[quote=@Jig]
Fair. You just pulled up gay prides multiple times, so it does read like you had an axe to grind. I'm not arguing they're politically valuable, but they're still a useful social outlet for a group that doesn't typically get to safely be public.
[/quote]

This is where the issue comes with you coming in and discussing (which I'm fine with don't get me wrong. I love a good discussion and I love being the side that isn't usually argued for.) The discussion came from a discussion in the status bar, where I pointed out homophobes have a right to be homophobic. It really just came from that - no axe to grind. I just wanted to advocate for the other side, since this website in particular is filled with liberal left wing people.

In reality I don't give a crap who dogs who in the ass as long as it happens behind closed doors.


[quote=@Jig]I don't think it's comparable. Pro-environmental people don't typically (reasonably) have to fear for their safety in a given situation where they're just being themselves. Walking down the street with your pro-environmentalist partner is not the same as walking down the street with your same-gendered partner. One can be made to feel shitty as a pro-environmentalist in the same way that one can be made to feel shitty for being LGBT+, but the stakes are a lot higher for LGBT+ people who want to live the same way that cishet people do. Being physically attacked is a real threat for LGBT+ people and if you're walking down the street as a transgendered person or holding hands with your same-gendered partner, that's much more apparent than walking down the street as somebody who has opinions about the environment. LGBT+ people are walking targets.[/quote]

The point I was making is that shitty things are a simple fact of life. I agree that it's shitty - anyone will agree. But it's a fact of life. Now it's a fact of life we can do something about.

And I'll find you will see that a lot. In busy streets, if a homosexual or transgender gets attacked, you'll probably see people step in when it comes to blows. At least, that's the impression I have here. 

[quote=@Jig]Sorry, het leek me alsof je amerikaans was en daarom vond ik het belangrijk, het engels context te beschrijven. Eigelijk hebt je het bijna (maar niet duidelijk) gezegd, dat je Nederlands bent, maar dat heb ik niet echt gezien. But, still, at least in the UK, social acceptability is still at the very least a new thing and, in rural areas (which I know well), not guaranteed. I expect it's the same in the Netherlands for rural areas.[/quote]

Ik haat Amerika ;) Your Dutch is decent. 

In the Netherlands we have longstanding culture of acceptance due to our trading history. We were known as the cradle of acceptance during much of history. We were the center of trade in Europe for the longest time, so it was prerogative we accepted everyone. 

Of course it wasn't perfect, but it was necessity.

So yes, even the rural areas here are accepting. There are skits of old, old humor shows that feature 'village-gays'. Exceptions there, I'd advise any homosexual against walking through the Schilderswijk or any other primarily muslim neighborhood.

[quote=@Jig]
1) You pulled it up multiple times so it sounded like you had an axe to grind (as I said before)
2) Sometimes, LGBT+ people want to party in an LGBT+ way (which they rarely get to publicly do). So that LGBT+ness would be the difference between a party and a gay party.[/quote]

Still curious what an LGBT way of partying is.

[quote=@Jig]

Nope, genuinely didn't. There was a helluvva lotta text.[/quote]
I'd argue you should read it but if I were you I wouldn't either because fuck that shit.

[quote=@Jig]
I'm not putting words in your mouth. You said that X doesn't make one a bigot. I'm saying it kinda actually does. It's not putting words in your mouth, it's just disagreeing with you. I'm not saying you're an anti-gay advocate. I'm saying that somebody who is intolerant (of anything, and not necessarily you) [i]is[/i] a bigot.[/quote]

Your definition of tolerance must be different from mine then. I agree that anti-gay advocate are intolerant. This is where the whole 'democracy' thing comes into place. If anti-gay advocates are the majority, in a democracy, they have the legal right to make homosexuality illegal.

That's how it works. That's why I am anti democracy. Therefore within a democracy, the concept of 'tolerance' only stretches as far as the majority wants it to stretch. And in case you disagree with that, let me propose a situation, and I'll tell you whether or not we should be tolerant.

As we know bestiality is illegal. Under your logic of not harming anyone, however, there are theoretically some animals that could engage in sexual acts with humans without harm befalling them and without harm befalling the human. Therefore nobody is harmed. Some would even argue that for some animals in the grey area, it's still not harmful.

It's still rather nasty. Do you think we need to be tolerant for these people? Do you think we'd need to offer them legal assistance to do whatever they want? 

I don't. 

And I also don't think that makes me a bigot. It makes me a rational human being who has social limits. I'm not saying [i]I[/i] have these limits with homosexuals, but I could understand they have these with homosexuals. 

[quote=@Jig]People who are respectful are tolerant and that has to mean, "[i]I[/i] don't like it, but [i]you[/i] can do what you want if you're not hurting anybody". Those people are not bigots. People who believe that something that harms nobody* is wrong and that therefore it needs to be banned or curtailed are not tolerant: those people are bigots. They are attempting to enforce their own personal worldview on everybody else - this is not respectful.[/quote]
Under this logic people can do drugs, drink and then go driving. As long as they're not hurting anyone then it's fine. 

And there's a paradox in your argument. Aren't LGBT people trying to force their worldview on everybody else - namely that being LGBT is fine? Think about it for a minute please. 

[quote=@Jig]*[sup]unless one follows the 'gay marriage causes floods' policy, which I think we can agree is probably not a thing[/sup]

I agree that throwing round the word "bigot" at people that disagree with one isn't useful. But, still, when it's actually bigotry, it [i]is[/i] bigotry.[/quote]

I agree. I just think that your standard of 'bigot' is too wide.


[quote=@Jig]You mentioned in the title of this thread, EU vs US contexts. Here's the British context. [sup]I know that's a touchy subject recently :([/sup]
Could be different elsewhere.[/quote]

Be happy that UK is out. I hope my country leaves next.

[quote=@Jig]Multiple rights? They clearly have a differing world-view, but they're the people advocating that some people do not deserve certain rights to facilitate their harmless lifestyles and that some people do. LGBT+ people are generally more than happy for everybody to have the same rights to live their lives, I think. It's the anti-gay lobby who want to deprive LGBT+ people of the ability to live their lives the same way cishet people get to.[/quote]

Let me put it like this:

If you ask an ISIS warrior if he is in the right he will say yes.

I can not confirm that he is wrong. I don't know what is right and wrong. Right and wrong is the most subjective of all things that are subjective because they are based 100% entirely on what [i]you[/i] think is right and wrong.

So no. It's very much a battle of two right's in my eyes. Both sides think they are right. Neither side will convince the other. The LGBT side will win because they are the younger generation.

Not because they have the moral high ground. It has nothing to do with that. It's pure generational conflict. 

[quote=@Jig]Okay, so I was mostly thinking the white cishet anti-gay advocates, so you do raise some valid points, but I'll address them:[/quote]

Why they gotta be white though? Blacks are notoriously anti-homosexual in the USA. Even in the UK they are. So why they gotta be white?

[quote=@Jig]1) Interracial couples have had the shitty end of the stick everywhere in the past and still do in some places nowadays. Still, the places where they have issues are the same places where LGBT+ people also have issues while there are places where inter-race is cool where LGBT+ isn't, though.[/quote]

Agreed. They're still a group that doesn't fall under LGBT that has problems.

[quote=@Jig]2) Polygamous couples: if everybody is happy with an arrangement where there's more than two people, more power to them. I think the law should also allow for it, in the same way it allows for groups of two. But, still, they come in either the strictly religious (whom I broadly discount from sensible discussion) or the very-much minority of secular people who share partners in some way or other (who aren't typically anti-gay advocates).[/quote]

Yes, and being married to multiple partners also brings certain economical advantages that are important to me personally because, allowing polygamy means disadvantaging those that aren't polygamous.

You'd need to rework all the marriage papers.

Good luck.

[quote=@Jig]3) Couples with strict parents/religion: can be shitty for them at the family level but that shit ain't upheld by law (at least in the EU/US), as far as I'm aware, so I consider it irrelevant.[/quote]

Depending on country yes it most certainly can. And even so, what if these kids get thrown out by parents. Don't you think that's a legal issue too?

[quote=@Jig]4) Polyamorous people: genuinely don't know how I feel about incestuous breeding (on account of it being shitty for the kids who have a better-than-average chance of coming out differently abled while I don't wanna live in a world that dictates who gets to breed) but I don't have an issue with polygamy or polyamy in and of themselves, and I think people who want to honestly make a commitment to each other in whatever configuration applies to them should have commitment respected, both socially and legally. So, no, I agree: they're not wrong.[/quote]

See I am most definitely in favor of selective breeding in the sense that I think everyone should get a shot, unless you're proven to be genetically defective.

I'm not talking ADHD or even autistic, but if your child will have a disease that kills them in under a year and we can 100% certainly prove it, I think you should not be granted medical care for that child on the expense of the government. That and abortion should be incentivized by the hospital.

There's more people I'd rather not have children but we can get into that another time.

Point of the story is that you are wrong in a) incestuous couples have a near non-existant risk of diseases in children if they are either 1. far away enough in the bloodline from each other (a distant cousin marrying another distant cousin won't matter much more than any regular child will have risk of a disease) or 2. it's first generation incest. A brother and sister having sex and having a baby have low risk (slightly increased) but in the face of other risks, it's pretty small. It's generational incest (aka the children of that couple having babies, and then those babies having babies) that creates more and more risk.

And b) I was writing something here and then I got distracted with shit and now I can't remember so whatever, score a free point here and call me stupid or something

[quote=@Jig]5) Perhaps the reason that the LGB community is as outspoken as it is is because it's the widest, most obvious sexuality-based community whose rights are typically challenged. They're the loudest voices in that field nowadays on account of being the most numerous group.[/quote]

The point I was making is there are much more marginalized groups that don't raise their voices. That's why homophobia is seen as a giant issue today where as in reality, in most of Western Europe, it's a laughable nonexistant issue where if it happens, everyone gets angry at the homophobe.

[quote=@Jig]6) People who have sex with cars: live and let live. Until we invent cars that can have an opinion about their own sex lives, then it's really not my place to say. And if they want to get married to the car, then, fuck it, I don't waive my right to find that a bit weird, but I'm happy for them to do that and I'd like to think if I met them and/or their car in a pub, I'd have the good grace to be polite and, at the very least, not talk about the ins and outs of who/what does what to whom/what.[/quote]

That's a strange reaction. I'd probably point and laugh.

[quote=@Jig]7) I stand by 'almost never'. You've picked up on the exceptions. The majority of people who advocate against gay rights are people that are heterosexual: quite apart from anything else, it's not in the interest of people with even rarer sexualities to advocate against LGB groups.[/quote]

Well yes. Because, besides heterosexuals, you can really only be asexual or homosexual. 

Or anything in between those, such as bisexual. I don't think there's really any other sexualities. Because polygamy is still hetero/bi/homosexual.