Lets talk about gay

[Grain of Salt]

[Vordakk]

DuckReconMajor said:

The things they want will make your blood curdle
Next thing you know you'll marry a box turtle!

Some real poetry there.

[Phobus]

Fuck them queers!


Sorry, I just wanted to break the trend. I'm far too disinterested to vote at the moment, so they're just as likely to get my vote if they're shagging men as they would if they shagged trees.

[Technician]

I wouldn't hold anyone's sexually to any regard when voting. Why? Because I don't give a fuck. Let people screw whoever they choose.

[Phml]

Come on, don't we have any conservative fuckjobs here? DoomWorld, you disappoint me. :(

I'm as conservative as it gets, but hating gays is so last century.

[PRIMEVAL]

I don't care what a President does in his personal life, as long as he can run this country.

[The Lag]

i don't care who is gay or not as long as they are a good person.

Edited June 17, 2023 by The Lag

[Aliotroph?]

Anti-hetero? Where have you ever found someone like that?

[kristus]

exp(x) said:

Sure. Why not?

[Shaikoten]

[Koko Ricky]

I think it's pretty normal to be homophobic, as we fear anything we don't understand or are uncomfortable with. Not a surprise! I'm not homophobic, but the whole "gay thing" will always be a bit strange to me. Hell, being straight is weird enough.

[chungy]

Aliotroph? said:

Anti-hetero? Where have you ever found someone like that?

I have once... it is strange and makes maybe even less sense than anti-gay stances, but it exists somewhere.

[Stupid Bunny]

I wouldn't vote for a gay politician because any gay man is a foul immoral pervert who spends every waking hour in three other men's asses and knee deep in piss and feces.

In all seriousness, like (evidently) everybody else here I have no objection to gays holding any kind of public office. I have no reason on earth to believe that they're any less qualified to lead than any straight politician (and it's not like the straight politicans' records are universally golden anyway...)

[Violator]

Wouldn't really care about a politicians sexual preference, if his policies make sense I'd be likely to vote for him. Don't have anything against gay people just the hate ones that try act like stereotypical ones.

[Technician]

StupidBunny said:

In all seriousness, like (evidently) everybody else here I have no objection to gays holding any kind of public office. I have no reason on earth to believe that they're any less qualified to lead than any straight politician (and it's not like the straight politicans' records are universally golden anyway...)

It seems like all the straight postillions have some kind of complex or over-compensation with their sexuality themselves.

[The Lag]

...

Edited June 17, 2023 by The Lag

[Aliotroph?]

Where do those guys get electricity and water? People are stupid. hehehe

[Maes]

Westerners are really overthinking the whole gay issue. I consider deeper truth to be found in this Elias Petropoulos's excerpt from the "Manual of the Good Thief" (translated for your convenience, as the book is only published in Greek and French, I think), in its final chapter about prison sexuality:

Before I conclude this final lesson, I'll offer some insight on the homosexual traditions of the Near Orient. As you know, this tradition is very ancient. It can be found in the Spartan boot camps, in the Gymnasiums of Athens, in the Sacred Band of Thebes, in the Palatine anthology, in the Byzantine monasteries, in the buluks (squads) of Albanian mountain bandits, in the Ottoman Tekes (monasteries), in priestly schools, in the Janissary battalions and in various professional and trade guilds.

The degenerate European mind can only perceive this tradition as just another source of pleasure. But the truth is much deeper than that: in the Near Orient, the homosexual tradition frames all institutions in a unified system of hierarchy, training and discipline.

The manner through which this is accomplished has been stable for centuries: a Man tasks himself with initiating an Ephebus (teenager) in the secrets of a Art, Trade, Religion or Science. For as long as this initiation lasts, the Ephebus find himself under the total domination of the Man. This Ephebus, however, NEVER turns into an effeminate, passive homosexual. The people of the Near Orient despise such homosexuals.

When the Ephebus turns into a Man gains a higher position in the hierarchy ladder and, in turn, will seek out an Ephebus to initiate himself. This status quo does not preclude heterosexual love. Prostitutes, concubines, hetairae, odaliscs, maitresses were never absent from the near orient societies, and neither did legitimate women. Marriage remained the official child-bearing factory.

[Phobus]

So following that logic, any teacher would have to give us a good buggering to let us know we were his student? Can't say I approve.

[Maes]

Phobus said:

So following that logic, any teacher would have to give us a good buggering to let us know we were his student? Can't say I approve.

Also that, but not just that and not as a goal in itself: the point is that should literally live under the complete personal one-to-one dominance, mental and physical of your Teacher for as long as you are an Apprentice (buggering included, if your Teacher feels like it), until you are skilled enough to become a Teacher (and maybe a Master in the Art you are trained at) yourself, move up the ranks and initiate other Disciples yourself.

This concept is well-radicated even in the Far Orient societies (e.g. check out the Japanese Warrior Code and the concepts of Uke/Seme in Japanese Martial Arts), and the concept of gaining ranks and status (and on the converse, being treated very lowly when you're a newbie) is inherent in any structured trade even in the West, including soldiers' hazing practices. As long as the same rules apply or applied for everyone at some point, almost any practice becomes acceptable.

Even if I find such a system too out of touch with how modern societies work, there still ARE a few traditional arts or trades that can only be learned by a similar closed system of apprenticeship, and I also agree with the author's observation that the European (and, by extension, the Western) mentality fails to see beyond the carnal act of buggering per se, missing the entire apprenticeship-domination-discipline-hierarchy complex behind it.

[Rohit_N]

DuckReconMajor said:

Heh does anyone remember this little gem?REAL TALK

I've heard this argument before.

"If we don't keep the gays down now, they'll grow in numbers and keep us down later! Maybe they'll even make heterosexuality a crime!"

[Blastfrog]

Rohit_N said:

I've heard this argument before.

"If we don't keep the gays down now, they'll grow in numbers and keep us down later! Maybe they'll even make heterosexuality a crime!"

I've always wondered if that's what some homophobes actually believe, or if they know it's bullshit and that they're just using it as an excuse to enforce their own preferences on someone else. It disgusts me that some people actually say stuff like that, though.

Something random I just thought of: is it unjust to be intolerant of other people's intolerance?

[Maes]

Sodaholic said:

Something random I just thought of: is it unjust to be intolerant of other people's intolerance?

I always wondered if e.g. someone can fight violence with every means necessary...including violence ;-)

[Scripten]

Sodaholic said:

Something random I just thought of: is it unjust to be intolerant of other people's intolerance?

No. Intolerance is acceptable when you're talking about a belief system or opinion. And it can be quite fun to get into a good debate about those things.

On the other hand, intolerance due to a physical trait or lifestyle choice is ridiculous. There's no basis for argument as long as your actions affect only yourself.

[fraggle]

Sodaholic said:

Something random I just thought of: is it unjust to be intolerant of other people's intolerance?

I think questions like this are vague and it needs to be clarified what's being asked before an answer to be given.

Should we be tolerant of other peoples' intolerance? Yes, to a point, I think. For example, homophobic, racist and sexist people exist. Should they be banned from expressing their views? No. While I might strongly disagree with these people, they should still have the right to express their opinions. So I'd advocate "tolerance" to that extent.

On the other hand there should be a limit to how far that tolerance goes. For example, someone might be an outspoken racist, but if they're going to express those views in a workplace situation, that isn't okay. Intolerant people often try to use their personal beliefs as a shield to argue that they should somehow be exempt from the law.

There has been a great example of this here in the UK with controversy over guest houses refusing to accept gay couples. Should guest house owners have the right to refuse entry to what is effectively their home? Or should they abide by the law which prohibits discrimination in providing services to the public? I'd argue for the latter - personal beliefs are one issue, but if you're running a business then you have to abide by the law.

[DoomUK]

fraggle said:

For example, someone might be an outspoken racist, but if they're going to express those views in a workplace situation, that isn't okay.

Why not? Everyone is offended by something. If you block people from expressing their world views (as abhorrent as they might be) in the workplace, where is the line drawn? I think a distinction should be made between saying offensive things and doing offensive things; for example, I find it rather offensive that someone could lose their job because they happen to be politically delusional and idiotic.

[fraggle]

DoomUK said:

Why not? Everyone is offended by something. If you block people from expressing their world views (as abhorrent as they might be) in the workplace, where is the line drawn? I think a distinction should be made between saying offensive things and doing offensive things; for example, I find it rather offensive that someone could lose their job because they happen to be politically delusional and idiotic.

It's not a matter of offensiveness; it's about the fact that it can create a hostile working environment for the people that they're working with.

A helpful rule of thumb is the old adage of "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins". Personal beliefs are one thing, but if they have the potential to have an adverse effect on colleagues, they aren't appropriate for the workplace.

[Maes]

fraggle said:

Personal beliefs are one thing, but if they have the potential to have an adverse effect on colleagues, they aren't appropriate for the workplace.

Then again someone can act VERY butthurt for little or no reason on just about anything, taking a mega-dump on that concept of yours.

Whether this is just a caprice or there are people who are genuinely that sensitive is also up to debate.

E.g. in ROC school we had a couple of guys that literally "broke up" the very first day, and others who simply "would not have any of that" (referring to seniors behaving like, you know, seniors, with hazing and all), but most of us had put up with that stuff in our time regardless of personal beliefs or how badass everybody though he was outside of the army, so we expected nothing less than the newbies, and we couldn't conceive how someone who wished to become a Reserve Officer and knew fully well what was going on in those schools acted like a whiney little cunt (yeah, that's how we felt about whiners).

[fraggle]

Maes said:

Then again someone can act VERY butthurt for little or no reason on just about anything, taking a mega-dump on that concept of yours.

Whether this is just a caprice or there are people who are genuinely that sensitive is also up to debate.

Not really what I was talking about when I said "hostile working environment" - I was specifically referring to sexism/homophobia/racism/etc.

[Maes]

Still, if someone comes and simply proclaims to be a nazi/antigay etc. I simply shrug it away.

IMO, the line is drawn where one takes actual action, while talking and saying that you are X or Y or believe in Z is cheap and not worth whining/getting all worked up about.

But then again that's part of the Greek concept that "someone is what he states he is", so mere words are always to be taken very lightly.

Edit: this concept is actually closer in meaning to the Anglo-saxon "opinions are like assholes: everyone has one and they all stink", meaning that everyone can say he's grand and stuff or believes in whatever. It's up to the recipients' (of the claim) street smarts to avoid get suckered in/taking them too seriously.