The GAY thread

dots

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,395
I saw this online a while back and thought it was great:

Advice columnist Amy Dickinson responds to a parent who wrote in upset that her son ‘won’t listen to reason’ and ‘stop being gay’:

“You could teach your son an important lesson by changing your own sexuality to show him how easy it is. Try it for the next year or so.”

:lol: :respec:


Brilliant! :lol:
 

PeterG

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,624
In the Bachelor thread we're talking about how Juan Pablo has referred to gays as perverts. He's apologized now...English is his second language and apparently if I use google translate, "pervert" will come up as a compliment in Spanish... :p

Anyway, I came across this article about nine other celebrities and the anti-gay things they have said. Most of them I had heard about, but not this one from Bret Easton Ellis:

The attention-loving American Psycho writer blasted Glee in 2011 with the offensive tweet, "I like the idea of Glee but why is it that every time I watch an episode I feel like I've stepped into a puddle of HIV?"

Oh, YUCK! What an A**HAT!
 

Ziggy

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,569
A cohost of 'The View' claims that believing LGBT people are going to hell doesn’t mean she’s antigay: http://www.advocate.com/arts-enterta...tyle-loves-you …

To be honest, situations like this are when I find it difficult to weigh the freedom of religion against the freedom to screw whoever you want.

The 'puddle of HIV' comment is a disgusting and sad attempt at attention seeking, however.
 

Dr.Siouxs

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,829
The outfits are a "silent protest" against the oppressive stance on gay rights, yet the outfits have gender-specific pants. Combatting homophobia with an outfit that has a sexist aspect to it. Weird. :confused:

Peter, I'm not sure gender-specific clothing is necessarily a sign of sexism. Do department stores with separated "Mens" and "Womens" sections offend you? :confused:
 

PeterG

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,624
Peter, I'm not sure gender-specific clothing is necessarily a sign of sexism. Do department stores with separated "Mens" and "Womens" sections offend you? :confused:

Only if all of the girl mannequins are dressed in pink and all the boy mannequins are dressed in blue.

:)
 

IceJunkie

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,168

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
41,020
The Disney Channel features its first-ever gay characters in 31 year history
Lesbian moms make appearance on episode of sitcom Good Luck Charlie
27 JANUARY 2014 | BY GREG HERNANDEZ

- See more at: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/...rs-31-year-history270114#sthash.gSAxB6na.dpuf

You know, I am honestly very surprised by this. I can foresee gay marriage being legalized by Court mandate sometime in my lifetime, but not Disney Channel introducing gay characters in their sitcoms aimed for children and young/older teens.
 

Ziggy

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,569
Yup, terrible decision. India had a few years where the law basically wasn't in effect due to a previous court decision. Sad.

All that the Supreme Court did is acknowledge that the law exist. It didn't even support it and it mentioned in their decision that it's up to the lawmakers to debate and change it. To do anything else would be an attack on the democratic process.
 

Ilyich

New Member
Messages
155
All that the Supreme Court did is acknowledge that the law exist. It didn't even support it and it mentioned in their decision that it's up to the lawmakers to debate and change it. To do anything else would be an attack on the democratic process.

Just how broad is this "attack on the democratic process" position? Was the U.S. Supreme Court wrong to decide as it did when it struck down all sodomy laws in the U.S.? The argument you're making is exactly one of the ones the other side used - that it should be left to the legislative branch, not unelected judges.

It would be different if India had a system where the judiciary was weak, but my understanding is that in recent years India has seen its courts flex their muscle a lot. I don't think it's wrong for people to be saddened by the fact that the judges weren't willing to extend that treatment to gay rights.
 

VGThuy

Well-Known Member
Messages
41,020
All that the Supreme Court did is acknowledge that the law exist. It didn't even support it and it mentioned in their decision that it's up to the lawmakers to debate and change it. To do anything else would be an attack on the democratic process.

This is why the United States Supreme Court created tiers of scrutiny in order to prevent legislatures from passing laws that are not narrowly tailored to fit their purported and legitimate interest and instead are actually passing laws out of animosity towards a certain groups. The problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court has evaded the question of whether LGBTQ persons are a protected class.

Democratic processes are great, but I do think minority groups need to be protected from tyranny of the majority.
 
Last edited:

Ziggy

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,569
The argument you're making is exactly one of the ones the other side used - that it should be left to the legislative branch, not unelected judges.

Yes, that's the argument that I am making. You surely wouldn't want unelected judges 'flexing their muscle' on matters that you don't agree with. You cannot have it both ways. I don't want them 'flexing their muscle' on anything. It's not their role and not their call. Their job is to uphold the rule of law.

Democratic processes are great, but I do think minority groups need to be protected from tyranny of the majority.

Of course. But I'd rather have the tyranny of the majority than fascism or meritocracy.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information