[quote=@Buddha]In reality I don't give a crap who dogs who in the ass as long as it happens behind closed doors.[/quote]

Or, indeed, who tups whom in the vagina so long as that happens behind equally-closed doors. If you make a distinction between how closed a door should be between your eyes and a gay couple and a straight couple, then your opinion is definitely biased. I'm not saying [i]yours[/i] is, but the 'behind closed doors' is an old phrase that always comes out to describe LGB people as though same-sex partnerships are in some way shameful, sordid, or in any way something to hide. The phrase doesn't exactly reek of acceptance - and never applies to straight people.

[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]

Not here. Metropolitan areas, sure. You go to anywhere in England (I'm talking England here, not the UK) that's not London, Manchester, or a major university town, and LGBT+ people don't have the luxury of the kindness of strangers.

[quote]Your Dutch is decent.[/quote]

Dank je wel.

[quote]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]

Again, not here.

[quote]Still curious what an LGBT way of partying is.[/quote]

Unless prides are vastly different in the Netherlands, I think you're being petulant. Sprinkles, glitter, terrible pop music. Gay as in 'that's so gay' rather than LGBT+.

[quote]I'd argue you should read it but if I were you I wouldn't either because fuck that shit.[/quote]

Hahahahanope.

[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.[/quote]

That is their right. It doesn't prevent them from being awful (either on account of the religiously nutty or the belligerently selfish).

[quote]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.[/quote]

For me, that's an issue of animal rights. With humans, we expect there to be consent given for intercourse to be acceptable. For inanimate objects (say, a dildo), we don't expect that. I can't work out to what degree in the real world I can balance the 'are you upsetting the animal or is the animal into it?' because there's no way to tell, but if a canine could give consent and gave consent, it's no business of mine whether a human gets to do it doggy style.

[quote]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]

I maintain my policy of 'live and let live'. If you find somebody with whom you can't live and let live (when you know nobody is being harmed), then you're probably intolerant of them. And that's most likely bigotry.

[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.[/quote]

You're taking me too literally: drinking and driving is dangerous. It just basically is, and not just for the perp but also for anybody else on the road. An LGB person having consensual sex with another LGB person or committing to a life with them via marriage harms nobody, because it's all consensual. Sober drivers are abiding by the contract all drivers should be abiding by (the law) when they drive sober, and they deserve to be protected from people who are breaking that contract (drunk drivers). That is to say, they have not given their consent to engage in drunken vehicular intercourse with drunken drivers. There's your difference.

[quote]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?[/quote]

Nope. They're trying to exist in a way that is ideally equal to cishet people but at the very least doesn't put them in danger every day of their lives. They [i]are[/i] entitled to live (and let live. My arguments have a theme.)

[quote]Be happy that UK is out. I hope my country leaves next.[/quote]

Swap you your Dutch citizenship for my UK one. Discussion for another day.

[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]

At a philosophical level, you're right, since nothing beyond maths can be proven.
That said, in real life, who're you gonna pick? The people who won't tolerate others or the people who just want to be recognised and allowed to live in their own way and otherwise to be left the fuck alone and ask for just one day a year to party publicly? Or, the ISIS fighter who won't tolerate any version of life other than their own understanding, or the person who just wants to live and let live? 

[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]

Because in the UK, the US, and the Netherlands, it's broadly white people who have actual agency. The house of commons, congress and the tweede kamer are primarily made of white faces. White faces in all three of these countries primarily make up the politically-engaged cohort. I'm not saying that BME communities don't have their own opinions (and I'm certainly not saying that BME communities have great records on LGBT+ issues), but it's white people in the three countries that have power at a legal level. At a social level, it depends very much on your local environment at least in the UK. Being gay in London isn't something anybody's gonna give a shit about. Being gay in a Welsh village... would not recommend to a friend.

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

Not legally, in most places (unless the US is more backwards than I thought).

[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]

I don't really believe that beyond next of kinship, marriage should provide any benefits to the people involved. It's a statement of emotional and/or financial commitment to another person, not to the taxman (or, it should be).

[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]

I can't think of a Western country that forbids, say, a Christian marrying/getting with a Muslim. At a social level for some communities, it may well be an issue that could well cause something like, as you say, kids being kicked out. But the law can't account for parents being intolerant (it can't force them to be tolerant: that battle is won socially and not legally) and I can't help but wonder if the kids wouldn't be better off being independent of people that have disowned them - the law forcing the parents to hold onto kids they hate isn't helping anybody. In the UK, I'm very critical of the state-care of kids, but that's an argument for another day.

[quote]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.[/quote]

My overall point is I don't care who has sex with whom, but thinking of the consequences on kids that might be born is reasonable. I don't know the science and I don't know where I'd draw the line anyway (so I won't bother looking into it), but, ultimately, at the relationship-level, it's none of my business.

[quote]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]

I'll take my free point. You're stupid or something.

[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]

It might seem that way in the Netherlands, where you've enjoyed equal marriage for ages. In most other European countries, it's only recently been passed or been on the agenda at all. Once England got access to equal marriage, I noticed the LGB community basically stop protesting, because there was little to protest about (at the legal level) - LGB people had stopped being second-class citizens who had fewer rights than straight people. It's not laughable to be a second-class citizen, which is what the legal lack of provision for the equivalent rights that straight people enjoyed rendered LGB people.

That's not to say there aren't other marginalised groups or that those groups aren't worth listening to, but at the same time, their issues don't disqualify the importance of LGB issues for LGB people.

There remain social issues (the whole literal safety of walking around with one's partner), which I sincerely hope will be lessened by the current generation's sexual open-mindedness, but I also think that the law lends a legitimacy to LGB partnerships by putting them on the same footing as straight partnerships, which, at the very least, will give LGB people more confidence that they're accepted socially - and they need some of that.

It sounds like you think LGB issues aren't really a thing in the Netherlands - but you're ahead on LGB issues anyway. So, you might have now found the solution that is publicly accepting LGB people and are perhaps missing the divides that the lack of social and legal acceptance in other countries can cause.

[quote]That's a strange reaction. I'd probably point and laugh.[/quote]

That would be [i]rude[/i].
Your argument is that somebody's different worldview is legitimate, even if you disagree with them. Pointing and laughing is somewhat incongruous.

[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.[/quote]

Well, you get a variety of people that you've mentioned (amongst others) that the law needs to take into account. LGB people are simply the largest single grouping, as opposed to, say paedophiles, zoophiles, people who're attracted to objects, etcetera. Each of these categories has a smaller cohort than the LGB community, and so the LGB voice is louder. It helps, of course, that LGB people can exist within a framework of adult consent, while the consent of a child, animal or object is much murkier territory.

So, yes, you're right when you say that the LGB community is the most outspoken voice among sexualities - but I'm not really sure who else you're expecting to hear from.