Avatar of Jig
  • Last Seen: 7 yrs ago
  • Joined: 10 yrs ago
  • Posts: 1286 (0.36 / day)
  • VMs: 0
  • Username history
    1. Jig 10 yrs ago
  • Latest 10 profile visitors:

Status

User has no status, yet

Bio

Section #1: Jig Being Right


It has come to my attention, that I am primarily right and drunk.

Jig is completely right.


Jig is right.


[11.01.50] Gowi:

Jig is right. Feel free to send that along.


[Jig is] 100% correct.


Jig was right 8 months ago, and is still right.


I love you, Jig. It's because you're Always Right™.


Once again, Jig is absolutely right about this.


Where is Jig when I need to vent about politics?
Drunk.


The mighty Jig is of course right.


Section #2: Jig's RP's


I'm not post-dating RP's I've been in that died out of nowhere and I've basically forgotten about, so here are my present ones.

Current:

Previous:

Wolf Manor (GM)

Wink Murder (GM)

Project Rehab (Player)

The Kidnapping (Player)

Wink murder: Who Killed Mr. Jig? (GM)

Finite Incantatem (Co-GM)

New Dawn Rising (Player)

Most Recent Posts

I'm not dead.

Sorry for AWoLitude. Will message @TheMaster99 and @Kirah re this and I think I'm in if other people are still existing humans. Will message shortly.
Sorry for my awayitude. Uni happened. It's like shooting myself in the skull with a platinum-tipped slug.
No, I don't know what I mean by that but it's ALREADY FRYING MY BRAIN.

Will check up properly this weekend. :)
All me.

Uni happened. I hope to find time this weekend. Sorry/love youse
Taking a couple of days out because of my return to uni. Thus far I remembered all of the stuff for my room's setup to be the dog's bollocks (LEDs, curtains, tasteful pictures, projector, speaker, substitute doll as in my avatar) but none of the useful things like bedclothes, crockery, cutlery, books, pens, paper... I'll probably spend the next few days doing my absolute best headless chicken impression and if I'm on here, it's because I'm procrastinating. Which will be good news for youse but bad news for me in the longterm.

After that, I absolutely definitely need to prioritise another game I'm in (sorry Kirah...) because I have been sooooo slack there so far and I'm absolutely definitely holding things up over there.

Will catch up on the IC now but probably not be in a position to contribute anything. If anybody wants to move on and bunny Beck and/or Will, well, I would totally do the same to you so don't hold back.
Sorry for useless. Currently in the process of moving back to uni so I might be a bit non-existent this week.
I mean, I think this is exactly the reason why gay prides are so bloody useless. If it was like a regular old festival, I think it'd do a lot more to show that gay people are just like us straight people, except they like a different sex (namely, the same as theirs). Now it's enforcing that they are different somehow and that enforces the 'different than us = bad' thing that you see in our tribal nature.


I think you're overthinking the division aspects. Everybody's welcome at prides I've been to (except sometimes kids in some areas, because of explicit sexual themes and/or heavy drinking) - it's just gay-themed. Unlike basically every other organisation and event which defaults to being straight-oriented and catering for the majority, and nobody's asking for all events to have a token gay thing for the gays. They just gayly do gay stuff and have a gay old time.

Yes, they are pointing out that people are different, but people are different. It's not saying that different is bad, and people that draw that conclusion are the problem.

Tolerance doesn't mix well with democracy. Like I said, tolerance only has to extend as far as the majority within a country wishes it to extend. There's really .. not much more to it except your personal idea of tolerance.


I mean, tolerance is just that: tolerance. Being unable to tolerate another social group (whether at a personal or governmental level) is still intolerant. It has nothing to do with democracy, although I like to think most people would uphold and vote for tolerant parties and policies.

Let me argue in the name of a religious nut (whether he be Christian, Jewish or Muslim) and say that homosexual sex is in fact dangerous. It does harm people because it means they can't go to paradise/heaven. It does harm people because it is inviting the devil into our society.


Okay, I'll expand my definition to provable harm. A drunk driver has a high chance of doing provable, measurable harm. People are more than welcome to raise the concern that their denominational deity might have an issue with Steve and Carl at it like rabbits next door, but it seems to me to be obvious that that is a supposition that can't be proven and therefore holds little weight as an argument. Burden of proof and all that.

... which is forcing their worldview upon others that do not share this worldview. It's really not that hard, dude. The worldview that everyone should have an equal chance at living their life in the same way as others is a worldview in and of it's own. Even though I agree with this worldview I also acknowledge that it's still just a worldview and not everyone has to agree. The majority believes in this worldview and therefore you'll find that this is the worldview that everyone more or less agrees with.


I agree that there's a paradox in that in order to be truly tolerant, one has to tolerate intolerance. But I don't think it's inconsistent to propose a version of events where LGB do their thing behind closed doors while bigots do their thing behind closed doors and nobody is bothered by anybody. And then either group should have the opportunity to be out and proud, if they'd like to take it.

Because if you disagree, you'll be branded negatively in a social regards


and rightly so? It still boils down to whether people can share or not. People that can't share are on the level of five year-olds, and I don't respect five year-olds or think their arguments tend to be very valuable.

I make it a point to not judge other cultures, ideas or people. Reason being that yes, I can actually see why Wehrmacht soldiers fought for Hitler, and I respect them for fighting for what they thought was right. Yes, I can actually see why Hitler did what he did - I do not agree with it, but I can see why he did it and to a degree I think he deserves some objective respect for building an empire the way he did.

Note that that in no way means I agree we should kill the jews. It just means I can see his ideology, I can understand it, I can still disagree but respect that he fought for it.

And yes, in that regard, I also respect ISIS fighters who fight for their ideology. Because that's what you do.


My point was mostly, you can respect people for doing what they believe in (as opposed to being duplicitous), but if it comes to picking sides - which you have to do in a situation with the intolerant (whose mantra by definition has to be "this bar ain't big enough for the two of us") - I'd like to think most people would pick the tolerant.

On a side-note, I've actually read a lot of Hitler and... I don't understand his ideology. Mein Kampf is a mad rag of random assertions based on nothing that wouldn't scrape a pass in a secondary school essay, as is basically everything else I've read by him. Not that I think I'd be won over by his arguments anyway, they really aren't even arguments. I'm not convinced he wasn't a pioneer of postmodernist irony whose art project got really out of hand.

So no, I don't pick between either of them. They are both right - or at least both think they are right, and therefore, both have a right to defend their claim.


They both have a right to defend their claim. Neither has a monopoly on truth.
It doesn't stop you looking at ISIS fighters and thinking "boy howdy, that's fucked up. I much prefer the other guys".

Although the white people have the most agency, they are also the biggest group that is trying to help LGBT people because they have the agency. I believe this comes more from a PR perspective and they really don't care about LGBT people, but they're still helping.


Which is fine: I don't expect all MPs to have a personal experience of being LGBT, but when they see that laws are unfairly affecting a proportion of society and that that portion of society would like them changed and that society would generally support it (despite it having nothing to do with the rest of society), then that's a completely reasonable thing to do.

I mentioned white people because you brought up challenges interracial relationships can face, and I hadn't had those in mind when suggesting that LGB sexualities have the most challenges.

I'm not
blaming white people for all the shit


Gay community there is big as fuck.


Try the villages. Rural places in the UK are backward as fuck. It's getting better, but they're obviously streets behind metropolitan areas.

Like we discussed before, in most western countries, LGBT people too enjoy the freedom that straight people do. Legally. Most of the time it falls under the umbrella 'no discrimination' laws.


There are also many countries in the Western world that do not recognise equal marriage. In (most of) the UK and in the RoI, it's very, very recent. Again, since you've lived in such a tolerant country that's been very ahead on these issues, maybe it's not such a hot topic for you because it has no reason to be. LGB people in the UK have only been equal citizens for a year or so now.

What you believe [re marriage]doesn't matter in this case.


I'm not saying what I believe marriage should be is how it is. But my argument is internally consistent. The state should treat its citizens equally in a way that doesn't advantage or disadvantage straight couples, LGB couples, or single people, unless it can be proven that any of those humans somehow deserves more or fewer rights than any of the others. I'm a big advocate in the UK of Civil Partnerships being extended to straight people because right now we have a funny situation where LGB people have access to rights that straight people don't, which isn't fair, even if it's a refreshing change of pace.

Well actually until you're 21, a parent is supposed to take care of their children no matter how intolerant they are.

Doesn't help that shelters for children like this are often lackluster and shitty.


Neither of these are really helpful the child, I don't think. A parent that wants to disown their kid isn't going to take good care of that kid just because you force them to keep them.

But that's exactly my point. There's little to complain about nowadays in most countries. The EU actually enforces that member states offer some degree of equality between people legally.


It doesn't enforce equal marriage and, at least in the UK (excluding NI), gay people don't really protest against the government any more because, as you say, there's nothing to really complain about. At the social level, there's still strides to go to make sure that LGBT kids in schools, for example, aren't bulied, but that's the social level.

Which is again my problem with gayprides. It's stopped being about acceptance and instead is a commercialized practice funded by the government.


I think it's now both. But it's not a bad investment from the government, because the big gay prides are big money. It may well leave one with a sour taste in one's mouth, but many many events are funded through advertisement (at least in the UK).

That doesn't take away from all of the good stuff there is in gay prides (which I've already tried to indicate).

Agreed, I was just raising the point that there's many smaller groups that do not get benefits simply because they're smaller.


And one can support both, like I support the very small minority of straight people that would prefer civil partnerships to marriage. And then there are some (we use paedophiles as an example) I go into more detail on lower down.

It's all generational, man. In 20 years we'll probably have reached the point where nobody cares anymore bar the religiously devoted.


Let's hope so.

Oh no. I mean the USA has a long way to go socially, but what I have been saying is that in most western countries, LGB people are on equal footing already. And the transgenders are coming closer too.


The USA and plenty of other places, too. It depends on the locality, and not the location.
But, yes, gay people are finally getting to legal equality: and, at least in the UK, now they have, they broadly don't protest. They might still campaign to change the social landscape, but that's not against the government.

<Snipped quote by Jig>

Yeah, I'm a rude person.

Actually, we had a political party here called Party Martijn. They were a group that voted for the acceptance of pedophiles - medically/psychologically. They didn't want pedophilia to be legalized but rather wanted there to be more professional help for people that had pedophilic ideas in their head and wanted these ideas gone.

[...]

I was never against this party, in fact I kind of supported the idea of it even if I'd never vote for them (one-issue parties are a no-go for me). People, even pedophiles, have a right to democracy in our society, and if they had wanted to legalize pedophilia, I would've accepted that if they were the majority. That's how democracy works.


I don't disagree with any of this, apart from disagreeing that I'd 'accept' paedophilia if it were legalised. I would accept the paedophiles were acting within the law, but would not waive my right to challenge that law because I broadly agree with the UK age of consent as it is.

So, I disagree in the sense that there's other sexualities that want to be heard but that others, including LGBT people, do not want to hear.


Or that are inclined to put their head above the parapet, because nobody wants to be 'the paedo guy' and you've already pointed and laughed at a hypothetical guy who wants to get it on with his car. You're right that there's at least an element of the public not being willing to hear their point of view, but I don't think that's the whole issue, and I don't see the connection between LGBT protests and the silencing of more niche interest groups' rights.

Apart from anything else, the LGB question is quite an easy argument to thrash out. It has nothing to do with the very difficult question of consent, and entirely to do with tolerance. No consenting LGB person can be harmed by another LGB person who also consents, so the argument boils down to whether or not to be tolerant of the act of same-sex, uh, sex and whether the people that do it should be on equal legal footing with those that don't. As you say, much of the West (though I think less of it than you) has broadly decided that it's none of their business, which is nice. The paedophile/zoophile case, meanwhile, both boils down to how one measures consent, who/what is able to give consent, and what 'harm' actually is; it's a messy argument. Animals and kids both have different statuses in terms of legal protection to adults, which is something that would have to be taken into account.

I agree that having that argument is going to be difficult for those groups because they will be shouted down and accused of perversion by both straight and LGB people alike, but that's not the only reason those voices are hard to hear. And it's a shame that people aren't prepared to listen, because frankly there's a damn good argument to be made for being tolerant and understanding of people who are attracted to kids provided they're prepared to not fuck any kids. At the most cynical, there's 'know your enemy', at the most sympathetic, there's 'you're a human being and can't help the way you feel', and, somewhere in the middle, you have 'let us know if there's anything you think we can do to help you not fuck kids'.

I don't normally like the 'born this way' argument because it's normally applied to the LGBT+ community when actually the better argument is 'none of your fucking business'. However, it seems highly unlikely that paedophiles or zoophiles choose their orientation given that at least the former are the #1 acceptable target on basically everybody's list and it's therefore unfair to judge them for who they are. If they fuck a kid, well, that's a crime and they're almost certainly harming the child one way or another*, so judging them by their actions is reasonable as they are a criminal in both the legal and social sense of the word.

*inb4 ripostes about statutory rape and such. Kids are idiots and there's no real way to means-test who is and who isn't 'ready for sex' and therefore able to give legal consent, so the age of consent is by necessity an estimate and somewhat arbitrary. The blanket-ban on sex with people under the age of consent is therefore not exactly neat, but does at least protect those that fall within it that do need protection and provides a very deft legal framework for who can and can't give consent, especially when one takes into account a grooming/domestic abuse scenario, where one side is manipulated - kids being stupid, they're vulnerable to this. That said, I don't think it's unthinkable that a 13 year-old could be mature enough to make decisions about their own sex-lives, but the majority of kids are idiots and need protecting from themselves as much as they need protecting from the big bad wolf. So, yes, a functioning adult that lives an adult life who fucks somebody under the age of consent is playing with someone that should be deemed to be too stupid to say yes unless proven otherwise (which one can't) and that basically falls under the same social category of fucking somebody who is too drunk to clearly give consent.
In reality I don't give a crap who dogs who in the ass as long as it happens behind closed doors.


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 yours 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.

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.


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.

Your Dutch is decent.


Dank je wel.

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.


Again, not here.

Still curious what an LGBT way of partying is.


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+.

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


Hahahahanope.

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

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.


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.

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 have these limits with homosexuals, but I could understand they have these with homosexuals.


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.

Under this logic people can do drugs, drink and then go driving. As long as they're not hurting anyone then it's fine.


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.

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?


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 are entitled to live (and let live. My arguments have a theme.)

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


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

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 you 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.


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?

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?


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.

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


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

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.


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).

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?


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.

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.


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.

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


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

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.


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.

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


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

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.


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.
The screamy bit was meant more towards screamy internet people. Some of them find their way into the real world.

Yes, I've been to gay prides, I've seen in person how fun but absolutely useless they are.


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.

You're right in that most people (at least in the UK) don't care one way or the other - and that's great. However, when people do care, it sucks for LGBT+ people.

Yes. Just like it sucks to be pro-environment and to hear people say they don't care.


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.

Still, I can't help but read a chip on your shoulder when you pull up gay prides three times. Unless they're vastly different in the US I am Dutch.

[...]

Most LGBT+ people would be delighted with a world where people can pursue life in their own way (including being homophobic), but it's not unreasonable for them to want and expect the same legal rights and social acceptance as cishet people

Hey holy shit!! We both live in countries where this is already the case! WOW! imagine that


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.

it does sound like you're in some way offended by LGBT+ people when they're doused in sparkles and boas and ... you know, gay stuff.

Not at all. Why would that offend me? If anything I think it's a nicer fashion statement than some of the modern fashionable clothes we see nowadays. It's just gays having a gay party. What's the difference between a gay party and a party? IMHO they are the same.


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.

LGBT+ have historically had a pretty shitty time of it - let 'em party one day a year.

If you don't like that stuff, do what I do and just stay at home that day. No, I'd rather go out and do stuff I want to do. I'm not going out and beating LGBT people up, in fact, in real life, I don't even say I disagree with the idea of gay pride. So I think that earns me a right to do whatever the hell I want, innit?


Yep, do what you want. Again with the feel I got that you had an issue with prides. Since you're keen to underline you don't, I'll take it back.

I feel like you didn't read anything I posted after my OP, did you?


Nope, genuinely didn't. There was a helluvva lotta text.

I'm pretty sure you've actually just defined a bigot. At least in my book, somebody who is intolerant and can't live by a 'live and let live' mentality is precisely a bigot.

Sorry, can you read, isn't that exactly what I just said? I didn't say shit about not letting the LGBT people live their lives. In fact I've advocated nothing BUT that the entire thread. If someone can advocate being anti LGBT and at the same time remain respectful, then you really have no business calling them a bigot, because that's not a bigot, that is just someone with a differing opinion.

Please don't put words in my mouth.


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) is a bigot.

People who are respectful are tolerant and that has to mean, "I don't like it, but you 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.

*unless one follows the 'gay marriage causes floods' policy, which I think we can agree is probably not a thing

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 is bigotry.

The law in the UK does not forbid the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, or even the dissemination of that opinion, but nor does it protect the people with that opinion from being ridiculed or told, more roundly, to fuck right off. It does, however, explicitly forbid the dissemination of the opinion that LGBT+ people should be harmed. Great, we're on the same page then, since I actually wrote that LGBT people should not be harmed even if you are against them. Thanks for repeating what I already wrote. Talking free speech is all well and good, but in the UK at least, it's freedom within the law. That is to say, one cannot advocate committing a crime. Discussing whether or not something (killing gays, for example) should or should not be legal is fine, but until you've won that argument one way or the other, the law's position is absolute. Same as above. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.


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

- the same privileges that the people that advocate against them have historically enjoyed. People who advocate against the rights or the lifestyle of a group that does no harm to anybody whatsoever fall into one of two camps; the religiously insane; or the interminably selfish. The 'god will smite us all' group, I think most people would agree, basically comprises dumbasses. Not at all. I do not agree. They just have differing world views. This is not a battle of right vs. wrong, it's a battle between multiple right's.


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.

All of this cuts both ways, of course. I'm sure there are plenty of LGBT+ people (or supporters) who are militant and intolerant of people peacefully disagreeing, and they're bigots too. The only thing is, it's almost never the anti-gay bigots that get the shitty end of the stick. loloolollolololololololololo Ain't no anti-gay bigot who's afraid to be with their partner in public. Interracial couples, polygamous 'couples', couples where one or both sides have strict parents, couples with differing religions Ain't no anti-gay bigot whose right to marry/have consensual sex with the person they choose is something that has to be fought for. polygamous people. Many anti-same sex marriage people actually advocated that if people of the same sex are allowed to be married, so should they with their 3 cousins and 4 girlfriends. And they're not wrong. Ain't no anti-gay bigot whose sexuality and how it relates to free speech and the law is called frequently into question. There also isn't any sexuality that is as outspoken about their sexuality as the LGBT community. People that have sex with cars are not really heard. There's not many of them but they exist. I wonder how we'd feel if people like that wanted to get vocal about their rights to marry a car.

Because marriage is a lot more than marriage, you know? It's about taxes, paperwork, benefits, etc. I agree homosexuals should be able to benefit. But where do you personally draw the line?


Okay, so I was mostly thinking the white cishet anti-gay advocates, so you do raise some valid points, but I'll address them:

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
You don't do that with gay prides, you don't do that by screaming in their face and protesting.


At least in the UK, modern gay prides aren't screamy protests. They're big ol' carnivals which explicitly go out of their way to ensure that LGBT+ people are welcome. Lots of people go to the biggest ones who aren't even LGBT+, because it's basically a big gay pissup - which, incidentally, is a nice change for LGBT+ from the usual mindset of 'must be vigilant when around my partner in public in case somebody literally beats us up'. Or it's an understanding space where people are uncertain about their gender or sexuality to go experiment with a new version of themselves.

You're right in that most people (at least in the UK) don't care one way or the other - and that's great. However, when people do care, it sucks for LGBT+ people. It results in anything from low-level being made to feel shitty (whether intentional or not) to literally being killed, even in societies where people are broadly understanding.

Still, I can't help but read a chip on your shoulder when you pull up gay prides three times. Unless they're vastly different in the US, it does sound like you're in some way offended by LGBT+ people when they're doused in sparkles and boas and ... you know, gay stuff. It's just gays having a gay party. LGBT+ have historically had a pretty shitty time of it - let 'em party one day a year. If you don't like that stuff, do what I do and just stay at home that day. God knows LGBT+ people spend enough time feeling like the world's ramming one particular version of existence down their throats: I think it's pretty polite of the majority of LGBT+ people who go to prides to condense all their public gay into one day a year in some cities.

Fact of the matter is, you can advocate pro-LGBT+ but at the same time they have a right to advocate anti-LGBT+ and they don't even need a good reason for it. All they need is a gut feeling.

This doesn't make them a bigot


I'm pretty sure you've actually just defined a bigot. At least in my book, somebody who is intolerant and can't live by a 'live and let live' mentality is precisely a bigot. The law in the UK does not forbid the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, or even the dissemination of that opinion, but nor does it protect the people with that opinion from being ridiculed or told, more roundly, to fuck right off. It does, however, explicitly forbid the dissemination of the opinion that LGBT+ people should be harmed. Talking free speech is all well and good, but in the UK at least, it's freedom within the law. That is to say, one cannot advocate committing a crime. Discussing whether or not something (killing gays, for example) should or should not be legal is fine, but until you've won that argument one way or the other, the law's position is absolute.

Most LGBT+ people would be delighted with a world where people can pursue life in their own way (including being homophobic), but it's not unreasonable for them to want and expect the same legal rights and social acceptance as cishet people - the same privileges that the people that advocate against them have historically enjoyed. People who advocate against the rights or the lifestyle of a group that does no harm to anybody whatsoever fall into one of two camps; the religiously insane; or the interminably selfish. The 'god will smite us all' group, I think most people would agree, basically comprises dumbasses. The 'I don't like it so nobody can have it' group, meanwhile, is suffering a serious lack of the ability to share. They have the right to be nuts/selfish, but, you know, it doesn't stop them being nuts/selfish, or being judged for being nuts/selfish in a way that is directly opposed to a group that doesn't want anything more than the equality it typically hasn't experienced.

All of this cuts both ways, of course. I'm sure there are plenty of LGBT+ people (or supporters) who are militant and intolerant of people peacefully disagreeing, and they're bigots too. The only thing is, it's almost never the anti-gay bigots that get the shitty end of the stick. Ain't no anti-gay bigot who's afraid to be with their partner in public. Ain't no anti-gay bigot whose right to marry/have consensual sex with the person they choose is something that has to be fought for. Ain't no anti-gay bigot whose sexuality and how it relates to free speech and the law is called frequently into question.
Excuse me.

@Jig: Voltour de France or Voltour de Massif?


Voltour Massif. No 'de'.
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet