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

Page 3 of 5 [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

26 Jan 2017, 8:30 am

wrongcitizen wrote:
I have to agree. I've seen hatred for blue eyed people as well, just in specific places, just like I've seen hatred for Gay people in specific places. It really depends on where you are, what kind of people, and what backgrounds and experiences they have had.


Cue claims that "Brown-eyed girl" is an anti-blue hate anthem - though that could lead to an inception-like exploration of -isms.



Adamantium
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1019
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,998
Location: Erehwon

26 Jan 2017, 8:51 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Actually the reason is that folks assume that homosexuality is a choice, and they assume that blue eyes are not a choice.

In reality having same sex urges is something that youre born with just like your eye color. But some folks assume that you choose it- so therefore its a sin.


I don't think that's how it works. People know that other people don't choose their skin color, but they are not always OK with people with other skin colors.

Thoughts about sexual practices agitate people in powerful and irrational ways. The traditions that flow through different cultures shape these emotional energies in ways that sometimes result in organized prejudice and sometimes leave individuals feeling the revulsion that comes with violated taboos.

Culture changes over time, so the reactions to things that were taboo in one generation may be completely different in another generation. These forces are not rational so raw logic is not always the most useful tool for analyzing them.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


wrongcitizen
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Oct 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 689

26 Apr 2017, 1:34 am

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



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,647
Location: temperate zone

26 Apr 2017, 5:29 am

Adamantium wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Actually the reason is that folks assume that homosexuality is a choice, and they assume that blue eyes are not a choice.

In reality having same sex urges is something that youre born with just like your eye color. But some folks assume that you choose it- so therefore its a sin.


I don't think that's how it works. People know that other people don't choose their skin color, but they are not always OK with people with other skin colors.

Thoughts about sexual practices agitate people in powerful and irrational ways. The traditions that flow through different cultures shape these emotional energies in ways that sometimes result in organized prejudice and sometimes leave individuals feeling the revulsion that comes with violated taboos.

Culture changes over time, so the reactions to things that were taboo in one generation may be completely different in another generation. These forces are not rational so raw logic is not always the most useful tool for analyzing them.


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



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,547

26 Apr 2017, 11:06 am

NewTime wrote:
Blue eyed people like gay people are a minority. Most people have brown eyes. Yet, are lots of people against blue eyed people? Do blue eyed people get harassed for having blue eyes? The answer is...

Yes, particularly, in sanctuary cities.

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

NewTime wrote:
So why are gay people different?

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.



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,547

27 Apr 2017, 10:46 am

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.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,032
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Apr 2017, 1:52 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
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.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,547

27 Apr 2017, 2:28 pm

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.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,032
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Apr 2017, 4:06 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
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.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,547

28 Apr 2017, 11:58 am

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.



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,547

28 Apr 2017, 12:12 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Despite the kiddy look to the show, the song being sung about a talking vagina obviously is meant for adult consumption.




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



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,032
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

28 Apr 2017, 4:39 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Despite the kiddy look to the show, the song being sung about a talking vagina obviously is meant for adult consumption.




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.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


bethannny
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 3 Aug 2016
Gender: Female
Posts: 211
Location: Ontario

28 Apr 2017, 8:17 pm

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.



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,547

29 Apr 2017, 9:08 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
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.


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.

Kraichgauer wrote:
And really, the music from The Incredible Hulk TV show? Now, you have to admit that was a bit much.


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?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,032
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

29 Apr 2017, 3:35 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
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.


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.

Kraichgauer wrote:
And really, the music from The Incredible Hulk TV show? Now, you have to admit that was a bit much.


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.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer