@Dynamo Frokane except this is a serious thread where as yours is a thread full of edgy people doing their best to throw shade what 'subtle' unpopular opinions. That includes me.

Cheers mate.

Surely you realise that you AND a few others in this thread, have also posted in unpopular opinions. Glad to see we are all part of the same edgy pirate ship.

<Snipped quote by Neurovoid>

<Snipped quote by Buddha>

I think the point that the Neurovoid was making that people dont have to worry about holding hands ont the basis of being heterosexual I'm sure a hetero jewish couple in an anti-semitic area might get shit for holding hands, but that would be because of their faith not because they are straight.

Hetero people just dont get shit for being straight in most of the world in the modern world and in history.

And the point I was making was that being homosexual is just one of the problems a couple can face, not the problem a couple can face. It's a variable within a relationship and the outsider response to that relationship, not the single defining factor, and therefore, there are many different ways for a couple to be endangered in public.

One such reason could be as simple as looking at someone in public.

Violence doesn't need a reason, a lot of the times. You are correct in saying that heterosexuals don't get shit for being heterosexual in the world. There's not a single country that gives people shit for that.

Because that'd be - quite literally - the stupidest thing to ever exist. The reason being that if you are anti-heterosexuals you are anti-human nature, because fact of the matter is heterosexual couples make babies and therefore every society looks at heterosexuals favorably.

A society that is anti-heterosexual can't exist because that society would die out within one generation.

The entire point I'm making is that the legal rights of LGBT people have been established, therefore there is not much more the LGBT crowd can protest for. Bar maybe the bathroom rights (which I find a ridiculous thing to feel the need to argue for to begin with). Socially yeah, there's a lot we can still establish and improve on.

Such as homosexuals not being targeted in public.

Sadly you can never eradicate homosexuals being targeted - not because of religion, not because of hatred, not for any reason, because even if you remove those factors, senseless violence for no reason other than the desire to be violent still exists, and it is not unlikely in my eyes that this is a large cause for the violence against homosexual couples.

Protests won't help you with that.

<Snipped quote by Buddha>

Surely you realise that you AND a few others in this thread, have also posted in unpopular opinions. Glad to see we are all part of the same edgy pirate ship.

Please read. Including me I wrote.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

Please read. Including me I wrote.

Please read: AND a few others in this thread.

Cheers Mate.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

And the point I was making was that being homosexual is just one of the problems a couple can face, not the problem a couple can face. It's a variable within a relationship and the outsider response to that relationship, not the single defining factor, and therefore, there are many different ways for a couple to be endangered in public.

One such reason could be as simple as looking at someone in public.

Violence doesn't need a reason, a lot of the times. You are correct in saying that heterosexuals don't get shit for being heterosexual in the world. There's not a single country that gives people shit for that.

Because that'd be - quite literally - the stupidest thing to ever exist. The reason being that if you are anti-heterosexuals you are anti-human nature, because fact of the matter is heterosexual couples make babies and therefore every society looks at heterosexuals favorably.

A society that is anti-heterosexual can't exist because that society would die out within one generation.

The entire point I'm making is that the legal rights of LGBT people have been established, therefore there is not much more the LGBT crowd can protest for. Bar maybe the bathroom rights (which I find a ridiculous thing to feel the need to argue for to begin with). Socially yeah, there's a lot we can still establish and improve on.

Such as homosexuals not being targeted in public.

Sadly you can never eradicate homosexuals being targeted - not because of religion, not because of hatred, not for any reason, because even if you remove those factors, senseless violence for no reason other than the desire to be violent still exists, and it is not unlikely in my eyes that this is a large cause for the violence against homosexual couples.

Protests won't help you with that.

Well I think that it doesnt just boil down to 'baby making' there are infertile straight couples and they dont get shit either, or genreally straight people who just dont want kids, but the idea of a man and woman is so normal to everyone we dont persecute it.

Yes people can get shit for a range of reasons. Just like the jew example I gave.

You can protest social acceptance, legislation isnt the be all end all. Race relations dont get automatically correct just by a government bill, the Rap music you listen to speaks volumes about this. Killer Mike said that just because you arent legally allowed to own slaves or segregate it doesn't mean youll start having black folk over for dinner.

So if gays want to 'push' themselves into the public spectacle by having their parades, because they want thier sexuality to become more normalised like hetorosexuality is, then let em have it, they have a right to platform just like anyone else. Is it annoying and loud sometimes? Absolutely but so was the damn brexit movement or the Milo Yianouppolus fan club or those cringey slut walks, its annyoing, but then a lot of things are annyoing,I could cry on the internet but, I stick my headphones on and keep it moving.

@Dynamo Frokane Historically infertile women were given a lot of shit actually, and so were men that were considered infertile (because it wasn't possible to prove it back then). So you are wrong in that department. It has nothing to do with 'considering it normal' because infertility for straight couples historically resulted in shit too. In fact for a woman it was considered dangerous too. Because women didn't work = women didn't earn income = women relied on husbands to earn = husbands wanted a child to further their family line. No child = no food on the table = death.

The overall impression, though, is that infertility has often been a frightening and societally damaging experience — and that women usually suffered for it.

In a pre-IVF, pre-feminist world, where motherhood and the ability to carry sons often proved a woman's worth, childlessness was challenging and dangerous — for everybody involved. So nowadays, if you're struggling to get pregnant, give a thought to the women in the past who've shared your fight. You're all part of the same surreal, difficult club.

Ancient Indian childless women appeared not to have a good life either. One of the earliest Vedic texts reads: "O woe is the woman who does not carry out the provided role of a mother [birth of sons]. O woe the unmarried, woe the childless, woe the mother of daughters, the widow." Women who couldn't get pregnant were viewed as "possessed by Nirrti," a particularly ferocious goddess, and could be cast away out of the family unit.

Read a history book my man.

Generationally (that word comes up a lot when discussing social issues) we have gotten past that just like we will get past homophobia. But applying pressure like the LGBT community does now by forcing people to get over it is counteractive and makes it take longer to get over it. It makes people feel forced to do something and if anything, people don't like to be forced to do things.

I am unsure how protesting social acceptance would do any good. 'WE DEMAND YOU ACCEPT US' that's great, but.. who is going to listen to that? Do you expect to sway the hillbilly Christian who totes guns at homosexuals that steps too close to his property? How? He's not gonna have an epiphany, come on.

Race relations also don't improve with government bills but they're a start. Equal opportunity does not equal equal outcome. But it can lead to equal outcome. For example, lets say blacks were now getting educated (which they are more and more) meaning they're legally and socially on more equal footing with other races (let's say whites, because that's the prime target group I guess).

Not only that but it brings them into areas that were previously predominantly white, and perhaps Asian and Euro-Hispanic. That makes them mix with white people and other races, and it begins the fostering of the understanding of different cultures and the feeling that perhaps they are not so different after all. The in-group is no longer defined by skin color alone, but also by just sharing the same space, talking, etc.

Now imagine the same for homosexuals. They have the same rights and equal access to the same agencies and possibilities. Instead of mingling with the majority and fostering the growth of the in-group relations, they choose to out themselves at gay prides to show 'look how different we are!' Do you think that straight people will go 'well damn, they're kinda like us after all!!!' Fuck no.

Most people will no care, and those hard-liners that were already against homosexuals will see the.. half naked men.. and go 'GOD DAMN WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG' and continue toting guns. Like I said before, acceptance is already at a very high level in city areas, and as mentioned by Jigg, the areas that do not have a lot of acceptance are full of hard-liners that are not going to chance their mind with gay prides.

@Dynamo Frokane Historically infertile women were given a lot of shit actually, and so were men that were considered infertile (because it wasn't possible to prove it back then). So you are wrong in that department. It has nothing to do with 'considering it normal' because infertility for straight couples historically resulted in shit too. In fact for a woman it was considered dangerous too. Because women didn't work = women didn't earn income = women relied on husbands to earn = husbands wanted a child to further their family line. No child = no food on the table = death.

The overall impression, though, is that infertility has often been a frightening and societally damaging experience — and that women usually suffered for it.

In a pre-IVF, pre-feminist world, where motherhood and the ability to carry sons often proved a woman's worth, childlessness was challenging and dangerous — for everybody involved. So nowadays, if you're struggling to get pregnant, give a thought to the women in the past who've shared your fight. You're all part of the same surreal, difficult club.

<Snipped quote>

Read a history book my man.

Generationally (that word comes up a lot when discussing social issues) we have gotten past that just like we will get past homophobia. But applying pressure like the LGBT community does now by forcing people to get over it is counteractive and makes it take longer to get over it. It makes people feel forced to do something and if anything, people don't like to be forced to do things.

I am unsure how protesting social acceptance would do any good. 'WE DEMAND YOU ACCEPT US' that's great, but.. who is going to listen to that? Do you expect to sway the hillbilly Christian who totes guns at homosexuals that steps too close to his property? How? He's not gonna have an epiphany, come on.

Race relations also don't improve with government bills but they're a start. Equal opportunity does not equal equal outcome. But it can lead to equal outcome. For example, lets say blacks were now getting educated (which they are more and more) meaning they're legally and socially on more equal footing with other races (let's say whites, because that's the prime target group I guess).

Not only that but it brings them into areas that were previously predominantly white, and perhaps Asian and Euro-Hispanic. That makes them mix with white people and other races, and it begins the fostering of the understanding of different cultures and the feeling that perhaps they are not so different after all. The in-group is no longer defined by skin color alone, but also by just sharing the same space, talking, etc.

Now imagine the same for homosexuals. They have the same rights and equal access to the same agencies and possibilities. Instead of mingling with the majority and fostering the growth of the in-group relations, they choose to out themselves at gay prides to show 'look how different we are!' Do you think that straight people will go 'well damn, they're kinda like us after all!!!' Fuck no.

Most people will no care, and those hard-liners that were already against homosexuals will see the.. half naked men.. and go 'GOD DAMN WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG' and continue toting guns. Like I said before, acceptance is already at a very high level in city areas, and as mentioned by Jigg, the areas that do not have a lot of acceptance are full of hard-liners that are not going to chance their mind with gay prides.

Right first of all the inferitlity thing still isnt comparable, no one ever got thrown in prison for being infertile and straight whatever 'shit' they got isnt comparable to what the gays have went through. Also, you cant 'see' infertility, if an infertile couple walks down the street they arent going to be harassed on an assumption and DEFINATELY not in the modern world.

Yes government bills are a start and yes there are many different ways to intergrate, sadly, social intergration isnt a hard science, there is a lot trial and error, and gays arent nessecarily going to all be experts on how to market themselves to be accepted by a majoriy yes HETERONORMATIVE society.

Gay prides are all very different, some are very sexual, some are obnoxius, some are profuoud, some are loud, some are very quiet, some are musical and some are artsy, it all depends on who is organising it and what the public choose to react to indivudiually. But we can agree that most people arent in gay pride parades on most days. Pretty much for the majority of the year, gay people are going to work, going to the store to pick up groceries and paying bills just like everyone esle. This characterisation of them being Go-Go dancing psychopaths trying to slap society in the face with a pink dildo is just unhelpful and stupid.

If they want to celebrate their difference as part of their movement to acceptance then they should have at it, is it going to convince EVERY christian hillbilly to leave his NASCAR and go hug a twink? NO

But there are people in the middle of the extreme fringes who are maybe sitting on the fence about how they feel, and a tried and true method with western society is that the more we see something the less we care it gets BORING but improtantly it gets NORMAL.

Do you see people getting outraged at south park anymore for having naughty language? The concerned parents from the late 90s and early 2000s? NO because its been around for 19 years and we are all used to it. Its a slow process but more and more of the world will get used to gays, its already started happening, and its not a smooth or perfect process but it will work on some level and if you are against general homophobia you shouldnt want to get in the way of that.

@Dynamo Frokane Shieeet homie, infertile women were out-casted to death and sometimes even killed, but shiet you right. You got it, it's not comparable. You can't see infertility. Can you see homosexuality? If so, please, tell me how. Far as I know homosexuals for the most part look like you and me. Might be awkward to assume someone is homosexual and they turn out not to be.

How is society heteronormative? I'm curious for your interpretation. Also, do you think it's strange that society is heteronormative, given that the norm is set by the majority, and the majority is hetero?

Aw shiet you just said you could tell that someone was gay. I guess you mean if they're openly holding hands and French kissing the fuck out of their partner (hot.) Yeah I agree they're normal people because actually I think homosexuality is normal (shiet, you even see it in birds. Not even because of a lack of different-sex partners but just for pleasure. Shit's crazy). You've never heard me say otherwise. I just wish that their gay prides resembled that they were regular people. Now that is something I would support because that in my eyes preaches social acceptance!

I strongly doubt that many people will be swayed by gay prides but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but raise you the counter point that the anti-homosexuality front probably in the same way attracts people.

As for your South Park analogy - I think that you're right. But shiet you must be able to tell that South Park never had South-Park-Prides where people preached the acceptance of muh naughty words. Like I said before, preaching 'WE MUST ACCEPT THESE PEOPLE OR ELSE WE ARE BIGOTS' is not going to help their cause man.

@Buddha The example was specifically about people holding hands, if two men are holding hands then people can see that. Not an infertile womb of a straight woman holding the hands of a straight man with a faulty dick.

Gay prides resembled normal people? Well if you are in agreement that gays are normal, what exactly is abnormal what they are doing?

Dancing? Music? Crazy Outfits? Sexual Display?

This is all VERY prevelatnt in straight parades as well any sort of carnival, festival or mardi gras is probably the same.

Maybe not south park in particular but there have been 'concerned parent ' for things that they have deemed innapropriate for children, but thats just one example, people protest all different types of shit until they get used to it.

Society is heteronormative and that in itself is very expected and mostly fine, but it does mean that the minority are not being treated equal until they are further intergrated. Heteronormative=/=Homophobia, we can be majority straight and just be accepting and tolerant, but the question is how do we get there.

To summarise, Gay pride parades are fine, not hurting anyone, if anyone doesnt like them they can cross the street and avoid it.

To summarise, black people are fine, not hurting anyone, if anyone doesnt like them they can cross the street and avoid it.

I'm not going to add much to this conversation, but I know Buddha so I'm going to lend you a hand here and point out how terrible your conclusion has come out to be. Might wanna rethink it.

I just enjoy reading conflicting opinions, before you ask.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

I'm not going to add much to this conversation, but I know Buddha so I'm going to lend you a hand here and point out how terrible your conclusion has come out to be. Might wanna rethink it.

I just enjoy reading conflicting opinions, before you ask.

lol you funny, i never said black people

<Snipped quote by j8cob>

lol you funny, i never said black people

The point was that your conclusion was flawed in its premise because I could easily change the subject matter to something else and your statement would be pretty racist or sexist or whatever else I felt like changing it to. It was to easily demonstrate to you your mistake without requiring me to sit here and lay it out word by word in a long-winded explanation.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

The point was that your conclusion was flawed in its premise because I could easily change the subject matter to something else and your statement would be pretty racist or sexist or whatever else I felt like changing it to. It was to easily demonstrate to you your mistake without requiring me to sit here and lay it out word by word in a long-winded explanation.

Thats a faulty comparison, gay parades are an event, black people are well...people. My original post wasnt discriminatory because parades are loud whoever organises them.

Nice try though, but no cigar this time.