Today, May 17, 2016: International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia

[GMDino]

(05-19-2016, 09:04 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Couldn't look away.

"Couldn't"....or "wouldn't"?


" "

[Griever]

this is a safe place, no one will mess with you

be yourself

[*michaelsean*]

(05-19-2016, 09:08 AM)GMDino Wrote: "Couldn't"....or "wouldn't"?


" "

Couldn't God dammit

[Griever]

(05-19-2016, 09:29 AM)michaelsean Wrote:
Wouldn't God dammit

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-19-2016, 02:46 AM)Nately120 Wrote: So the only thing law-abiding and respectful people should be free to do are things that criminals can't misuse?  Harsh.  

Its not criminal when they make a law that says its legal.

Saw a story after i posted this about a guy putting in a wig and dress to go harass target in the girls bathroom. Funny they refer to that guy as a crazy nut job but others who put on a wig and dress and cosmetically/medically alter their body are not considered nut jobs.

[Griever]

(05-19-2016, 11:25 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Its not criminal when they make a law that says its legal.

Saw a story after i posted this about a guy putting in a wig and dress to go harass target in the girls bathroom. Funny they refer to that guy as a crazy nut job but others who put on a wig and dress and cosmetically/medically alter their body are not considered nut jobs.

i guess you got a new idea

[*PhilHos*]

(05-18-2016, 03:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The term homophobia has changed beyond the root meaning of "phobia". Even Websters defines it as including discrimination or hate.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia

As for point 2, I would not say that either has a mental illness. However, why is it ok to denounce hatred over denouncing being gay or being trans? The same reason why it's ok to denounce racism or hatred/discrimination against religions. It's behavior that most decent people would find unacceptable in society. We should work to accept others. Sure, that's just my view, but it's one I'll defend as morally superior to advocating for the denial of civil liberties to others.

First off, no it doesn't. Check your link again. It doesn't mention hate anywhere near the definition. Secondly, based on the wording (and you know dictionaries are very careful with their wording), it's the irrational discrimination of said group.

Lastly, and more importantly, the issue is with people's minds. You have one group of people that are messed up in the head (to put it in layman's terms) and you have another group of people that are messed up in the head in a different way. Why is it okay to be intolerant and hateful towards one of them but not the other?

Answer: because one has become a socially acceptable group of messed up in the head people AND it's socially acceptable to belittle the other group. You might think that's okay, but may I remind you that at one point in time, not only was homosexuality not socially acceptable in this country but it was also socially acceptable to belittle them, to out them, to make their lives miserable, and to even physically abuse them. So for those of you castigating those who do not accept trans people as being unworthy of special rights, you are exactly the same as the homophobe/transphobe you criticize.

Clarification: I'm not talking about those that truly do hate homosexuals and trans people. They are worthy of your derision and more. I'm speaking of those that are called homophobes simply for having an opposing opinion. They treat ALL others with respect but simply disagree with various *****/trans issues and yet they are unduly criticized as homophobes and transphobes.

[GMDino]

(05-19-2016, 11:56 AM)PhilHos Wrote: First off, no it doesn't. Check your link again. It doesn't mention hate anywhere near the definition. Secondly, based on the wording (and you know dictionaries are very careful with their wording), it's the irrational discrimination of said group.

What is the "rational" reason for discriminating against someone who is gay or transgender.?

Not just disagreeing with their lifestyle, but actually trying to deny them rights based solely on if the are gay and how they dress.

[*PhilHos*]

(05-19-2016, 12:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: What is the "rational" reason for discriminating against someone who is gay or transgender.?

Not just disagreeing with their lifestyle, but actually trying to deny them rights based solely on if the are gay and how they dress.

Well, off the top of my head, if I'm looking for someone to marry, I'm not going to look for any gay people. If I'm looking for a pastor of my church and my church believes homosexuality to be a sin, then I'm not going to look for gay people.

You do realize, right, that discrimination alone is not wrong nor bad. We do it all the time in all facets of our life from the TV shows and movies we watch to our secondary+ education to the foods we eat, etc. etc. The REASONS why we discriminate are where things can be wrong. If I'm looking to hire someone, but I immediately only look at black lesbians, yeah, that's wrong. But, if I'm looking for a leader of a divorced dad's support group, well, I'm probably not going to look at married women and that's okay.

[GMDino]

(05-19-2016, 12:15 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Well, off the top of my head, if I'm looking for someone to marry, I'm not going to look for any gay people. If I'm looking for a pastor of my church and my church believes homosexuality to be a sin, then I'm not going to look for gay people.

You do realize, right, that discrimination alone is not wrong nor bad. We do it all the time in all facets of our life from the TV shows and movies we watch to our secondary+ education to the foods we eat, etc. etc. The REASONS why we discriminate are where things can be wrong. If I'm looking to hire someone, but I immediately only look at black lesbians, yeah, that's wrong. But, if I'm looking for a leader of a divorced dad's support group, well, I'm probably not going to look at married women and that's okay.

But none of those circumstances are about "rights".

Not "special rights"..."rights".

For example the right to get married and have it recognized by the state.  I know it is (mostly) settled now, but how long were gays denied the same right as any other two, consenting adults for no rational reason?

And for the record just the week one member here said he would fire a male employee if they came in to work dressed as a woman solely because of that and how it "would look" to his customers.

In NC the "bathroom bill" made it legal to fire for just that reason and made it impossible for the fired person to seek legal recourse over it.

Is there a "rational" reason for that?

[*PhilHos*]

(05-19-2016, 12:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: But none of those circumstances are about "rights".

Not "special rights"..."rights".

For example the right to get married and have it recognized by the state.  I know it is (mostly) settled now, but how long were gays denied the same right as any other two, consenting adults for no rational reason?

And for the record just the week one member here said he would fire a male employee if they came in to work dressed as a woman solely because of that and how it "would look" to his customers.

In NC the "bathroom bill" made it legal to fire for just that reason and made it impossible for the fired person to seek legal recourse over it.

Is there a "rational" reason for that?

Just because you disagree with the reason, doesn't make it irrational. Irrational reasoning would have no basis in logic or reason. For example, saying Democrats are evil because the sky is blue would be irrational. To use more common arguments, saying you don't think gays should get married because God has said marriage is for one man and one woman, that's not irrational. That's perfectly logical because there's Biblical evidence to suggest such a thing. You may not believe in God or the Bible, but you can follow the line of thinking.

Saying, gays shouldn't get married because then people will want to marry their pets IS irrational because the line of reasoning falls apart due to, among other reasons, there only being like virtually no one who's wanted to marry their pets, not to mention that there is gay marriage in many states now and still no one pushing to marry their pets.

For all three examples, i can see legitimate rational reasons behind them. That doesn't necessarily make them "right", mind you, but they are not irrational forms of discrimination. And as such, those making those claims are not proven to be homophobes or transphobes.

[*bfine32*]

(05-19-2016, 12:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: What is the "rational" reason for discriminating against someone who is gay or transgender.?

What is the "rational' reason for a school aged male to share a public shower with a school aged female?

[BmorePat87]

(05-19-2016, 12:38 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Just because you disagree with the reason, doesn't make it irrational. Irrational reasoning would have no basis in logic or reason. For example, saying Democrats are evil because the sky is blue would be irrational. To use more common arguments, saying you don't think gays should get married because God has said marriage is for one man and one woman, that's not irrational. That's perfectly logical because there's Biblical evidence to suggest such a thing. You may not believe in God or the Bible, but you can follow the line of thinking.

Saying, gays shouldn't get married because then people will want to marry their pets IS irrational because the line of reasoning falls apart due to, among other reasons, there only being like virtually no one who's wanted to marry their pets, not to mention that there is gay marriage in many states now and still no one pushing to marry their pets.

For all three examples, i can see legitimate rational reasons behind them. That doesn't necessarily make them "right", mind you, but they are not irrational forms of discrimination. And as such, those making those claims are not proven to be homophobes or transphobes.

Is "I don't think two men should get married because I think a being in the sky says it's wrong" a rational reason?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-18-2016, 02:59 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I said I wouldn't hire one then gave the only way I would even consider.   But the day would come they would walk in the office in drag and then I would have wasted time, money, and energy training them.   

Speaking of your business, how is the real estate market in PSL because I'm looking at relocating. I'm seriously considering the Seattle and Charleston areas, but am open to anything.

[*bfine32*]

(05-19-2016, 12:57 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Is "I don't think two men should get married because I think a being in the sky says it's wrong" a rational reason?

Only if you are free to practice your religion.

It would be irrationale if you were a baker and refused to sell a homosexual a box of doughnuts; however, it would not be so if you refused to bake the centerpiece of their wedding; if religion stated otherwise.

Just know that if anyone is calling another person a homophobe or any other slur they have made the decision to do so; not a dictionairy.

EDIT: The most ironic thing of this may be the origin of the word Bigot.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-19-2016, 01:08 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Speaking of your business, how is the real estate market in PSL because I'm looking at relocating. I'm seriously considering the Seattle and Charleston areas, but am open to anything.

Well when becoming StLucieBreech is what you want then Let me know.  

[BigPapaKain]

(05-19-2016, 12:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What is the "rational' reason for a school aged male to share a public shower with a school aged female?

We're a developed country and our children (boys specifically) should be able to share a locker room with members of the opposite sex with zero problems.

But then again, boys will be rapists because the majority of Americans can't seem to raise one who isn't a sociopath.

Edit: Disclaimer: this post in no way implies a threat to any living creatures by me. If you or someone you know feels threatened by its contents, please direct your inquiries to the appropriate authoritative figure.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-19-2016, 01:20 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Well when becoming StLucieBreech is what you want then Let me know.  

I just did when I asked you for info.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-19-2016, 01:26 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I just did when I asked you for info.

Yeah like I am going to post my info on here lol. Who do you think I am Fred? 

I'm sure you will be ok and if you were even remotely serious you wouldn't have asked me in here.    You would have PM'd like others have done.   

[Vas Deferens]

(05-19-2016, 01:30 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah like I am going to post my info on here lol. Who do you think I am Fred? 

I'm sure you will be ok and if you were even remotely serious you wouldn't have asked me in here.    You would have PM'd like others have done.   

You moving a lot of product on the forums?