Opinion: Homophobia. Politiikka ja hallinto

I agree with you, Chaos. I just against when gay people do own propaganda. It seems to be kind of unnatural. It's a very fine line. For example, what about demonstration of handicapped people? What is the reason for that? If it's for attracting attention to a problem, it's one thing. But if it's about - how nice to be a handicapped, I am against it.

I agree with you, Chaos. I just against when gay people do own propaganda. It seems to be kind of unnatural. It's a very fine line. For example, what about demonstration of handicapped people? What is the reason for that? If it's for attracting attention to a problem, it's one thing. But if it's about - how nice to be a handicapped, I am against it.

Why would it be bad if handicapped people openly loved themselves and didn't hate their handicap? It's not like they can change it. And it's not like they could encouraged being handicapped, it's not like anybody chose to be born with a disability or chose to get one during their life.

And, just like homosexuality, it doesn't hurt anyone either because if you have a problem with handicapped people being happy with their handicap, you're the problem.
What else are they supposed to do, be depressed for their entire lives?

What this demonstration would do, apart from upsetting you, is making other (unhappy) handicapped people see that they're great, that they're handicapped but still wonderful people and good enough to love themselves, and that their life doesn't have to be sad since there's other people with a similar disability who enjoy it and have a great time. It would literally only be supportive.

Chaos, it's not about loving themselves. You know, it's a little bit different. We all need to have an example, model, which inspire us for something better, higher what we are. Showing our handicaps unlikely makes us better. Unless if it's showing to other people how a handicapped person achieved something. But not a handicap in itself. So, to be proud that I am smoking or drinking alcohol is not something to be proud of. To be a gay it's not pride of some kind. Then I'll be proud of been heterosexual man. A child will be proud of been a child. But it's nonsense. We are who we are. Do I have to be proud that man killed so many animals? Why we have to be proud of such an ordinary things? It is not my achievement to be a heterosexual. I was just born like that. Why I have to be proud?

Chaos, it's not about loving themselves. You know, it's a little bit different. We all need to have an example, model, which inspire us for something better, higher what we are. Showing our handicaps unlikely makes us better. Unless if it's showing to other people how a handicapped person achieved something. But not a handicap in itself. So, to be proud that I am smoking or drinking alcohol is not something to be proud of. To be a gay it's not pride of some kind. Then I'll be proud of been heterosexual man. A child will be proud of been a child. But it's nonsense. We are who we are. Do I have to be proud that man killed so many animals? Why we have to be proud of such an ordinary things? It is not my achievement to be a heterosexual. I was just born like that. Why I have to be proud?

I never said they should be proud, because I also don't really understand how someone would be proud of existing.

But even still, why should they not be proud? It doesn't hurt anybody either. Just because you think it's silly and don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense others or doesn't make them feel better. Your personal feelings about things don't define what everyone feels.

And you don't have to focus on the pride part because the movement is still about people loving themselves, being publicly seen, empowering each other and fighting against discrimination and hate. Who cares if it's under the label "pride" with the premise of people being proud of their sexuality? They can be proud of whatever they want, it doesn't cause any harm.
They might have had a hard way to even accept themselves, it might be reasonable for them to be proud of being themselves because they didn't use to.
Just because you're not proud of your sexuality and your gender doesn't mean other people can't be proud of theirs.

And by the way, I don't think comparing handicapped and homosexual people to drug addicts is a nice thing of you to do.

Anyways, where is this discussion even going? I don't even know what point I'm trying to prove because you just keep saying something different every time.

Yes, Chaos, it seems like it different all the time, but it's not. For example, Black Lives Matter! What's wrong with this message? Nothing wrong. But when some people put the other sign - Every Live Matter! They were attacked by some crazy people in the USA. So, you see, I am for equality, but do not like if somebody overcome the rights of others. I don't wanna anybody compromise my rights. No matter what is their purpose. You know, first women fought for their rights and it was fine, but then they began to fight against men! And it's not right. And it seems to me today everybody is trying to fight for exclusive rights and it's not right. We need inclusive rights, but not exclusive. We have too many wackos around. Do we need to have some more? It's not a crime to smoke or drink. It's not a crime to be gay, but let's not give it as an example for a young children.

Loving the same gender is unnatural.
We are animals like others and we don't have to choose our gender. We are girl OR boys. Stop.

There are animals who show "homosexual" (the "" because I don't know if you can even use that word for animals) behaviour, are they also unnatural?

And why does unnatural equal bad, in this case? Look around, there's cars and people are in space. We practice factory farming and built planes. Nothing about that is natural either.

You can, but it's not really appliable to humans because it exists in the animal kingdom. Else, you could justify infanticide that is as much if not more common.
Also, the homosexual behaviour showed by most of animals are very punctual and don't last in time. It seems to be different for humans in which 2 men or 2 women create a couple. As far as I know, that is very rare, at best, in the animal kingdom...

Also the LGBTQIA+ (including homosexuality) movement isn't just about rights but also about bringing the existence of these people to the public eye, showing that it's okay to be this way.

I beg to differ. If it might have been true at some point in the past, it became more of a propaganda with more and more stupid provocations and demands than showing these people to the public eye, and what image does it gives to the public: very annoying people who want your children to change sex, to have x or y minority in a netflix show, trying to be quirky and inventing new problems while being part of an upper class... That's how most of them appear, and I have known some homosexuals that refused to identify to this movement because of that.
Ironically, that might lead to just more homophhobia, especially whent hese people believe that some cultures or religions can fit with homosexual rights, lol. Surely will they get murdered in a ffew decades... by homosexuals in the closet who can't stand their sexuality.;

For example, Black Lives Matter! What's wrong with this message? Nothing wrong. But when some people put the other sign - Every Live Matter! They were attacked by some crazy people in the USA.

People reacted that way because they felt that "All Lives Matter", while it's obviously true, undermines the point of the BML movement. Because the movement isn't about white people, it's about POC and I understand that it's upsetting when people who are defensive make it about themselves instead of just saying "Yes, you're facing these problems, we have to fix that"

It's similar to some saying "Men face problems too" whenever people try to bring awareness to the women's problems. It's kind of disrespectful, because in both cases it's just deflecting from the current conversation.

If you wanna talk about problems of white people or men, you should do that when it's not about someone else right now. You can start your own conversation, not comment on somebody else's in this way.

So, you see, I am for equality, but do not like if somebody overcome the rights of others. I don't wanna anybody compromise my rights.

Do you feel like homosexual people compromise your rights, or is this a general statement?

We have too many wackos around. Do we need to have some more? It's not a crime to smoke or drink. It's not a crime to be gay, but let's not give it as an example for a young children.

How about you stop comparing drug usage, that is actively harmful to your health, to sexuality? It is not appropriate at all.
And why should we not give homosexuality as an example to children? I thought we agreed that homosexuality isn't harmful and also can't be changed. Your child is gonna be homosexual, if openly or not, regardless of having seen other homosexual during it's life.

You know, first women fought for their rights and it was fine, but then they began to fight against men! And it's not right.

I beg to differ. If it might have been true at some point in the past, it became more of a propaganda with more and more stupid provocations and demands than showing these people to the public eye,

I feel like both of you are focusing on the radical part of these movements. Which I would say is wrong.

Every opinion has a radical version. There's people who dislike Trump as a politician, and then there's people who want him and all Republicans to die.
There's vegans who silently do their thing and maybe bring it up to their friends once or twice, and then there's vegans who attack somebody who eats an egg.
There's women who want equality and the ability to walk at night without the fear or getting kidnapped and murdered by mainly men, and then there's women who hate all men.
There's people of the LGBTQ+ community who want to be seen and respected, and then there's those who call someone slurs and homophobic for not being gay, and push their "ideology" onto others. Most people I know who are part of the LGBTQIA+ community just want respect and acceptance.

There's always people with radical ideas but they rarely represent all of the people with a similar opinion. But obviously they always but a bad light on the entire movement, because they are the ones in the spotlight.

You can, but it's not really appliable to humans because it exists in the animal kingdom. Else, you could justify infanticide that is as much if not more common.
Also, the homosexual behaviour showed by most of animals are very punctual and don't last in time. It seems to be different for humans in which 2 men or 2 women create a couple. As far as I know, that is very rare, at best, in the animal kingdom...

I'm not going to argue about this because I don't see the point of rejecting something because people feel it's not natural. I would argue that if it occurs without anybody pushing it, it's natural. But I'm not a biologist.

What I'd like to say though is that I repedeately said something along the lines of "it shouldn't be a problem since it doesn't hurt anybody", and obviously "doesn't hurt anybody" doesn't apply to infanticide.
I think if something doesn't cause harm, whether it's natural or not, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to prevent it. I'm sure there's exceptions but generally this is my opinion.

Also you posted parts of your text twice, Lianshen, and I think it'd make it easier to read if you deleted those parts. 🙂

Chaos, do I feel that gay people compromise my rights? Not usually. I really don't see the problem. If somebody wants to be a gay, let him be the one. It's a strange topic.

I feel like both of you are focusing on the radical part of these movements. Which I would say is wrong.

Every opinion has a radical version. There's people who dislike Trump as a politician, and then there's people who want him and all Republicans to die.

[...]

There's always people with radical ideas but they rarely represent all of the people with a similar opinion. But obviously they always but a bad light on the entire movement, because they are the ones in the spotlight.

Yes and no. If it's an extreme, it's also the most visible and the most powerful part of the movement, influencing the whole ideology that LGBTQ+ is. Hence, that's what shape the opinion of the public on this movement, or ideology, and you yourself say it.
On my part, even without that, I'd still be against LGBTQ+, for a sexual orientation is not an opinion like you mentioned, but a state of an individual, but also because every components of it isn't equal. If I'm fully in favour of homosexuals having the right to form legal relationship as long as it's remain private (like heterosexuals), I'm much more reticent not to consider a transgender as not having a gender dysphoria and not needing help, especially considering their health issues.

I'm not going to argue about this because I don't see the point of rejecting something because people feel it's not natural. I would argue that if it occurs without anybody pushing it, it's natural. But I'm not a biologist.

What I'd like to say though is that I repedeately said something along the lines of "it shouldn't be a problem since it doesn't hurt anybody", and obviously "doesn't hurt anybody" doesn't apply to infanticide.
I think if something doesn't cause harm, whether it's natural or not, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to prevent it. I'm sure there's exceptions but generally this is my opinion.

I didn't contradict you with my post. It wasn't to reject homosexuality or anything, but to point out that a call to nature is not a good argument, no matter if it's in favour or against homosexuality.

Like you said, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, what happens in a bedroom between consenting adults is none of any other people's business.

Also you posted parts of your text twice, Lianshen, and I think it'd make it easier to read if you deleted those parts. 🙂

Oops. I feel like I was answering to something else too,but I do'nt remember what and I must have slipped... Thanks. Well, I cropped a part of the message with it, hmm...

On my part, even without that, I'd still be against LGBTQ+, for a sexual orientation is not an opinion like you mentioned, but a state of an individual, but also because every components of it isn't equal.

I didn't mean that sexual orientation is an opinion, I meant the opinion on said orientation. Like being homophobic or not.

But I totally agree with you on this. LGBTQIA+ just throws every kind of sexual orientation, and gender identity and all of that into one pot and puts it out into the world. I think that's probably really intimidating and confusing for people who have never been in contact with these things before. I think it also might give them the idea that they'd have to support all of it together, or none of it because it's all together under the same name.
There's definitely a big difference between sexual orientation and gender dysphoria.

Chaos, it's more than that. What will you say if we we will go in the same restroom? You and me. How you will feel? Will you feel comfortable? I don't mind. It will be interesting. How many rooms do we have create to feel comfortable for the gay, transgenders? How we will tell them apart? Who they are and do they have the right to go to the same restroom with me? Or, do I have the right to go in their room with them? Isn't it funny? And why? For what? For what we are creating all these problems?

Chaos, it's more than that. What will you say if we we will go in the same restroom? You and me. How you will feel? Will you feel comfortable? I don't mind. It will be interesting. How many rooms do we have create to feel comfortable for the gay, transgenders? How we will tell them apart? Who they are and do they have the right to go to the same restroom with me? Or, do I have the right to go in their room with them? Isn't it funny? And why? For what? For what we are creating all these problems?

You keep acting as if gay people are transgender people. Gay people are gay, transgender people are transgender, heterosexual people are heterosexual people, and a dog is a dog.
Homosexuality has nothing to do with transgender people and the "bathroom" or "sports" discussion.

And all people of the LGBTQIA+ community collectively are creating these problems because they are not accepted and respected in society, and people with gender dysphoria (transgender people) also struggle with their identity.
Just because you can't relate to it or understand it, doesn't mean it's not a very real reason to cause problems.

Yes, Chaos, but do they have to understand me? Do they care about society in which they are living? I didn't see any problems with them before, but now I see! The did everything to be noticed. And it's propaganda! I don't want my children will be taught to be a girl or a boy. It's none of their business.

Do they care about society in which they are living? I didn't see any problems with them before, but now I see! The did everything to be noticed. And it's propaganda!

That's like asking if people of colour care about the society they live in by fighting against racism.
People who are anything but heterosexual and cisgender face discrimination.
You can't argue that society works and everything is fine, while people are getting murdered for being gay.

Saying a suppressed group of people doesn't care about society because they fight for their rights and recognition is ridiculous. You can literally argue that fighting against slavery was bad, with this way of thinking.

You're just being homophobic, even if you don't notice it yourself.

I don't want my children will be taught to be a girl or a boy.

And I don't understand this sentence. Do you mean you don't want your children to be taught how to he a girl or boy, referring to stereotypes and gender roles, or do you mean you don't want them to be taught to decide whether to be a girl or a boy, as in: to be transgender?

Chaos, I can't imaging situation when employer would ask anybody hiring a person for a job - are you gay? Will it be comfortable for you to work in a heterosexual environment here? It's impossible. If employer asks such questions he can be liable for such questions. So, I don't see here any problem. Give me some examples where gay people are deprived of their rights? You say that some gay people even killed. Well, there are much more heterosexuals are killed every day. Do I want to know if they are killed by gay people? Don't you see that it's nonsense. To kill somebody is a crime! Period. What it has to do with sex? If we'll use your logic then we have to build extra restrooms for transgenders, man to woman person, woman to man etc. It's crazy. Why do we need all these problems? Or, maybe you want to have different restrooms for blacks and whites, like it used to be? Excuse me, but we'll make a mess if we continue to use such logic. Talking about girls and boys I meant that some teachers are trying manipulate boys and girls. A child is like a clear page, what you write on this page, it will be in a child's head. So, we all have to be careful what we are teaching children. And suggesting to a boy that he can be a girl it's a crime. Suggesting to a child to change sex it's crime too.

You say that some gay people even killed. Well, there are much more heterosexuals are killed every day. Do I want to know if they are killed by gay people?

There are such things called "hate crimes" and, as far as I understand, they mean that the victim was attacked by their perpetrator because they hated something about the victim (=e.g. religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, skin colour).

Hate crimes against LGBTQIA+ people exist. You can see that here for example.

That doesn't mean that everyone attacking LGBTQIA+ people, has to hate LGBTQIA+ and that's why they attacked the victim. Maybe they just hate the victim or were in a funny mood and felt like attacking some random person. There doesn't have to be a causal connection between the assault and the gender or sexuality of the victim, it might just he a gay victim by accident and the point of the assult was their hair colour.

But hate crimes against LGBTQIA+ (including gay) people because of LGBTQIA+ -phobia also exist. Don't pretend they don't or aren't a problem.

The difference to hate crimes against non-LGBTQIA+ people is that they usually get attacked for other reasons than their sexuality and gender identity. The article I linked includes this table which concludes that 84.7% of hate crimes against LGBTQIA+ people were because of their gender or sexuality.
For non-LGBTQIA+ people it was 25%, 23.6% of which were because of gender, which might just be people who are misogynistic or misandristicunrelated to the victims not being queer. This is my assumption though.

"Gay people attacking heterosexual people" doesn't equal "gay people attacking heterosexual people because they are heterosexual" and the "because they are heterosexual" is the whole entire point of what I meant when I said "while people are getting murdered for being gay". For being gay means the reason for the crime was homophobia. They weren't attacked and also gay, they were attacked because they're gay. There's a causal connection.

Implying that LGBTQIA+ related hate crimes don't exist because non-LGBTQIA+ people also get attacked by gay people is simply ridiculous and makes no sense whatsoever.

The important part is why the crime was committed and not who committed it.

But obviously most people who commit LGBTQIA+ -phobic hate crimes wouldn't identify as LGBTQIA+ because otherwise they hopefully wouldn't hate these people and themselves.

Also, this will have been the last time at I'll argue with you about this. So please don't think you convinced me or rendered me speechless when I don't respond next time, I simply do not have the energy to keep explaining these things to you.

Yes, Chaos, there are hate crimes. I never said that something like that is good. There are hate crimes against Jews, Russians, Blacks, Gays etc. Do we have to put the crimes against Gays in some kind of a separate box? Yes, for the criminal investigation, yes, but otherwise not. It's a hate crime. What are all the gay parades are signify for us? Gay pride? Or, if we see this gay parades there will be a less crime against gay people? How about a heterosexual parade? We are heterosexuals and we are proud of it! Don't hate us! Doesn't it sounds ridiculous? The whole topic is strange. That's why I agree, there is no point to discuss it. And, as I understand it, the topic is broader than just gay subject.

https://www.pinterest.dk/pin/205758276717090427/