Gay Couples.

shruikan2553

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Were you refused because of your race or sexuality or just because a shop was closed or you didn't have money?

There's, like, y'know, a difference and stuff.

How do we know he even was refused? Maybe he just stood outside waiting for them to open the door for him but they didnt.

Am I doing this right?

Baby Jane

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

But the relative hardship endured will stick to absolutely anything done negatively towards either party. So discrimination against a black person will carry far darker implications than discrimination against a gay person wether anyone wants it to or not. I wouldn't have a problem with it, for the same reason I wouldn't have a problem with a company refusing gays. There's easily another load of companies doing the same thing, that will serve either so go there. Its the other companies loss. Ive been refused things before. Tv3 didn't need to hear about it, I still got what I wanted the same day.

This is just more of the "Why can't prejudice against me be recognised?" stuff though. I'm not trying to be an asshole to you - I know you're being reasonable. You haven't been refused things due to being a heterosexual person though have you? It's the context, the marginalisation of an entire demographic just because of how they are - not because of anything they've done to someone - that is the issue here. There doesn't seem to be any reason to downplay it other than "They're getting recognised as a group, we should be recognised as a group" when we hetero people have never ever experienced discrimination for being hetero ever.

What are the reasons for you experiencing refusal?

I think that printing crowd, if they feel strongly against same-sex marriage due to their religion, have grounds for not wishing to design and print stationery for a same-sex wedding. I can understand it not being a nice situation for the couple, but I see the printing company's point of view too.

Renegade Mechanic

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Were you refused because of your race or sexuality or just because a shop was closed or you didn't have money?

There's, like, y'know, a difference and stuff.

It was awful. Those horrid steel shutters were terrifying. The nerves made my hands sweat which made them stick to the ice cold steel. At 3am, it was a poor moment




No, Because of what the person selling thought I was. A traveller. I said fair enough and went off. Didn't even bothered trying to correct him more than once. I won't say what it was i needed but I'll say it was more important than wedding cards.

efb

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

It was awful. Those horrid steel shutters were terrifying. The nerves made my hands sweat which made them stick to the ice cold steel. At 3am, it was a poor moment




No, Because of what the person selling thought I was. A traveller. I said fair enough and went off. Didn't even bothered trying to correct him more than once. I won't say what it was i needed but I'll say it was more important than wedding cards.

How entriguing

shruikan2553

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

It was awful. Those horrid steel shutters were terrifying. The nerves made my hands sweat which made them stick to the ice cold steel. At 3am, it was a poor moment




No, Because of what the person selling thought I was. A traveller. I said fair enough and went off. Didn't even bothered trying to correct him more than once. I won't say what it was i needed but I'll say it was more important than wedding cards.

People use the word traveler to mean a person who has traveled. He probably meant "sorry traveler (as in person who traveled there) we're closing" and put down the shutters.

See, nobody is ever discriminated against. Just lots of persecution complexes.

Sheep Lover

efb wrote: »

How entriguing

How so?

Homosexuals can be discriminated against but not travellers?

AnonoBoy

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Homosexuals can be discriminated against but not travellers?

Travellers can be discriminated against but only by homosexuals.

Did you not read article 2-1 on the latest decree from Lord Panti?

efb

Sheep Lover wrote: »

How so?

Homosexuals can be discriminated against but not travellers?

Your stories

Sheep Lover

efb wrote: »

Your stories

Explain your post so.

Baby Jane

Sheep Lover wrote: »

How so?

Homosexuals can be discriminated against but not travellers?

Yeh that's exactly what efb must have meant.

efb

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Explain your post so.

I found your post so vague it was entriguing

Sheep Lover

Baby Jane wrote: »

Yeh that's exactly what efb must have meant.

Are you efbs spokesman now?

Renegade Mechanic

efb wrote: »

How entriguing

It wasn't. That's the point.

Baby Jane

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Are you efbs spokesman now?

No more than you when you chose to interpret the word "Intriguing" to mean "Homosexuals can be discriminated against but not travellers".

newmug

bodice ripper wrote: »

And they were all carded. What's the problem?

If the behaviour being complained in thread isn't happening in that thread, quit moaning about it.

Nobody's moaning. Let me just remind you of the sequence here. I said, that the tables have turned, and that anyone who expressed the view that they're uncomfortable with homosexuality gets lynched. Then, you said:

bodice ripper wrote: »

Where are these posts? There's always posts bemoaning these lynchings, but never referencing actual posts.

So I showed you the posts. I picked that thread as it illustrates perfectly what I meant. For some people, being gay is all about being a victim, and anyone who says they're uncomfortable with homosexuality, gets showboated. You can see it happening in that thread unashamedly. The "problem", as you put it, is that its happening in the first place. Giving a red card on some anonymous internet site is not an adequate solution. *Some* gay people out there are crying intolerance, and then being just as intolerant themselves. That's really an own-goal for gay rights across the board.


Then, in the irony of ironies, another example of someone-who-voices-discomfort-with-homosexuality-getting-lynched pops up, in THIS very thread:

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The OP just happens to be you, a person with hardly the most positive posting history when it comes to people you view as not normal.

Shruikan, you have a different view than I. That's fine. However, I don't go around berating you over your views.

Renegade Mechanic

Baby Jane wrote: »

This is just more of the "Why can't prejudice against me be recognised?" stuff though. I'm not trying to be an asshole to you - I know you're being reasonable. You haven't been refused things due to being a heterosexual person though have you? It's the context, the marginalisation of an entire demographic just because of how they are - not because of anything they've done to someone - that is the issue here. There doesn't seem to be any reason to downplay it other than "They're getting recognised as a group, we should be recognised as a group" when we hetero people have never ever experienced discrimination for being hetero ever.

What are the reasons for you experiencing refusal?

I think that printing crowd, if they feel strongly against same-sex marriage due to their religion, have grounds for not wishing to design and print stationery for a same-sex wedding. I can understand it not being a nice situation for the couple, but I see the printing company's point of view too.

I dunno mate. I know where you're coming from. That gay people need to group up, and rightly so. But I just don't see that straight people are looking to group up. Or for a group recognition. There just isn't any need. As you say, we're not being prejudiced and that, so I don't see where we'd need such a thing. All I see is that when some people dont pull the rope (but at the same time, don't go about trying to sabotage it or cut it apart), they're immediately and publicly regarded as people who do.

Baby Jane

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

I dunno mate. I know where you're coming from. That gay people need to group up, and rightly so. But I just don't see that straight people are looking to group up. Or for a group recognition. There just isn't any need. As you say, we're not being prejudiced and that

This is why there is the gay pride movement - because of the discrimination experienced down through the years and a pride in it being fought against and succeeding. I know things have improved a lot in this country for gay people and I agree sometimes people can look for offence where offence is not intended, but there are still some concerns and I suppose those of us who are hetero aren't going to be able to see them from the point of view of a person who is gay.

shruikan2553

newmug wrote: »

Nobody's moaning. Let me just remind you of the sequence here. I said, that the tables have turned, and that anyone who expressed the view that they're uncomfortable with homosexuality gets lynched. Then, you said:





So I showed you the posts. I picked that thread as it illustrates perfectly what I meant. For some people, being gay is all about being a victim, and anyone who says they're uncomfortable with homosexuality, gets showboated. You can see it happening in that thread unashamedly. The "problem", as you put it, is that its happening in the first place. Giving a red card on some anonymous internet site is not an adequate solution. *Some* gay people out there are crying intolerance, and then being just as intolerant themselves. That's really an own-goal for gay rights across the board.


Then, in the irony of ironies, another example of someone-who-voices-discomfort-with-homosexuality-getting-lynched pops up, in THIS very thread:






Shruikan, you have a different view than I. That's fine. However, I don't go around berating you over your views.

If that is getting lynched you are a very sensitive soul. Someone who is constantly saying negative things about homosexuals complaining when anyone says something negative about them just seems a bit hypocritical.

There are many posters that when they create a thread you know its going to be their usual anti US/Islam/gay drivel.

Jen Pigs Fly

My closest friend is a lesbian, so its normal for me to see a gay couple, even have their wedding to look forward too next year

I also have a gay cousin and a lesbian cousin so I'm well used to it, makes no odds to me who someone is with as long as they're happy.

shruikan2553

Baby Jane wrote: »

This is why there is the gay pride movement - because of the discrimination experienced down through the years and a pride in it being fought against and succeeding. I know things have improved a lot in this country for gay people and I agree sometimes people can look for offence where offence is not intended, but there are still some concerns and I suppose those of us who are hetero aren't going to be able to see them from the point of view of a person who is gay.

As well as this many groups which are like this tend to be groups that were shunned or not welcome with the rest of society. People here are complaining about them shoving their "lifestyle" in their face which tends to mean they do something like kiss a man or hold hands. That sort of attitude instead of ignoring it led to these people grouping up elsewhere and holding their own events.

You don't see white or straight pride events because they were never shunned in this part of the world.

If you are treating a group poorly don't be surprised when they go off elsewhere to be away from your abuse. One second its your kind aren't welcome here, the next its complaints they won't integrate.

true567

The developed world should not be focused on such petty issues. There are currently over 7 Billion people and expected to be 9 Billion in 2050- overpopulation causes environmental degradation, social conflict as it leads to mass immigration to different nations, a lack of economic well-being for all as there are a limited amount of resources, etc.

If you want to have sexual relations with another person then do so but don't expect if others don't care about your cause because there are much, much bigger and more important issues. At then end of the day gays are not being lynched nor are they being rejected the right to a relationship- but yet people focus on this as if its an absolute crisis. It is pathetic.

More important issues that should be discussed are climate change, overpopulation, mass immigration, Muslim extremists, prevalent use of hard rugs (i.e. heroin), poverty.

true567

drugs*

beks101

true567 wrote: »

More important issues that should be discussed are climate change, overpopulation, mass immigration, Muslim extremists, prevalent use of hard rugs (i.e. heroin), poverty.

You could apply this argument to literally anything. "Shur we've bigger fish to fry than racism/sexism/xenophobia/any single cause on this green earth that targets a minority group, why bother with it?"

Maybe because these are real issues that affect real people in the real world? Honestly, I think apathy is the single biggest problem facing us in the developed world - doesn't affect me, don't give a sh1t.

Maybe if you didn't see gay people or black people or Muslim people as some sort of distant 'other' and instead tried to understand things from another point of view outside of your own - perhaps imagine what it's like to always be at high risk of verbal assault when you walk out the door for something you were born with and had no choice in such as skin colour, sex or sexuality - really think about that - and come back to me on the "feck discrimination, CLIMATE CHANGE!" little sermon.

true567

beks101 wrote: »

You could apply this argument to literally anything. "Shur we've bigger fish to fry than racism/sexism/xenophobia/any single cause on this green earth that targets a minority group, why bother with it?"

Maybe because these are real issues that affect real people in the real world? Honestly, I think apathy is the single biggest problem facing us in the developed world - doesn't affect me, don't give a sh1t.

Maybe if you didn't see gay people or black people or Muslim people as some sort of distant 'other' and instead tried to understand things from another point of view outside of your own - perhaps imagine what it's like to always be at high risk of verbal assault when you walk out the door for something you were born with and had no choice in such as skin colour, sex or sexuality - really think about that - and come back to me on the "feck discrimination, CLIMATE CHANGE!" little sermon.

So you believe verbal assault is more important than the future state of planet Earth? We must prioritize issues as a society- funding, awareness, support for issues such as gay rights takes away from the funding, awareness, support for issues such as climate change (or poverty). There are opportunity costs associated with societal issues.

unfortunately

true567 wrote: »

The developed world should not be focused on such petty issues. There are currently over 7 Billion people and expected to be 9 Billion in 2050- overpopulation causes environmental degradation, social conflict as it leads to mass immigration to different nations, a lack of economic well-being for all as there are a limited amount of resources, etc.

If you want to have sexual relations with another person then do so but don't expect if others don't care about your cause because there are much, much bigger and more important issues. At then end of the day gays are not being lynched nor are they being rejected the right to a relationship- but yet people focus on this as if its an absolute crisis. It is pathetic.

More important issues that should be discussed are climate change, overpopulation, mass immigration, Muslim extremists, prevalent use of hard rugs (i.e. heroin), poverty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation

Very obvious fallacy, just because there are bigger problems doesn't mean this should be ignored. And actually a lot of problems for gay people and their rights are easily solved by changing the law - such an easy solution is not going to happen for climate change or overpopulation.

true567

Unfortunately, you are wrong. The wiki discusses things that are not related but they are indeed related because they are both solved through government/legislators- the government has limited resources. It is a simple guns vs butter economic model.

If it was an easy solution, then we wouldn't be talking about it, right? Climate change and overpopulation, like gay rights, are solved by laws actually. In fact, it would be easier to solve climate change and overpopulation than gay rights because gays will still complain after they are given equal rights like all minority groups whereas climate change and overpopulation are easily measurable things that can be easily implemented and regulated (i.e. 1 child policy or carbon emissions measurements). Essentially, if gays were granted right to marriage they would still complain about things hard or impossible to measure such as workforce discrimination, perceptions in society, unequal treatment from straight people, etc. Whereas with overpopulation and climate change the laws will make actual change because there is no human social aspect with carbon emissions, or birthrate regulations- it is clearly demarcated.

TheBeardedLady

All the time. Madrid must be the most gay-friendly city in Europe. Nobody bats an eyelid.

haveringchick

My 2 cents.
I live in a medium/large Midlands town. I never see any couples gay/straight kissing/holding hands. I have an 18 daughter who I collect on weekends ftom yhe pub/nightclub at 3am. All I ever see is fighting/pushing/shoving.
My daughter says public shows of affection are a strict no_no.
She has a huge group of friends boys and girls. She knows of no gay couples. None of her friends or even acquaintances are out as gay. This would be a group of about 200 ranging over 2 towns.She is quite sure 1 boy is gay although he has dated girls.

Annasopra

tayto lover wrote: »

I already said that I don't care who starts them, there's too many of them. Boring.

Dont read them then. Its simple really.

twin_beacon

Lapin wrote: »

Oh FFS it's getting worse than the Indo around here lately with all the threads on gaynessness.

Fecking Greeks!