1. I'm not sure you're objecting to the term choice (as in it's who they are or something, I don't know) or, perhaps more likely, thought I was being literal with "your", which wasn't the case. Either way doesn't really affect the point I was making.

And come on, don't try to tell me what I'm allowed to dislike, that's absurd. And in a sense the examples I gave where not even "parts of a person" but some specific actions of a person. But really, you mean I'm somehow obligated, moraly or otherwise, to not dislike to see two guys hooking up? Please.

What matters is how I react to it. Calling me an homophobe for that, while it might pass some arbitrary definition check, is just short-sighted.

2. LOL. You attacked me just as much as I attacked you. We both wanted to do the same. And I was never talking about who deserves punishment, I was talking about cornering others into shame and portraying "yourself" as the poor innocent victim for something some ancestors from the other person did to "yours" even if "yours" would (and in many case did) do exactly the same.

This is not about punishment, it's pretty much the opposite, it's about being realistic and living in the present as opposed to living in a skewed one-dimensional past that never really existed.

Btw, please don't pretend I'm denying slavery or anything.

3. Of course there is. First of all thinking something is wrong is very different from hating something. Actually, I won't bother elaborating this much. Tell me, do you believe it's impossible for a christian to not hate gays, for exemple? Frankly, you sound delusional and paranoid to me :P

Btw, I don't see how having your rights would ever get in the way of one being proud, but w/e.

Stop throwing around the word 'discrimination', when it has nothign to do with this situation. It's also not a double standard when you take into consideration the fact that:

a. heterosexuality is celebrated constantly in society;

b. gays don't really have many occasions to celebrate their sexuality;

c. Having a 'straight pride' parade is just a pleonasm, a perverse one, considering that it's purpose is to counter the so-called 'privileges' gays have.

It's not the policies that created victims. It's the abusers (be they racists, homophobes etc.) who created the victims. The policies just deal with the reality of the situation.

I think I understand what you mean by a. Unfortunately just because something is constantly celebrated doesn't make it impossible to be celebrated more. And if someone wants to celebrate then he/she should have the right to do so. 

As for b. Then create opportunities for them to celebrate more. However one shouldn't try to keep how much one celebrates equal.

As for c. The way I read it, I thought it maybe a way to achieve gov equality. By granting them their parade the authorities are just giving something not taking anything away.

1. I had a problem with the 'choice' part, not the 'your' part.

And you're free to dislike anyone for whatever reason. Doesn't change the fact that, for example, if you dislike a black person for being black, then you're a racist. Hating someone for an intrinsec quality, that ultimately doesn't affect you in any way, is just wrong.

And why do you dislike seeing two guys hook up? Do you also dislike seeing heterosexuals hook up? Have you never hooked up yourself? Do you also dislike the ideea of gays having romantic relationships, kissing or showing affection to eachother? These may be actions, but they're certainly determined by a need caused by a part that is intrinsec to gays.

2. Except, it's really not quite like that with slavery. Also, it's not as if discrimination and prejudice disappeared along with the evil ancestors, or that society hasn't perpetuated these evil practices. Also, you do seem like a slavery apologetic.

3. Thinking that an intrinsec quality of a person is wrong is actually quite a hateful thing to do. Especially when you yourself have a quality that is opposite to that. It's essentially how a certain category of people declare themselves to be the best, superior human being due to said feature, while all the other people who do not have such a feature are inferior. Examples:

a. The racist (dislikes people who do not share the same skin colour as him): I'm white, non-white skin colour is a sign of inferiority, being white is superior than being non-white;

b. The sexist (dislikes people of another sex): I'm a man, being a man is superior to being a woman, women are inferior to men;

c. The homophobe (dislikes people who do not share his sexual orientation): I'm heterosexual, anything that's not heterosexual is wrong, heterosexuals are superior to non-heterosexuals, they're more moral etc.

And I think that it's perfectly possible for a christian to not hate gays... provided he/she goes aginst christian teachings, or follows 'liberal' interpretations of those teachings. Christianity (in it's orthodox view) however, is one of the main (if not the main) opressors of homosexuals (and women for that matter).

4. I do not get what you were trying to say.

1. I'm glad that you're showing sings of finally understanding what I'm trying to tell you. Sadly, you still have not understood the full implications of a 'straight pride' parade.

2. Why not? Because homosexuals aren't/shouldn't be equal? Plus, this point kinda contradicts what you said in points 1 and 2, and reveals your double standards and homophobia.

3. Gays do not have equal rights to straights, so giving straights extra benefits (and an opportunity to express their superiority against gays) is really overkill. As I mentioned, 'straight pride' is the same thing as 'straight supremacy'.

From 1, 2, and 3 what I'm getting from you is that gays shouldn't be equal to straights (point 2), and there's nothign wrong with straights showing their supremacy to gays and having more rights than them (points 1 and 3). Essentially, you've just shown that you're homophobe. Congratulations!

wtf?

If I celebrate something more than the other person its my fuc*ing choice. Nothing to do with homophobia. This is not some competition to see who celebrates more.

You seriously don't even know what homophobia is.

Gays do not have equal rights? And that is the straight man's fault how? We have no authority over the public. Instead of disallowing the straight, they should have asked for rights from the gov. The same gov that is ok with disallowing the straight pride parade.

Sadly, you still have not understood the full implications of a 'straight pride' parade.

More like I am not assuming sh@t.

straights showing their supremacy.

So pride parade is showing supremacy?

and having more rights than them

lol. You clearly have some problems. More rights? I NEVER said that rights shouldn't be given to the gays. And I never said that rights should be taken away from them. Go read it again what I said.

@mantlepiecek:

If I celebrate something more than the other person its my fuc*ing choice. Nothing to do with homophobia. This is not some competition to see who celebrates more.

Now you're lost again. Damn, and it seemed like you were starting to get things...

You seriously don't even know what homophobia is.

I wonder if you do...

Gays do not have equal rights?

I don't believe they do.

And that is the straight man's fault how?

Ummm, you are aware that straights are the overwhelming majority, right? And you are aware that they make up most of the voting body and most of the Government, right? You could also read some books on the subject, but what I'd really like to know is how old are you? I get the feeling that you're a tween, which would make this conversation quite pointless.

So pride parade is showing supremacy?

A 'straight pride' parade sure is.

lol. You clearly have some problems. More rights? I NEVER said that rights shouldn't be given to the gays. And I never said that rights should be taken away from them. Go read it again what I said.

I did read it. Maybe you should. Repeatedly.

@Player1x3:

First off, sorry it took me so long to respond. My computer got some sort of virus and it still has it and I am in Windows security mode right now, which is an absolute nightmare.

Reinstall Windows.

To get back to the point,you are either trying to piss me off or or you are just that ignorant on the topic, either way, its no wonder why people like you are looked down upon in Romania.

I really don't put much weight in what the typical Romanian thinks of me. Nor do I put any weight into what people from non-existent countries think of me either.

First off, define me ''mainstream culture''.

The culture of the majority. Widely accepted culture.

Every country, every region in the world has its culture, there is no such thing as mainstream culture

Every country has it's own mainstream culture. When you say 'mainstream culture', or any type of culture for that matter, you have to limit yourself to just one country. There is no world state... yet.

If you talk the west, loom at all the wiggers (wannabe blacks) trying to act black, dress like them, talk like them, ACT LIKE THEM.

That's actually a subculture.

What is the most popular genre in the music today? Is it country songs?

In the US country songs are extremely popular. Country songs can be considered 'mainstream' in the US, but it would make no sense outside the US. And no, hip hop/rap is really not the most popular genre anywhere in the world. Country is actually a more popualr genre in the US (look at artists like Taylor Swift and Lady Antebellum). In Europe pop and dance are extremely popular. And rappers aren't that successful. The most successful rapper in the world (by far) is actually white (Eminem).

Also, since when does history=culture? Im sure they are taching about history of Spain in countries such as Iraq, Iran, China and lets say...Indoensia. If there is one thing that connects the whites to the history of other non white countries, is that the whites used to colonise and conquer those countries. Every country has its own hisotry to teach

I have no ideea what they teach in schools in Iran, Iraq, China, or Indonesia. I doubt they teach about Spain.

Gypsies? You mean Roma people /Ţigani /Cigani?They have extremly black colour of skin, they are no where near white nor caucasian, and I think they orginiate from India

Indians are considered caucasian, and so are gypsies. And I don't think you'ber ever actualyl seen a gypsy, because they do not have 'extremely black coloured skin'. Most of them just look slightly tanned.

Straightes shouldnt be proud of thier sexuality but gays should because they were persecuted, thats your point,

My point is that straights are already proud of their sexuality. They never were made to be ashamed of it, nor persecuted for it.

You have some strange mixure of victim/superiority complex, as you seem to beleive that whoever was persecuted or whoever was a victim deserves a special treatment, and deserves more rights and privileges and is thus, superior.

If you got this from wha tI said, I think you need to re-read it (over and over).

Slavery as you know it, and slavery system as used in Eurpoean imperialism was founded in North Africa

North Africa? The part where most people are arabs?

It doesnt, but it sure as hell removes white person's guild from thier back, something you strongly support

How does it do that? You yourself said that it doesn't erase white people's actions.