you don't see me parading :P
2) Great answer if you are going for effect, poor answer if you want a decent discussion :P
It's ridiculous to believe no one ever plays victim or exagerates their suffering, and it's even more ridiculous to believe a person is different in that simply because it's part of a minority.
3) And I'm pretty sure I know Brazil (and specially the metropolitan areas, which are the subject matter) a lot better than you do. Really, I believe you to be mostly rational, so tell me why are you telling me how my country is? Fundamentalist Catholic? You got to be kidding me. Catholics here are not very observant at all, mainly unatending and mostly just catholic on paper and holidays. Actually, most are hereticaly open. I mean it, it's not very hard to find so called catholics who are also adepts of spiritism, candomblé and so on. So much so that the fastest growing new church incorporates elements of those religions.The few actual Catholics are mostly old people, and even these are warm to gays.
The more fervorous adepts are the ones on the smaller denominations (a mixed bag of really religious but pretty accepting and foundamentalist people) and some people on things like Igreja Universal, of which I was talking earlier. the big picture, anyway (and here it's important to distinguish the more actually adept north and the center to south, which is where São Paulo is and what I'm talking about) shows a people where most denominate themselves something but go by life without really taking any of that into account.
They may be theoretically against homosexualism (note I didn't type homosexuals) but the huge majority doesn't really discriminate in any significant way.They wouldn't deny a job or avoid talking to gay people, for example.
That's not to say gays face no problems because of their orientation, but the situation here is not nearly as bad as you seem to believe it is. The population at large is pretty acceptant. If there are problems they stem from a small MINORITY which encompasses things from neo-nazi types to religious foundamentalists. Guess what, these people are not changing their minds because of a parade. Quite the opposite.
4) Sure, gay bashing day. You're pretty quick to judge, aren't you? Look, IF that's really what it turns out to be I bet you it will be heavily criticized (by the people at large, not just homosexuals) and find little adherence beyond the group promoting it. It will backfire dearly, and that's assuming it even actually passes.
|
1. That is homophobic. Why is being effeminate not 'normal'? And why is hooking up not normal when gay do it, but OK when heterosexuals do it?
And are you seriously saying that hippies and extreme machos are less liked than gays? Really? Extreme machos are worshipped, and hippies are certainly not as unliked as gays. And beggars are just poor people who live on the street.
2. People who persectue others are the ones that create victims. Gay's aren't overreacting.And being part of a minority makes you different, at least in the eyes of people who consider themselves majorities who in turn persecute minorities.
3. 'homosexualism'? What does that even mean?
4. I need to see people be angry about this before I believe it.
|
1. By normal I meant standard. I felt like that was obvious in context :P
It's not normal because it's not the "norm". Is anything wrong with that? No, but if you read what I wrote my whole point was that being unconfortable with/"not liking" (please don't interpret hate there) is natural and not, by itself, disrespectfull, and that the more different something is from the normaly accpeted, the more deviant, the more likely people are to not be confortable.
So if you want to call me a homophobe when I say affeminate guys or guys hooking up are not to my taste, go ahead and do so, but you're doing the entire "cause" a huge disservice when you cry enemy on someone who respects you and your choice and is in reality against the people who actually hurt you, specially when so many people fall in that category. You also show yourself extremely naive and unrealistic if you think everyone HAS to like you down to the very last aspect, including the more "extreme" ones.
And that was the pont of my examples. Also, it's not like "the majority" around here bashs or actually discriminates gays. That's NOT mainstream at all. It's frowned upon in many, many circles. It's actually a minority "within" the so called majority that will do that to any considerable degree. With those other groups I mentioned it's kind of the same thing. It's not hard to find people who despise machos or hippies, not any harder than it is to find people who actually ostracise gays. But I would venture a guess that it's harder to find people outside of their group actually defending them. All of this of course refers to the reality I perceive around here, I'm not talking on a global scale, even if I suspect much of this would hold.
2. Look, some people exagerate their suffering and minimize their own "sins". It's just true of the human condition. It's true of straight, gay, black, white, yellow, Christian, theist, Islamic, minority and majority. And it can be exacerbated given certain conditions or interests. To deny this is beyond ridiculous.
One example (of what I meant, not as much directly of this) is something player1x3 (I think) mentioned, that slavery is not just a white thing and that if whites had more slaves and were not slaves themselves it was just because they were capable of, not because everyone else was so noble.
The point, I believe, is not that that measn white people are superior, but something more akin to you and me both trying to punch each other's face. Say I block you punch and hit you. Now I'm the awful person and you're the poor victim. That is how the reasoning seems to go, which is ridiculous. Truth is, we're both asses and the fact one of us pulled off his intentions while the other tried and failed shouldn't make a difference.
3. It was just meant to differentiate between them believing it's wrong to be gay and them being against gays themselves. I don't mean it like it's a decease or anything, relax. I take you have no problems with the rest of that point, tho.
4. Ok, and I need to see them not :P
sapphi_snake said:
salaminizer said:
it had videos that were meant to be shown to kids, for example, there was one featuring a transexual kid that was annoyed because the teachers would call him by his male name instead of his female name.
and about the "privileges", here in Brazil APPARENTLY (I couldn't confirm this, sorry) there were plans for quotas in public schools for gay teachers and scholarships for transexuals.
as I said, it's MOSTLY about intolerance, however, there's this increasing sense here in Brazil that if you're part of a minority the government will make your life easier (we have racial and social quotas for universities with absolutely questionable criteria)
|
LOL, that's like envying homeless people for getting free food and used clothes from charity.
|
LOL, that sounds like you actually understand the "absolutely questionable criteria" mentioned and the reality of the place he's talking about.
