Why are people okay with blue eyed people but not gay people

Post Reply New Topic

Be glad your eyes aren't pitch black like mine lol
(not actually, but pretty close)

None of this obvious water-is-wet stuff contradicts what I said.

Yes, particularly, in sanctuary cities.

I have a blue-eyed nephew, in public school. Yes, I say.


It's a paraphilia, in a disinterested venue.

I can think of countless possible ways to fit plumbing together, yet keep that to myself, around kids, my parents, church functions, and professional life.

There is something to be said, for not having skeletons in your closet, not being a hypocrite. But, compare it happening in a special bar, or that curtained-off part of the bookstore, to pride."The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not."

I think a better question, is why cis-genders, in non-traditional roles, dislike gay people, while engaging in the occupational equivalent of crossdressing. Most professedly-straight people are making moral compromises, in order to gratify themselves, sexually, or to avoid the stigma of bigotry.

Am I mistaken, in assuming that Bill Nye is a Mr. Wizard kind-of character for children? I mean his whole look seems like shtick to me, a cheesy, animatronic character from Disneyland

Explicit content warning --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wllc5gSc-N8
Maybe, the reproduction of seahorses (as in DJ Seahorse) could have been a science lesson?

Nye then said that successful mating pairs (of humans) should be fined, because global warming causes ISIS. Yes, really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0kgIHxkMS8

It would be called superstitious, to claim that sin causes natural upheaval, and to build a rationale, around objective morality.

But, there is some magical guilt complex about home, hearth, and humble creature comforts.

Tranny in s&m outfit = "very special"
Mom, apple pie, and white picket fences = "terrorism"

If I could propose a new internet law, along the lines of the Streisand Effect, or Godwin's Law, or Murphy's Law, I would say that status exists as an abstract quantity, in limited amounts. You can't give it to one person, without taking it from another person.

Despite the kiddy look to the show, the song being sung about a talking vagina obviously is meant for adult consumption.
Just where in that clip did Nye say married people with children should be fined?
Nobody is saying a traditional way of life is somehow bad, let alone terrorism, just that that transsexual person has the right to wear S&M getup.
So, making racial or sexual minorities equal, who had been trampled underfoot for years, takes status away from someone else? And even if it does, it's just a matter of leveling the playing field and making everyone equal, which can not possibly be a bad thing.

Wouldn't the playing field be level, without specious social promotions?

Regardless, why shouldn't I favor the people most like myself. I am not saying to be dishonest with myself. Call nepotism what it is.

Since when do I need some outside force, to collect it all, into one big pot, and decide how it should be divvied up.

Nothing specious about those so called social promotions. 100 years had passed between the end of slavery, and the civil rights movement, and yet changes toward equality only happened when the federal government stepped in to fight dug in bigotry. So no, equality is not going to be achieved on its own, especially when the majority holding down a minority isn't particularly enlightened, and justifies inequality with religion and pseudo-history, which was the case in the deep south at the time.
Why should you favor people not like yourself? Because social equality is the promise all Americans have been raised with since birth. To deny that promise to some citizens makes the American ideal a sham. On top of that, who's to say that you won't someday be in an out group?
That force is hardly from the outside, as it's our own government. It's the representatives of the American people, who have sought to establish social equality for all, and enforce it. And we are already one big melting pot; nobody forced it on us. We might as well stop fighting history, and accept that all Americans are worthy of equality, and accept that when it's not forthcoming, the federal government has to do its job, and fight for equality for those citizens left out.

A specie is just a typology or classification.

Specious is because someone said so.

The wealth was redistributed by decree.

Why the battle of definition. I don't see why you are liable.

I think, part of the stigma, in regards to this topic, comes from a perception of nihilsm, where there is some irreconcilable, identity crisis. We might just reserve whichever parts for private use, expect most people to be conventional, and leave the rest, on a need-to-know basis. I don't see why people need to be unwilling participants, in the personal lives of others, forced to lend moral and financial support.

I wouldn't particularly dislike most of these people, on a personal basis, if they were stable, in their sense of self, responsible for what they are doing, and respectful of others.

Why is it obvious, if there are no normative standards of behavior.

That's Brazil. Everyone and everything is much more sexualized there than here.
As a matter of fact, I have attended gay pride parades in Spokane, and while the participants definitely had fun wearing the stereotypical "gay" costumes as a means of throwing that ignorance back in the face of the ignorant, nowhere was there even a hint of pedophilia.
And really, the music from The Incredible Hulk TV show? Now, you have to admit that was a bit much.

As for your previous post: As we are one country, and all participants in a society, rather than just autonomous individuals, we all interact with each others lives, whether we like it or not.
The government stepped in on behalf of others who were held down simply due to prejudice. Nobody has the right to treat someone else as their lesser simply due to ethnicity, sexual orientation, class, etc. I fail to see how that's possibly a bad thing.

The dislike of homosexuality isn't just a "religious thing" it is a dislike of difference. The developmental path for most people is heterosexuality and homosexuality is less common. It is seen subconsciously as an aberration of the normal sexual behavior of our species. That is why, deep down, some people dislike gays. Even the DSM categorized it as a "mental illness" because of what I mentioned above (''an aberration from the developmental norm").

People just need to accept in the case of this and many other things that some people are simply different than them in some ways.

Speaking neutrally, it violates people's freedom of association, a natural right, to say that participation is mandatory.

But, I never claim to be neutral.

When a female driving inspector or science teacher tells me I have scored perfectly, and should get extra credit, but will get downgraded; they don't allow people to pass on the first time, or there is always room for improvement, they might be doing that to a chauvinist. When a female business manager or museum curator is anxious, around unattended males, what if I am biased, not just neutral. I can also say, I prefer not to pay for that, at my expense, as a matter of egotism.



Which music would you like?

Also, why is pederasty ok, in some places, but not in other places? Are there no moral absolutes? Particularly, while you force people to participate in something?

Your rights end with violating someone else'. Denying someone to eat or defecate where they want because you don't want to associate with them is violating their rights.
Why would someone get downgraded for getting a perfect score? There is a very different reason for that woman not wanting to be left alone with men she doesn't know, as opposed to refusing equal treatment to minorities, as that woman's fear of rape is grounded in reality.
I never said they couldn't use the Hulk music, I just meant that its use was corny.
No, I am not saying sex with children is justifiable anywhere, anytime, just that Brazil has a much more sexualized culture than we do. While we may see that boy in the video as dancing suggestively, that may not be the case in Brazil, where I suspect it was regarded as rather tame. Seriously, is there any evidence that that young man had ever been sexually assaulted by anyone? I doubt that the maker of that video even cared to ask.
I sincerely doubt most LGBT Americans support sex with children, regardless of the hysterical claim made by the homophobic right that the so called "gay lobby" wants to lower the age of consent.

You seem to have difficulty, grasping the concept of private property, or of dedicated space, in general.

I have said that, whether I want to engage in this behavior or not, it can be done where it bothers noone.

I have not asked to go preach there, nor have I asked them to support my cause.

The problem is that you want to benefit from the fame and resources of others.

I say, to each his own. You say to intrude.

I guess, it's technically an example of segregation, yet see the clothes, conditions, and manners of people, in those times, and they seemed to do just fine, without me.

If not, why not.

If conditions were so great for African Americans during segregation, why did so many of them want segregation to end? Clothing and material means hardly amount to anything, if someone isn't equal with everyone else in regard to being able to vote, or in the legal system, or just where they'd like to eat or sh*t. As I said before, intrusion is necessary if someone else' rights are denied them.
And please, don't tell me you're defending segregation!

In theory, they would have been able to vote, under their own, ample accommodations, in the same respect that you would be able to promote your own narrative, from your own pulpit, in your own church building. So, you could sidestep the argument, altogether, if not for want of negative attention.

I mean, we are raising three, distinct questions, here --
Are unpopular people ever entitled to their opinions, under any circumstances, anywhere.
Are they free to do what they want, but on their own dime.
Should people be allowed to do everything, at every time and place.

The third is no longer a reductio ad absurdum.

We are shown blacks, getting the bad drinking fountains, and bad bus seats, but, in civil rights marches, and in their own accommodations, they used to look better, than post 2008 America.

You were jealous of the pastor's pulpit, when defending for a church to be disrupted. Maybe, yours can be bigger and better. Or, if you want to be gay, maybe you can still be affluent, without tormenting people.