Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=ryuns;28619607]Except for all the laws that discriminate against gays. Ironically, I'm actually with you that a good portion of the problems that get ascribed to issues of race are issues of socioeconomic status and culture, and that avoiding root cause is a problem in politics and the media. But seriously. Gays still can't get married almost everywhere. Besides withholding a social institution that society generally thinks of as beneficial simply because we disagree with their lifestyle, they miss out on things like social security, inheritance tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, and other benefits we've written in to the law and tax code. There is still massive prejudice in huge swaths of the country. There are still acts of violence carried out solely on the basis of sexual orientation. SAnd it's great that the gay community is embraced in the Bay Area, but people do travel and shouldn't have to act like they're in the Middle East when they head to the 'burbs. Now, I'm still not going to pick sides, because, while extremely suspect, it's still sounds circumstantial. But implying that because Anderson Cooper and Modern Family are popular that everything is dandy is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. (Though I appreciate their contribution to the current Zeitgeist.)[/QUOTe
Gays will be able to get married. The fact that alternative lifestyles are becoming increasingly more popular (as for example in your "Modern Family" reference) is part of the process. If we were homophobic, then people wouldn't buy/watch this type of product. You are frustrated that gays aren't ALREADY allowed to get married. The reason that they are not already allowed to get married is because it is controversial. Why is it controversial? Because it is a provocative topic.
Some people don't like the vision of guy on guy displays of affection, because it is often used as foreplay, which makes you think of the two men making love, which makes you think of anal sex. I do not fault these people, and I think it is a valid point. Anal sex carries with it a great deal of risk.
Ironically, I believe that gays should have the right to marry and get health benefits etc.
I do not in any way fault those who do not wish to have the alternative lifestyle flaunted in front of them in a less liberal community. I believe that these people also have the right to live a conservative lifestyle without being forced to support an immature social experiment. I know it wasn't just a peck. Do you know haw I know that it wasn't just a quick peck? Because people noticed. And if they only wanted to perform one quick peck, then they wouldn't care if they had to stop. Plus they were the type of couple who went to the media to spark a "kiss in". They are j.v. lobbyists.
If somebody came to a black neighborhood and waved a rebel flag, I would be pissed as hell. Why? Because they know exactly what they are doing. You can't write a law for that stuff. It is common sense.
Your argument has holes. First of all, if a kid is riding a bike, know one would ever know if that child is gay or straight.
If someone is kicked out of a mall because he is kissing his boyfriend, then of course suspicion arises. Was he kicked out of the mall because he was displaying his sexual orientation? Especially when you take into account the Roseville location, it's easy to surmise he was likely singled out because he was gay. I've been to the galleria at least 100 times over the past 13 years and have seen dozens of horny teens deep kissing, holding hands, etc.. I don't recall any of them being tossed out of the mall nor have I ever heard of that type of action taken against a straight couple for G to PG-rated public displays of affection.
You need to come out of the fog and accept the fact that homophobia and prejudice still do exist in your Pollyanna world and people are not as good natured and fair minded as you think.
ok, lets use another example: a gay couple is working for the same company, they are not performing up to the company standards so they are terminated. We all know, odds are they will scream discrimination. If a straight comple was in the same situation, they would not scream because they would have no grounds.
It appears in the mall case, the couple were carrying thier open affection a little too far. It appears the security guard did not approve and asked them to leave. Was he justified? Probably. was he a homophobic, maybe. We are all bigotted in some way, I don't care who we are..Have we all lived with unfair treatment sometime in our lives? Probably, but we live with it. Heck, I was demoted because of racial discrimination: black descriminating again a white..it was very obvious, but I would have hurt myself more than anyone else had I taken action...My husband was discriminated against because of a health issue; it cost him a job he had been promised. Had we taken action or made a scene,the damage would have been worse than the satisfaction of winning, which he would have, but he didn't feel he would be comfortable working for the company after that, so he dropped it. And yet, there are some that will do whatever just to prove a point, even if they are wrong..
I do not in any way fault those who do not wish to have the alternative lifestyle flaunted in front of them in a less liberal community. I believe that these people also have the right to live a conservative lifestyle without being forced to support an immature social experiment.
So, conservatives have a right to live a conservative lifestyle, but liberals don't. Interesting. "Immature social experiment"? It's no more "immature" than heterosexual teens doing the same thing, and no one likes to watch that, either, but it doesn't get them kicked out of malls.
Gays will be able to get married. The fact that alternative lifestyles are becoming increasingly more popular (as for example in your "Modern Family" reference) is part of the process. If we were homophobic, then people wouldn't buy/watch this type of product. You are frustrated that gays aren't ALREADY allowed to get married. The reason that they are not already allowed to get married is because it is controversial. Why is it controversial? Because it is a provocative topic.
Some people don't like the vision of guy on guy displays of affection, because it is often used as foreplay, which makes you think of the two men making love, which makes you think of anal sex. I do not fault these people, and I think it is a valid point. Anal sex carries with it a great deal of risk.
Ironically, I believe that gays should have the right to marry and get health benefits etc.
I do not in any way fault those who do not wish to have the alternative lifestyle flaunted in front of them in a less liberal community. I believe that these people also have the right to live a conservative lifestyle without being forced to support an immature social experiment. I know it wasn't just a peck. Do you know haw I know that it wasn't just a quick peck? Because people noticed. And if they only wanted to perform one quick peck, then they wouldn't care if they had to stop. Plus they were the type of couple who went to the media to spark a "kiss in". They are j.v. lobbyists.
If somebody came to a black neighborhood and waved a rebel flag, I would be pissed as hell. Why? Because they know exactly what they are doing. You can't write a law for that stuff. It is common sense.
Wait, do you really think that people don't like guy on guy displays of affection because anal sex "carries with it a great deal of risk"? So if people never barebacked, then people would be totally okay with it? No, I'm pretty sure they don't like it because they think it's gross. (Although, to be fair, while people are more accepting of lesbians, they're still sinning, or whatever.)
In any case, if you read my post, I clearly wasn't defending them as neither of us is in a position to understand the basis for their actions or the action carried out by security.
I'm sick of the term "homophobe" which would indicate a fear of homosexuals being used. We have no reason to fear a minority, extremely small minority unless the homosexuals are trying to force their "issues" in our face almost constantly. Oh, that is what they are trying to do, right? I am tired of hearing that we should not should not use our religion to "discriminate" against them and next out of the mouth comes "But God made us this way." If anyone wants to be "intimate", get a room! Please don't take it to the restroom because I have a son with special needs and I am already fearful of what he may encounter when alone! It's not about who one chooses for their partner, it's about mental health: Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems Homosexuals may keep telling themselves that they are gaining acceptance but I just don't see it. It is a deviant lifestyle where one chooses to engage in what many feel are sinful acts. When I was a kid, there was a big city and basically, we knew where to not go in the city in order to avoid harassment or injury. Now, we could have just went anyway because we had a right too but frankly, my dad wasn't ignorant even to take us there just to prove a point!
I was going to suggest from under a rock somewhere.
Having watched footage of these young men, they struck me as being very credible. They were reasonable, controlled, didn't seem militant, or exaggerate and moan about how they'd been damaged. And the way that the mall officials scuttled off to hide when the reporter tried to ask a question, suggested (to me) they knew they were SOL.
Contrasted to the other news story footage I watched about the same time, of the Florida sinkhole incident. In which the family was outraged, overly-emotional (yes, I know they'd lost a family member), but throwing blame at whoever (or so it looked to me) they thought it might stick to. Or would prove profitable.
[quote=nmnita;28620348]ok, lets use another example: a gay couple is working for the same company, they are not performing up to the company standards so they are terminated. We all know, odds are they will scream discrimination. If a straight comple was in the same situation, they would not scream because they would have no grounds.
You make me laugh. If a gay person is terminated, chances are most WILL NOT scream discrimination without due cause. The fact is the most gay people (myself included) are highly professional at work and tend to keep their personal lives personal..PERIOD.
I was laid off from a job a few years back because of performance issues that were clearly documented. I couldn't even fathom trying to work a discrimination suit on that one.
I think you need to shut off FOX News my dear because the bottom line is that most people, whether they be gay, black, female, etc. do not go down the discrimination road when the going gets tough.
Your ignorant, misinformed generalizations turn my stomach.
I think the activists were looking for an opportunity to get into conservative Placer County's face & the Galleria has thwarted their plan.
It should not matter what a persons personal beliefs are...either way...a sign of professionalism and maturity is being able to perform one's job without their beliefs getting in the way. Many of US evangelical, bible believing, christians have done it for years. Calling christians names is never going to win them to your side.
I don't find Placer County to be as culturally backwards as other counties in California. Not even close. But it's easy to make generalizations.
I think if one wants to see intolerance, injustice, prejudice, negativity, etc, then that is what you will see. It may or may not be the real truth, but it is certainly YOUR truth.
The real issue an solution is simply having the same rules applied and enforced in the same manner for both opposite sex and same sex couples. That will solve it, period. I could care less about the pi**** contest between the evangelicals and activists.
I was going to suggest from under a rock somewhere.
Having watched footage of these young men, they struck me as being very credible. They were reasonable, controlled, didn't seem militant, or exaggerate and moan about how they'd been damaged. And the way that the mall officials scuttled off to hide when the reporter tried to ask a question, suggested (to me) they knew they were SOL.
Contrasted to the other news story footage I watched about the same time, of the Florida sinkhole incident. In which the family was outraged, overly-emotional (yes, I know they'd lost a family member), but throwing blame at whoever (or so it looked to me) they thought it might stick to. Or would prove profitable.
I guess I am a little more forgiving of the Florida family. Someone died (for crying out loud)...it does not get worse than that! I would guess an attorney will talk to them and say that it will be hard to pin blame for the sinkhole on anyone and to move on the best they can.This is not like the woman that spilled coffee on herself at a McDonald's several years ago and sued. That was pathetic and inexcusable that she received a dime.
As for the kissing in the mall issue, just make the rules consistent and enforced exactly the same for both opposite sex couples and same sex couples.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
