It's actually already legal and valid for gay couples to get married and adopt in every state of Mexico. These people want to have those laws CANCELLED. Cause "if a kid doesnt have a mom and a dad, they will grow up with no values"
Yes you do care ..it burns you up and the instant anyone express pride for being straight it instantly get turned into he's a homophobe anti gay bigotry . ...and for a community that claims to be peaceful and they just want to be happy .they are quick to spread hate ...
And I can't believe you said that people who go to public schools are lazy Idk the shit hole u live in but where I live schools are pretty good number 4 in Illinois
Interesting how history is written by the winner. If this was the other way around everyone would be all "belligerent homophobe tries to interrupt civil rights parade" "what an idiot" "they should have just trampled him" etc. etc.
It's different though. Homophobia is defined as "dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people," which makes this boy very brave because he's fighting against the hatred of gay people. If it were the other way around, it'd be a hateful person standing up to a celebrating crowd. Does this make sense?
Is this crowd not celebrating? Celebrating tradition and family values?
They're standing up for what they believe is right, and trying to make their society a better place. Just like anyone else.
^^ absolutely. One is about integrating people into society, the other is about segregating people. Funny how someone can really believe it's the same.
Bull. They call it "pro-family", not "anti-gay".
I don't deny that in many of them there is unnecessary and inappropriate hostility and disempathy, but that is not their foundation.
They mean well. If you don't understand that you prove my point that history is rewritten by the winner so that the loser is marginalized and demonized.
You guys talk about love and understanding toward LGBT people, but you deny it for anyone who disagrees with you.
Okay, so I was raised in a "pro-family" environment? And that label is about as true as "pro-life." In the same way "pro-life" mostly just means "we just want you to birth the kid, we don't give a rat's ass about whether you have the resources to get the kid into a loving home," "pro-family," where I come from, means "pro - our very specific definition of family, we'd rather the rest of you didn't exist."
"They call it "pro-family", not "anti-gay" - which makes them lying hipocrits. How is it "pro family" when they are against people forming a family? How is it "anti-family" when people of the same sex want to marry?
Also about as true as "pro-choice," huh?
You're right that people are imperfect. People have prejudices. But guess what? So do you. You've made that obvious. The difference is that I don't hate you or think you're evil, destructive people just because you aren't perfect.
That's normal human thought. Our brains are wired toward stereotype and bias. We're great at recognizing such failings in others, but it takes a lot of honesty and introspection to recognize it in ourselves.
What you guys need to learn is empathy. Learn what people really believe, and what they are really trying to accomplish. Not some imagined progressive talking points version of them that makes them out to be evil or ridiculous. That's got self-preservation psychology written all over it. If that's the best you can do, you're just contributing to the problem you say you're trying to overcome.
What do you mean it's the same as pro-choice? Pro-choice allows someone to not totally screw their life up having a baby. Pro-choice values the woman, pro-birth only values the fetus surviving until birth.
Just pointing out a double-standard. You're all taking pro-choice to refer to what pro-choice people want it to mean and nothing more, but you're scrutinizing "pro-life" and demonizing them for perceived weaknesses in their ranks. I could easily do the same for "pro-choice" people.
I repeat: this demonization and lack of empathy only proves my point. This outdated "us vs. them," "good vs. evil" viewpoint has got to stop. We're not learning anything.
Didn't want to get too far off-topic, but I guess if you ask for it, I have to let you have it, huh?
Firstly because "pro-choice" implies that the opposition is against choice, which they are not. They are just in favor of a more responsible use of choice. In fact you could say they are equally if not more in favor of personal freedom, because they don't want a woman to find herself unprepared in a situation where her only options are childbirth or abortion in the first place.
Also, "pro-choice"... except when it comes to someone's CHOICE to do any of the following:
- Own guns.
- Encourage birth instead of abortion.
- Burn coal.
- Use an incandescent light bulb.
- Share their religious beliefs (especially with their young, impressionable children).
- Engage in free market practices.
- Advocate traditional family values. A parade or protest, for example (*cough, cough*).
Don't like or agree with any of the above? Good. Then stop doing it to your opponents.
Again, this good vs. evil, us vs. them bull**** has GOT to stop.
Do you know how a man as divisive and dangerous as Donald Trump gets nominated as one of two candidates for the most powerful political office in the world?
Because our culture allows him to. Our culture of "I'm right, and you can just go f*** yourself." The same culture that you guys are directly contributing to in your mistreatment of anyone who dares disagree with you.
Sure you didn't. "Go ahead. Put up or shut up."
I must've imagined that.
[rolls eyes]
I wasn't even the one who brought it up initially; I was responding to abel's comment. Then nightshade picked up on it. Then you did.
Any bells ringing?
I'm not sure you're following the conversation.
I responded to a rant with a rant, perhaps. But abel's initial rant against "pro-life" was what I was responding to when you asked me to put up.
What else were you expecting?
That was pretty much exactly what I expected from you. You're trying to raise empathy for a bunch of bigoted bible thumpers living in the past millenium, so a babbling rant is what is to be expected. Sorry, but you people got to get used to it. What you tried to do though was to explain how arguing against pro-lifers was more or less the same as arguing against pro-choicers. Which you didn't, not even remotely, which is why I said you didn't put up.
abel raised a point about labels, and my point was that labels are deceptive and very rarely perfect. That's what I was talking about, and that's what I put up. A "rant", as you say, demonstrating that pro-choice people are only selectively "pro-choice", just as abel and you argued that "pro-life" or "pro-family" allegedly don't hold up.
That's why I don't like labels. I don't like "pro-life", "pro-choice", "liberal", "conservative", and especially labels like "progressive", "homophobic", "bigoted", "baby-killer", etc.
Our culture uses words as weapons rather than as tools of understanding. We burn bridges instead of build them. Posts like this are evidence that we have learned very little in the past century about how to come together in harmony. Posts like this explain why MLK Jr.'s dream remains just a dream.
"demonstrating that pro-choice people are only selectively "pro-choice"" - How so? Pro-choice does not affect any pro-lifers choices. Well, except they're forced to accept other peoples choices and to listen to their opinions, when they would rather choose not to. If anyone is having a problem with that, maybe s/he's living in the wrong country.
Indeed. So maybe that little boy in the picture up above is in the wrong country too?
Unless freedom of speech shouldn't apply to Mexico?
Seriously though, you completely miss the point. What you and abel did when you attacked the labels of "pro-life" and "pro-family" was take them out of their intended context and pointed out that they don't make sense given another circumstance.
e.g. How can you be "pro-family" when you don't support a homosexual family?
The answer is: because you're extending the label to situations it was not intended to cover.
Taking that exact same fallacious approach to "pro-choice", one would point out that you can't call yourself "pro-choice" if you don't want allow someone the choice to, for example, own a gun, burn coal, or any of the other things I mentioned in my "rant."
Most importantly, you're completely ignoring the main point of everything I've said. I'm arguing for better dialogue from both sides. But you ignore that and latch on to certain things I've said and force me to adopt the right-leaning platform. You're insisting that this be an issue of "liberal vs. conservative", despite my attempts to remain in the center.
That is exactly what polarization is. That is exactly the kind of approach I've been denouncing. Exactly why, as a culture, we're no better today than we were a century ago. We still haven't learned to stop the false dichotomies, to stop the "good vs. evil" mindset, and to stop the "us vs them" psychology.
" you can't call yourself "pro-choice" if you don't want allow someone the choice to, for example, own a gun, burn coal, or any of the other things I mentioned in my "rant."" - You're mixing up topics on purpose to lead away from your original agenda: have power over somebody else by telling them how to live their life when it doesn't affect you at all, just because some irrelevant superstition lets you be offended.
.
Pro-choice is about !personal! choice in the probably most intimate private area of a persons life. You carrying a gun and burning coal is not just a personal choice, it does affect me. You threaten my life and poison the air I breathe.
And you're still missing the point, and you're still ignoring my main argument. You're still ignoring everything else I've said in order to hone in on one isolated statement with a perceived weakness. You're still forcing me to take the contrary position. Is that really the world you want to live in? The world where left and right argue endlessly? That's what I'm trying to say is wrong.
To clarify yet again: You're right; I am intentionally mixing up topics. I'm demonstrating that that's the same thing that you and abel did to "pro-life" and "pro-family" -- you took them out of context, pointed out that they didn't apply to other situations, and therefore stated that the label was a lie. The same thing I did to "pro-choice." If what I did was wrong, then what you and abel did was wrong for the same reasons.
You've gotten yourself so excited that another thing you fail to realize is that in this conversation I've never actually endorsed or identified with the pro-life position in the first place, so your assertion that I have some "original agenda" to "have power over someone else" is silly in even more ways than normal.
You're assuming that just because I don't agree with you, I must be evil, bigoted, and some far-right fundamentalist. So that's how you're treating me. And that's why our culture isn't getting any better. We don't listen or attempt to understand to others, but we demand that they listen to and understand us. We learn nothing.
Seriously though, you completely miss the point. What you and abel did when you attacked the labels of "pro-life" and "pro-family" was take them out of their intended context and pointed out that they don't make sense given another circumstance.
e.g. How can you be "pro-family" when you don't support a homosexual family?
The answer is: because you're extending the label to situations it was not intended to cover.
Whoo [ooooooo NAILED IT! You are also trying to convince a bunch of heterophobic people
In order for your redefinition to work, you have to work off of the assumption that a homosexual family is not, in fact, a family. Which is the entire point being made to start with.
Also, these are not "imagined talking points." These are literally attitudes held by my family. Like, the one I was raised in. I know what the rhetoric used in the Right to Life movement and the "pro-family" movement is because I've spouted most of it at one point or another. I even did a high school ethics class paper on how abortion was, from a utilitarian standpoint, counterproductive - matter of fact, that's what started me questioning things, because I noticed that all the facts I was using came from publications from one small group of publishers, required a little rhetorical sleight of hand to cover up gaps in, and were usually contradicted in one form or another by an independent source. It was tough work to make that paper stand up, but hey, it was the assignment I'd picked.
You're opinion is useless. Re definition is not up for debate it is what it is. A homosexual family is just that NOT A family it's a gathering. Or a union . A family requires a male and a female. We coined that phrase since the beginning of the human existence.
A single parent is an uncoupled individual who shoulders most or all of the day-to-day responsibilities for raising a child or children
Do i really have to explain all of this.
Why do you try to over-complicate things
Well, if we want to be sticklerish about it, the OED defines family as "A group consisting of two parents and their children living together as a unit." Does not, that I can determine, specify the gender mix of the parents. Although it does offer several auxiliary definitions, some of which would possibly include single-parent families.
@able_hazard the term group was a edit . Before political correctness came around it was defined as a man and a woman ,@nightshadecat and you would be wrong, from what you state your friend is a single-parent family so it must be more prevalent around you
Then how do you get the term nuclear in that. . Since the beginning of the human existence that is been called a traditional family.
40 year where did you get that date
Wikipedia, this time. "Politically correct" is a term used as a self-parody by civil rights/feminist movements in the 1970's, though there are occasional uses before that.
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.
Wikipedia is a place where the uneducated like you can post whatever and try to validate it
Oh I'm not . I would love to be presented with some other sort of information though to find out its origin since what I have located seems to be biased.
" How can you be "pro-family" when you don't support a homosexual family?
The answer is: because you're extending the label to situations it was not intended to cover."
.
So pro-family doesn't have a problem with gay marriage and gay couples adopting kids?
.
"Before political correctness came around it was defined as a man and a woman"
.
What came around was more individual freedom. Like when nobody knew what that word meant, guns were actually a lot more restricted than today.
.
"Wikipedia is a place where the uneducated like you can post whatever and try to validate it"
.
Nope. Its the place where a collective of individuals agrees on definitions. Academia.org however is the pathetic attempt to give neoliberal and alt-right positions and assumptions the appearance of facts. And for people who can barely speak their own damned language to look up shit and appear a _lot_ more educated than they real are.
We're getting to the core of the problem: you guys see your privilege of definition eroding. A family is not what it was. Participation in society isn't what it was. Just deal with it. You're the past. You're gone already. Farewell, sucker.
Oh, they'll stick around. It's just they won't be the default perspective of society (thank goodness, that nearly drove me to suicide when I was a teenager), they're starting to realize it, and they're upset.
Only thing. You did was preach your beliefs.yeah were the past present and future. There is a reason why it has lasted so long . Your culture can't and never will survive. .no one is up set but you hence why the 4page message . Nice spin on things though
You still believe that the likes of you define what's normal. Well, sorry, that train has left the station and all your biting the carpet won't get it back.
I don't believe it i know it , its been like this from the beginning of Life .you are trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole. There is a reason why you can't naturally reproduce under your culture
Why does "the likes of smokeythebear" not get the right to define what is normal, but you and nightshade do?
If you guys want to talk about what is "the past" and what is "the future", I'm curious: In which would you place the tendency to demonize, marginalize, and make fun of people who disagree with you?
Is that part of the big, bright future you say you're fighting for? Because at this rate, all I see in the future is more of the same. We have learned nothing.
That's just the thing. If everyone's supposed to "get used to it", then we'll never learn anything. We'll never get past it.
We shouldn't "get used to" mockery, insult, dismissal, and polarization.
We shouldn't "get used to" this outdated concept of good vs evil, where both sides view the other as too evil and/or ridiculous to be taken seriously.
What good could that possibly accomplish? We'll just keep bickering and protesting and hating and voting for people like Donald Trump. That's not the world I envision.
But if that's fine with you, I suppose it's your choice.
"Personally I'd much rather find myself "defending homophobes" - quite obviously. Whenever anyone starts talking about "the outdated concept" of good/evil I know exactly what I'm looking at. You're having a hard time taking a position between homophobia and just letting people be the way they are, cause that's so outdated? Yeah, I bet.
No, I'm actually not having a hard time with my own position at all, actually. Not sure why you think I am. I know exactly where I stand.
What I'm having a hard time with is understanding why you're so dead-set on making this a left vs right, good vs evil thing that you are either incapable of or unwilling to respond to the main point I've been making this whole time. A point that's not about LGBT rights or about abortion. You're so focused on the issues that you can't step back and see the bigger picture -- the course of our culture.
"What I'm having a hard time with is understanding why you're so dead-set on making this a left vs right, good vs evil thing"
.
I know it's hard to understand for you, It's pretty apparent how hard it is. So let me try to explain: the left and good thing is to accept individuality, the rightwing and evil thing is to segregate someone by positioning him outside of "normality". Not so hard, is it now?
.
"You're so focused on the issues that you can't step back and see the bigger picture -- the course of our culture."
.
I am focused on what's topic of this discussion. If I step back to see the bigger picture, I see that you King of The Hills types are on the road to extinction. The modern world doesn't need you any longer. I guess you people were an asset when it came to fight the bears and wolves and dig a few holes and other very manly stuff. But now the corse of our culture tells you to dig a hole in the ground and jump into it. Happy landings.
So the culture of "I'm right, and you can go f*** yourself" lives on.
Just wait until you're older and wiser and can't figure out why liberals and conservatives are still bickering like schoolchildren.
Martin Luther King Jr. would be disappointed in this country. His ideals have failed.
Gee you really are thick, aren't you?
Can't even take a hint without trying to project your insecurity and fanaticism onto me. smh. And no, actually, I'm well beyond 15. Maybe when I was 15 I would have been more like you, but I moved past that quite a while ago after I figured out how useless and counterproductive it was.
It's clear you're beyond help at this point. Hopefully someday you will learn the virtues of an open mind.
It takes all perspectives to make a rounded society! For it to work, though, people have to take it for granted that anger at their perspective is not necessarily a personal attack.
Okay. So. The non-religious movement, I can't speak to. But having been raised in it? I can totally tell you what "the gay agenda" that religious parents are so afraid of is.
They are afraid - TERRIFIED - that gay people will be treated as normal. That there won't be whispers behind their backs and awkward looks to their faces and the constant vague threat that something might HAPPEN to you. They don't want their children, if they happen to be gay, to ever think it's okay or have the courage to act on it.
And in a screwed up way? It's for the kid's sake. A core tenet of most fundamentalist Christian faith is that literal flaming hell is absolutely a thing, and they believe that if you have gay sex you'll go there for all eternity, full stop. They believe that God thinks the appropriate response to "banged another guy" is, for some reason, "permanently on fire." The belief is that whatever damage they manage to do to the kid's real life is only to save them from that.
*lol* @smokeythebear is triggered by "anti-straight agenda"... that's adorable at first sight and pretty meaningful at second. Cause you seem to equal straight and homophobic, right? I'm as straight as it gets, and I don't feel attacked by any agenda when people fight against homophobia. How comes this is different for you?`Hint: it's probably not cause you're straight...
@silvermyth - You probably have a right to hate them - God knows church culture has done some warped crap in my life, and I didn't even *realize* I was bi/pan/whatever I count as until I was well away from it - but I wish more people would choose anger instead of hatred. Anger gives you a chance to do something, find a way to change the situation, even if it's just trying to change one person's mind. Changing that one person's mind could make the life of one poor in-the-closet kid better somewhere down the road. Hate just hurts people and closes doors.
@abel_hazard It felt weird typing out "hate". I suppose I just couldn't find the right word. It makes me mad how they have to power to force someone to hate themselves, or be afraid to tell someone who they are, or think they have done somethibg wrong.
There will always be a system of social morality. This system will be adapted, ideally, to produce the most advantageous behavior. But there will always be people, of whatever variety, on whom the burden of shame falls unfairly, and for something they didn't choose. Seeing the overarching pattern, it's easy to get caught up in feeling powerless, because there is a limited amount that one individual can do to change the overall pattern. But do not forget that *for* each individual person, in the end, it is not what you can do to change everyone's life that matters. It's what you can do to change theirs. We are all our own worlds.
And somewhere, whether it's supporting a young person who's half a minute from believing they *are* an abomination, or talking to, maybe opening the eyes of someone who thinks what they believe is unquestionably right - somewhere, there is probably a world you can change.
Except.... y'know, edit that in your head to sound less like some inspirational PSA.
So cute~
So, I just wanna say (but I cant believe I have to specify this) this is definetely not anti-straight. It has been in local news for quite a few days now, and there is plenty of material of people who interviewed some of the attendants (from both sides). The gay community weren't the only ones upset about this happening, many heterosexual people where also trying to talk to the protester, saying there are *real* reasons to protest (like organized crime, corruption, etc) instead of this, local personalities (is that right?) also voice their opinion, that is mostly that we should worry about other things, not about people being with someome they love.
And I said it's really ignorant to me, not attacking *straight* people, but people who go there just to cause problem or because they LIKE to get the attention, without a real base (its pretty obvious). Like, one woman said gay people are the reason UTERINE CANCER exists in throats and anus now. Im not making that up.
Oh so I'm a heterophobic straight person huh? Wow that's gotta suck for me, right. Hating my sexuality and all. Guess that's the cross I have to bear for not hating my sister and supporting the fact that she can be with who she wants. It's so sad that @smokeythebear made it illegal to support both straight and gay people at the same time even though straight people really don't need support right now. So sad.
Why are you so infrequent with your punctuation. I was being sarcastic and I don't think you know what manipulating words is because I did not say anything different to what you have?? You said 'The same way anything that is pro gay is automatically anti straight ' which kinda implies that you believe you can't support both. Which leads me to believe you are a fucking idiot.
He must be a herterophobic kid. Like u
How it it ok.to be gay and proud but not straight and proud
They're standing up for what they believe is right, and trying to make their society a better place. Just like anyone else.
I don't deny that in many of them there is unnecessary and inappropriate hostility and disempathy, but that is not their foundation.
They mean well. If you don't understand that you prove my point that history is rewritten by the winner so that the loser is marginalized and demonized.
You guys talk about love and understanding toward LGBT people, but you deny it for anyone who disagrees with you.
You're right that people are imperfect. People have prejudices. But guess what? So do you. You've made that obvious. The difference is that I don't hate you or think you're evil, destructive people just because you aren't perfect.
That's normal human thought. Our brains are wired toward stereotype and bias. We're great at recognizing such failings in others, but it takes a lot of honesty and introspection to recognize it in ourselves.
What you guys need to learn is empathy. Learn what people really believe, and what they are really trying to accomplish. Not some imagined progressive talking points version of them that makes them out to be evil or ridiculous. That's got self-preservation psychology written all over it. If that's the best you can do, you're just contributing to the problem you say you're trying to overcome.
I repeat: this demonization and lack of empathy only proves my point. This outdated "us vs. them," "good vs. evil" viewpoint has got to stop. We're not learning anything.
Firstly because "pro-choice" implies that the opposition is against choice, which they are not. They are just in favor of a more responsible use of choice. In fact you could say they are equally if not more in favor of personal freedom, because they don't want a woman to find herself unprepared in a situation where her only options are childbirth or abortion in the first place.
Also, "pro-choice"... except when it comes to someone's CHOICE to do any of the following:
- Own guns.
- Encourage birth instead of abortion.
- Burn coal.
- Use an incandescent light bulb.
- Share their religious beliefs (especially with their young, impressionable children).
- Engage in free market practices.
- Advocate traditional family values. A parade or protest, for example (*cough, cough*).
Don't like or agree with any of the above? Good. Then stop doing it to your opponents.
Do you know how a man as divisive and dangerous as Donald Trump gets nominated as one of two candidates for the most powerful political office in the world?
Because our culture allows him to. Our culture of "I'm right, and you can just go f*** yourself." The same culture that you guys are directly contributing to in your mistreatment of anyone who dares disagree with you.
I must've imagined that.
[rolls eyes]
I wasn't even the one who brought it up initially; I was responding to abel's comment. Then nightshade picked up on it. Then you did.
Any bells ringing?
I responded to a rant with a rant, perhaps. But abel's initial rant against "pro-life" was what I was responding to when you asked me to put up.
What else were you expecting?
That's why I don't like labels. I don't like "pro-life", "pro-choice", "liberal", "conservative", and especially labels like "progressive", "homophobic", "bigoted", "baby-killer", etc.
Our culture uses words as weapons rather than as tools of understanding. We burn bridges instead of build them. Posts like this are evidence that we have learned very little in the past century about how to come together in harmony. Posts like this explain why MLK Jr.'s dream remains just a dream.
Unless freedom of speech shouldn't apply to Mexico?
Seriously though, you completely miss the point. What you and abel did when you attacked the labels of "pro-life" and "pro-family" was take them out of their intended context and pointed out that they don't make sense given another circumstance.
e.g. How can you be "pro-family" when you don't support a homosexual family?
The answer is: because you're extending the label to situations it was not intended to cover.
Taking that exact same fallacious approach to "pro-choice", one would point out that you can't call yourself "pro-choice" if you don't want allow someone the choice to, for example, own a gun, burn coal, or any of the other things I mentioned in my "rant."
That is exactly what polarization is. That is exactly the kind of approach I've been denouncing. Exactly why, as a culture, we're no better today than we were a century ago. We still haven't learned to stop the false dichotomies, to stop the "good vs. evil" mindset, and to stop the "us vs them" psychology.
.
Pro-choice is about !personal! choice in the probably most intimate private area of a persons life. You carrying a gun and burning coal is not just a personal choice, it does affect me. You threaten my life and poison the air I breathe.
To clarify yet again: You're right; I am intentionally mixing up topics. I'm demonstrating that that's the same thing that you and abel did to "pro-life" and "pro-family" -- you took them out of context, pointed out that they didn't apply to other situations, and therefore stated that the label was a lie. The same thing I did to "pro-choice." If what I did was wrong, then what you and abel did was wrong for the same reasons.
You're assuming that just because I don't agree with you, I must be evil, bigoted, and some far-right fundamentalist. So that's how you're treating me. And that's why our culture isn't getting any better. We don't listen or attempt to understand to others, but we demand that they listen to and understand us. We learn nothing.
e.g. How can you be "pro-family" when you don't support a homosexual family?
The answer is: because you're extending the label to situations it was not intended to cover.
Whoo [ooooooo NAILED IT! You are also trying to convince a bunch of heterophobic people
Also, these are not "imagined talking points." These are literally attitudes held by my family. Like, the one I was raised in. I know what the rhetoric used in the Right to Life movement and the "pro-family" movement is because I've spouted most of it at one point or another. I even did a high school ethics class paper on how abortion was, from a utilitarian standpoint, counterproductive - matter of fact, that's what started me questioning things, because I noticed that all the facts I was using came from publications from one small group of publishers, required a little rhetorical sleight of hand to cover up gaps in, and were usually contradicted in one form or another by an independent source. It was tough work to make that paper stand up, but hey, it was the assignment I'd picked.
Do i really have to explain all of this.
Why do you try to over-complicate things
40 year where did you get that date
Wikipedia is a place where the uneducated like you can post whatever and try to validate it
i think they might be a bit a biased on some subjects lmao
The answer is: because you're extending the label to situations it was not intended to cover."
.
So pro-family doesn't have a problem with gay marriage and gay couples adopting kids?
.
"Before political correctness came around it was defined as a man and a woman"
.
What came around was more individual freedom. Like when nobody knew what that word meant, guns were actually a lot more restricted than today.
.
"Wikipedia is a place where the uneducated like you can post whatever and try to validate it"
.
Nope. Its the place where a collective of individuals agrees on definitions. Academia.org however is the pathetic attempt to give neoliberal and alt-right positions and assumptions the appearance of facts. And for people who can barely speak their own damned language to look up shit and appear a _lot_ more educated than they real are.
If you guys want to talk about what is "the past" and what is "the future", I'm curious: In which would you place the tendency to demonize, marginalize, and make fun of people who disagree with you?
Is that part of the big, bright future you say you're fighting for? Because at this rate, all I see in the future is more of the same. We have learned nothing.
We shouldn't "get used to" mockery, insult, dismissal, and polarization.
We shouldn't "get used to" this outdated concept of good vs evil, where both sides view the other as too evil and/or ridiculous to be taken seriously.
What good could that possibly accomplish? We'll just keep bickering and protesting and hating and voting for people like Donald Trump. That's not the world I envision.
But if that's fine with you, I suppose it's your choice.
What I'm having a hard time with is understanding why you're so dead-set on making this a left vs right, good vs evil thing that you are either incapable of or unwilling to respond to the main point I've been making this whole time. A point that's not about LGBT rights or about abortion. You're so focused on the issues that you can't step back and see the bigger picture -- the course of our culture.
You could always unfollow the comments
.
I know it's hard to understand for you, It's pretty apparent how hard it is. So let me try to explain: the left and good thing is to accept individuality, the rightwing and evil thing is to segregate someone by positioning him outside of "normality". Not so hard, is it now?
.
"You're so focused on the issues that you can't step back and see the bigger picture -- the course of our culture."
.
I am focused on what's topic of this discussion. If I step back to see the bigger picture, I see that you King of The Hills types are on the road to extinction. The modern world doesn't need you any longer. I guess you people were an asset when it came to fight the bears and wolves and dig a few holes and other very manly stuff. But now the corse of our culture tells you to dig a hole in the ground and jump into it. Happy landings.
Just wait until you're older and wiser and can't figure out why liberals and conservatives are still bickering like schoolchildren.
Martin Luther King Jr. would be disappointed in this country. His ideals have failed.
Can't even take a hint without trying to project your insecurity and fanaticism onto me. smh. And no, actually, I'm well beyond 15. Maybe when I was 15 I would have been more like you, but I moved past that quite a while ago after I figured out how useless and counterproductive it was.
It's clear you're beyond help at this point. Hopefully someday you will learn the virtues of an open mind.
They are afraid - TERRIFIED - that gay people will be treated as normal. That there won't be whispers behind their backs and awkward looks to their faces and the constant vague threat that something might HAPPEN to you. They don't want their children, if they happen to be gay, to ever think it's okay or have the courage to act on it.
And in a screwed up way? It's for the kid's sake. A core tenet of most fundamentalist Christian faith is that literal flaming hell is absolutely a thing, and they believe that if you have gay sex you'll go there for all eternity, full stop. They believe that God thinks the appropriate response to "banged another guy" is, for some reason, "permanently on fire." The belief is that whatever damage they manage to do to the kid's real life is only to save them from that.
And somewhere, whether it's supporting a young person who's half a minute from believing they *are* an abomination, or talking to, maybe opening the eyes of someone who thinks what they believe is unquestionably right - somewhere, there is probably a world you can change.
Except.... y'know, edit that in your head to sound less like some inspirational PSA.
So, I just wanna say (but I cant believe I have to specify this) this is definetely not anti-straight. It has been in local news for quite a few days now, and there is plenty of material of people who interviewed some of the attendants (from both sides). The gay community weren't the only ones upset about this happening, many heterosexual people where also trying to talk to the protester, saying there are *real* reasons to protest (like organized crime, corruption, etc) instead of this, local personalities (is that right?) also voice their opinion, that is mostly that we should worry about other things, not about people being with someome they love.
And I said it's really ignorant to me, not attacking *straight* people, but people who go there just to cause problem or because they LIKE to get the attention, without a real base (its pretty obvious). Like, one woman said gay people are the reason UTERINE CANCER exists in throats and anus now. Im not making that up.