By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - George Takei’s Ripping Letter to AZ about ‘Turn Away the Gay’ Bill

Wonktonodi on 24 February 2014
MonstaTruk said:
First, I'd like to say that I admit that this bill is rough/bold, in its wording. Welcome to the South. But I disagree with the connections to racial discrimination. This is all about...how someone has sex, right? No one HAS to tell anyone HOW they have sex. And no one has to be FORCED to like/dislike anyone. Now don't get me wrong: this bill will get turned around ASAP. I believe everyone should have equal rights. But my thing is that this doesn't HAVE to be a fight if you are homosexual. I mean, do g*ys where LBGT tags, or are required to tell receptionists if you're g*y? Keep your bedroom situations...in the bedroom. Simple patch?


So as long as someone is gay and in the closet and doesnt give any sign of it we'll be ok?

Just like it doesn't take a Hetero tag for someone to see a family with a mother and father and two kids. How hard would it be to see a family with two dads or two moms? Or just even couples without kids.  Turn this around imagine if heterosexuals had to hide it. Can't anounce you're getting married. Can't buy a house together. Never any pda, good luck on having a family unless you want to come up with crazy excused for how the kids got there. When you travel seperate rooms. Or at least beds. No staring looking people over in public, might be obvious.  you want to do anything with your significant other? be sure it doesn't become apparent just avoiding pda isn't always enough.  All that and countless other things that hopefully show you its about being able to exist not just refusing to hide what goes on in the bedroom.

What about famous people that are known to be gay? What would you have them do? wear a disguise? use a fake name? just accept it and not fight?



Around the Network
MonstaTruk on 24 February 2014
ganoncrotch said:
MonstaTruk said:
First, I'd like to say that I admit that this bill is rough/bold, in its wording. Welcome to the South. But I disagree with the connections to racial discrimination. This is all about...how someone has sex, right? No one HAS to tell anyone HOW they have sex. And no one has to be FORCED to like/dislike anyone. Now don't get me wrong: this bill will get turned around ASAP. I believe everyone should have equal rights. But my thing is that this doesn't HAVE to be a fight if you are homosexual. I mean, do g*ys where LBGT tags, or are required to tell receptionists if you're g*y? Keep your bedroom situations...in the bedroom. Simple patch?


two things about this bolded part

-1. Gay isn't a profanity nor should it ever need to be censored like this. Calling someone gay as a slur is where you will run into trouble for using the word but it's not because the word is bad it is because you are using it as an insult whereas it is a lifestyle.

-2. I'm pretty sure if I was working at a hotel and there was a couple booking into a honeymoon suite for a lovely weekend together I wouldn't need to ask if the 2 of them were gay if you get what I mean? This law would give that receptionist the perfect right to say to that couple to go be gay somewhere else, they could lie and claim they weren't going to share the bed... but really I know you are saying that people shouldn't have to be told about their sexual preference, but should they need to hide/lie about it?

1) I'm not going to get into it, but...I disagree, I consider that word and any other word to describe homosexuality and the people as being obscene, misguided, and honestly...very immature.  Honestly, I probably have the same mindset as the lawmakers that proposed this bill.  I just respect people's right to equality too much to even consider this as being legal...

2) Yeah, this law is disgusting.  And should be fought by folk's with a greater passion about this topic than me.  I guess, the racial reference is what gets me, a bit.  Black people can't "hide", whether they wanted to or not.  Not really the same ball of wax, in my opinion...



The Fury on 24 February 2014
MonstaTruk said:

1) I'm not going to get into it, but...I disagree, I consider that word and any other word to describe homosexuality and the people as being obscene, misguided, and honestly...very immature.  Honestly, I probably have the same mindset as the lawmakers that proposed this bill.  I just respect people's right to equality too much to even consider this as being legal...

2) Yeah, this law is disgusting.  And should be fought by folk's with a greater passion about this topic than me.  I guess, the racial reference is what gets me, a bit.  Black people can't "hide", whether they wanted to or not.  Not really the same ball of wax, in my opinion...

Sorry just to check, you think the word 'gay' is offensive?

I think his comparisons to racism in the 50-60s is meant to be about oppression and segregation not direct discrimination.



Hmm, pie.

MonstaTruk on 24 February 2014
Wonktonodi said:
MonstaTruk said:
First, I'd like to say that I admit that this bill is rough/bold, in its wording. Welcome to the South. But I disagree with the connections to racial discrimination. This is all about...how someone has sex, right? No one HAS to tell anyone HOW they have sex. And no one has to be FORCED to like/dislike anyone. Now don't get me wrong: this bill will get turned around ASAP. I believe everyone should have equal rights. But my thing is that this doesn't HAVE to be a fight if you are homosexual. I mean, do g*ys where LBGT tags, or are required to tell receptionists if you're g*y? Keep your bedroom situations...in the bedroom. Simple patch?


So as long as someone is gay and in the closet and doesnt give any sign of it we'll be ok?

Just like it doesn't take a Hetero tag for someone to see a family with a mother and father and two kids. How hard would it be to see a family with two dads or two moms? Or just even couples without kids.  Turn this around imagine if heterosexuals had to hide it. Can't anounce you're getting married. Can't buy a house together. Never any pda, good luck on having a family unless you want to come up with crazy excused for how the kids got there. When you travel seperate rooms. Or at least beds. No staring looking people over in public, might be obvious.  you want to do anything with your significant other? be sure it doesn't become apparent just avoiding pda isn't always enough.  All that and countless other things that hopefully show you its about being able to exist not just refusing to hide what goes on in the bedroom.

What about famous people that are known to be gay? What would you have them do? wear a disguise? use a fake name? just accept it and not fight?

Well look, I already said I don't agree with the bill, it's full of Big-Bodied-Sh*t.  As far as how g*ys live their life, I'm gonna say it like this: if you think it's alright to be g*y, someone dropped the ball, in your development as a child...

 

Now I'll patiently await my banning from a moderator because I'm not a member of LBGT... :-/

~Mod Edit~

This post has been moderated.

-Smeags



Ganoncrotch on 24 February 2014
MonstaTruk said:
Wonktonodi said:
MonstaTruk said:
First, I'd like to say that I admit that this bill is rough/bold, in its wording. Welcome to the South. But I disagree with the connections to racial discrimination. This is all about...how someone has sex, right? No one HAS to tell anyone HOW they have sex. And no one has to be FORCED to like/dislike anyone. Now don't get me wrong: this bill will get turned around ASAP. I believe everyone should have equal rights. But my thing is that this doesn't HAVE to be a fight if you are homosexual. I mean, do g*ys where LBGT tags, or are required to tell receptionists if you're g*y? Keep your bedroom situations...in the bedroom. Simple patch?


So as long as someone is gay and in the closet and doesnt give any sign of it we'll be ok?

Just like it doesn't take a Hetero tag for someone to see a family with a mother and father and two kids. How hard would it be to see a family with two dads or two moms? Or just even couples without kids.  Turn this around imagine if heterosexuals had to hide it. Can't anounce you're getting married. Can't buy a house together. Never any pda, good luck on having a family unless you want to come up with crazy excused for how the kids got there. When you travel seperate rooms. Or at least beds. No staring looking people over in public, might be obvious.  you want to do anything with your significant other? be sure it doesn't become apparent just avoiding pda isn't always enough.  All that and countless other things that hopefully show you its about being able to exist not just refusing to hide what goes on in the bedroom.

What about famous people that are known to be gay? What would you have them do? wear a disguise? use a fake name? just accept it and not fight?

Well look, I already said I don't agree with the bill, it's full of Big-Bodied-Sh*t.  As far as how g*ys live their life, I'm gonna say it like this: if you think it's alright to be g*y, someone dropped the ball, in your development as a child...

 

Now I'll patiently await my banning from a moderator because I'm not a member of LBGT... :-/

for you to censor the word gay and shit as tho they mean the same thing to you.... I'm just gonna leave this quote tree after this post and not return. But I feel rather sorry that you were raised to think that people who are happy to allow others live the way they want to and not hate them... are the ones who had the messed up childhoods and raising?

You know btw you don't need to be an active part of the LGBT to not show hate for them... I generally don't display hate towards white people but that doesn't make me a KKK member if you get me?

But yeah if you've been raised to think that Gay people need to be censored in chat... I don't wish to cause you more discomfort by my lack of *'s in the way people love one another.



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

Around the Network
MonstaTruk on 24 February 2014
The Fury said:
MonstaTruk said:

1) I'm not going to get into it, but...I disagree, I consider that word and any other word to describe homosexuality and the people as being obscene, misguided, and honestly...very immature.  Honestly, I probably have the same mindset as the lawmakers that proposed this bill.  I just respect people's right to equality too much to even consider this as being legal...

2) Yeah, this law is disgusting.  And should be fought by folk's with a greater passion about this topic than me.  I guess, the racial reference is what gets me, a bit.  Black people can't "hide", whether they wanted to or not.  Not really the same ball of wax, in my opinion...

Sorry just to check, you think the word 'gay' is offensive?

I think his comparisons to racism in the 50-60s is meant to be about oppression and segregation not direct discrimination.

I think the word, the people who seek relationships like that, and the people who try to make it "alright" are confused.  I'm a big boy, though, I'm not gonna start crying.  I just believe that the small group of people who've experienced some unfortunate events while they were younger, are making a strong impression on a society today that the parents/guardians aren't around to make ANY impression.  Again, no one's civil rights should be compromised, regardless of sex, race, religion...whatever.



SamuelRSmith on 24 February 2014

This is not Jim Crow in the slightest. Jim Crow law FORCED segregation, and forced businesses to refuse/segregate service, this bill recognises a company's right to.

There is a substantial difference in that.

Also, I don't think boycotting Arizona is a good way about doing things. Boycott the individual businesses that choose to refuse service on basis of homosexuality, sure... but boycotting whole groups of individuals due to something that is a) out of their control and b) they're on your side about already... is both pointless, and unnecessarily painful for those businesses.



MonstaTruk on 24 February 2014
KylieDog said:
The Bill is wrong, but don't shop owners have the right to turn away anyone anyway?

I would hope so.  If I owned a brick-&-mortar business, I would hope I had the right to turn away anyone that I didn't find respectable to my business.  Of course, turning someone around because of their love interest shouldn't be legal...



KingEidilleg on 24 February 2014
MonstaTruk said:

I think the word, the people who seek relationships like that, and the people who try to make it "alright" are confused.  I'm a big boy, though, I'm not gonna start crying.  I just believe that the small group of people who've experienced some unfortunate events while they were younger, are making a strong impression on a society today that the parents/guardians aren't around to make ANY impression.  Again, no one's civil rights should be compromised, regardless of sex, race, religion...whatever.

After reading this I wonder if you REALLY think this bill is as bad as you say it is. Suggesting every gay person has had "unfortunate events' happen while they were younger is just plain insulting...



melbye on 24 February 2014

A little bit of Russia in America