Are flamboyant gay people a detriment to their cause?

  • (32 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »

472 Replies - 13941 Views - Last Post: 25 November 2010 - 02:18 PM

#16 NeoTifa  Icon User is online

  • Whorediot
  • member icon





Reputation: 2733
  • View blog
  • Posts: 15,809
  • Joined: 24-September 08

Re: Are flamboyant gay people a detriment to their cause?

Posted 03 November 2010 - 09:19 AM

I dunno about you, but I found 300 erotic.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#17 Sergio Tapia  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 1253
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,168
  • Joined: 27-January 10

Re: Are flamboyant gay people a detriment to their cause?

Posted 03 November 2010 - 09:21 AM

Never really saw that movie as something sexual at all; well except when Leonidas bangs the queen.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#18 AlbuquerqueApache  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Addict

Reputation: 49
  • View blog
  • Posts: 523
  • Joined: 21-February 10

Re: Are flamboyant gay people a detriment to their cause?

Posted 03 November 2010 - 09:33 AM

View PostSergio Tapia, on 03 November 2010 - 08:18 AM, said:

Not all religous people are like the GOD HATES FAGS camp, I get that.

So what you're saying is that religious folk tend to stay away from homosexuals because what they do is a sin in your religion?



Yes, but to do so is futile. Sin is unavoidable. I'm not saying that morals should go out the window, but Humanity is not bound by the law but Grace.

To judge gays as sinful and to stay away from them is retarded. Christians that do that TOTALLY miss the point.

is it possible to be gay and a Christian, Absolutely. We are all sinners.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#19 dorknexus  Icon User is offline

  • or something bad...real bad.
  • member icon

Reputation: 1256
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,618
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Re: Are flamboyant gay people a detriment to their cause?

Posted 03 November 2010 - 09:34 AM

Quote

Never really saw that movie as something sexual at all; well except when Leonidas bangs the queen.



betchoo wur fappin then lolololololll!!!one!

EDIT:

Quote

We are all sinners.


Yes, let's all feel guilty and apologize for being human. Let's apologize to our creator for making us this way. Wait a minute...

This post has been edited by Dark_Nexus: 03 November 2010 - 09:35 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#20 AlbuquerqueApache  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Addict

Reputation: 49
  • View blog
  • Posts: 523
  • Joined: 21-February 10

Re: Are flamboyant gay people a detriment to their cause?

Posted 03 November 2010 - 09:41 AM

Quote

name='Dark_Nexus' date='03 November 2010 - 08:34 AM'


Yes, let's all feel guilty and apologize for being human. Let's apologize to our creator for making us this way. Wait a minute...



Ok, lets not turn this into a guilt complex. Substitute the word "sinners" for "Humanity". It works the same.

This post has been edited by AlbuquerqueApache: 03 November 2010 - 09:46 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#21 dorknexus  Icon User is offline

  • or something bad...real bad.
  • member icon

Reputation: 1256
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,618
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Re: Are flamboyant gay people a detriment to their cause?

Posted 03 November 2010 - 09:46 AM

In your little warped reality, yes, violations of religious law and human nature are one in the same.
Meanwhile, back in the real world...
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#22 AlbuquerqueApache  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Addict

Reputation: 49
  • View blog
  • Posts: 523
  • Joined: 21-February 10

Re: Are flamboyant gay people a detriment to their cause?

Posted 03 November 2010 - 09:49 AM

View PostDark_Nexus, on 03 November 2010 - 08:46 AM, said:

In your little warped reality, yes, violations of religious law and human nature are one in the same.
Meanwhile, back in the real world...


I think your confusing the issue.

The original post referred to religious people treating gays unfairly because they are gay. I was making the point that it makes no sense to do that.

BTW, thanks for showing your level of tolerance. I wasn't trying to preach, but just state something from a Christian point of view.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#23 Sergio Tapia  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 1253
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,168
  • Joined: 27-January 10

Re: Are flamboyant gay people a detriment to their cause?

Posted 03 November 2010 - 09:51 AM

View PostDark_Nexus, on 03 November 2010 - 11:34 AM, said:

Quote

Never really saw that movie as something sexual at all; well except when Leonidas bangs the queen.

betchoo wur fappin then lolololololll!!!one



Oh you~~~
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#24 Kilorn  Icon User is offline

  • XNArchitect
  • member icon



Reputation: 1356
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,528
  • Joined: 03-May 10

Re: Are flamboyant gay people a detriment to their cause?

Posted 03 November 2010 - 09:52 AM

omg is this thread really going to devolve into yet another religious debate on these forums? If so, then count me out.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#25 AlbuquerqueApache  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Addict

Reputation: 49
  • View blog
  • Posts: 523
  • Joined: 21-February 10

Re: Are flamboyant gay people a detriment to their cause?

Posted 03 November 2010 - 09:52 AM

View PostKilorn, on 03 November 2010 - 08:52 AM, said:

omg is this thread really going to devolve into yet another religious debate on these forums? If so, then count me out.


No, I'm done.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#26 dorknexus  Icon User is offline

  • or something bad...real bad.
  • member icon

Reputation: 1256
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,618
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Re: Are flamboyant gay people a detriment to their cause?

Posted 03 November 2010 - 09:54 AM

Quote

BTW, thanks for showing your level of tolerance. I wasn't trying to preach, but just state something from a Christian point of view.


I am intolerant of people who believe in magic. Guilty as charged.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#27 AlbuquerqueApache  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Addict

Reputation: 49
  • View blog
  • Posts: 523
  • Joined: 21-February 10

Re: Are flamboyant gay people a detriment to their cause?

Posted 03 November 2010 - 09:55 AM

View PostDark_Nexus, on 03 November 2010 - 08:54 AM, said:

Quote

BTW, thanks for showing your level of tolerance. I wasn't trying to preach, but just state something from a Christian point of view.


I am intolerant of people who believe in magic. Guilty as charged.



Well then, as Carl Sagan said, "You know something I don't".
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#28 baavgai  Icon User is offline

  • Dreaming Coder
  • member icon

Reputation: 5882
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,760
  • Joined: 16-October 07

Re: Are flamboyant gay people a detriment to their cause?

Posted 03 November 2010 - 10:21 AM

View PostAlbuquerqueApache, on 03 November 2010 - 10:15 AM, said:

In Leviticus it states


Yep, Leviticus isn't a particularly warm and fuzzy part of the Bible. It also says you can't wear clothes made from more than one fabric or ever cut your hair or shave. Some Jews still follow that one. But you can't follow all of Leviticus without being arrested.

It also has some real zingers like "every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death." I'm reasonably certain no one I've ever known would have survived to childhood if we followed this one. Then there's also death to adulterers, witches, wizards, animal shaggers ( the animal dies too ), if the priest's daughter is a slut ( there's gotta be some good history in that one. ) Lame, blind, and flat nosed people can't worship. There's more; go read Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Good stuff.

The point is, the "fags must die" stuff is usually paired with a whole lot of "and all these others, too." Haters pick and choose and then say "it's in the Bible." Sure is. But unless you're picking on everyone, you're still a hating hypocrite.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#29 Craig328  Icon User is online

  • I make this look good
  • member icon

Reputation: 1943
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,481
  • Joined: 13-January 08

Re: Are flamboyant gay people a detriment to their cause?

Posted 03 November 2010 - 10:26 AM

View PostSergio Tapia, on 03 November 2010 - 09:19 AM, said:

I've been thinking recently about the persecution homosexual people in general receive in the US, especially near the Bible Belt as it's called...


View PostChoscura, on 03 November 2010 - 09:58 AM, said:

there is a very large part of the gay population that dislikes prancing fairies as much as the beer drinking baptist idiots in the bible belt


View PostShado3225, on 03 November 2010 - 10:08 AM, said:

...I think its more a case of ignorant, unaccepting, closed minded idiots that are a detriment to their cause.

Every one has the right to be what they want, believe in what they want and have an opinion on what ever subject they want. The problem comes in when people do not respect others rights. Just because someone is/thinks/behaves different does not mean they have less rights to be who they are and the sooner more people start respecting the differences in each other the better.

...I mean after all we tolerate racist, ignorant red necks regardless of their believes :whistling:


I think you only need to look so far as comments like these to see the true problems involved. First and most obvious thing: there is a pretty obvious knee-jerk reaction to label people who aren't enthralled with the gay rights crusade as "bible belt", "ignorant, unaccepting, closed minded idiots" and "racist, ignorant red necks". Funny thing is, the one constant measure of gay rights (referendums on gay marriage) have failed in every state in the Union that it'd been brought up for a vote...and the list of states isn't exactly Bible belt: Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, California, Maine, New Mexico and others. In fact, it's never been brought to a vote in the South or the "Bible Belt" so labeling the detractors of same sex marriage (and by extension gay rights in general) in such terms is pretty much the very illustration of ignorance (and not a little irony). It IS the typical gameplan of the movement to discredit the opposition with epithets but I'd say, if you're trying to bring people around to your way of thinking by calling them ignorant, redneck racists...well maybe you haven't thought your cunning plan all the way through.

To many, homosexuality is repellent all on its own, without the religious overtones. It's a useless question to ask "Are flamboyant gay people a detriment"? Of course they are because the majority already doesn't care for their habits so to underline that by acting out in a "in your face" way doesn't help the movement a bit. I have two good friends who are gay (they used to be a couple but split a few years back and neither one was "flamboyant") and during a debate one of them explained a friend's attitude toward flamboyant gays like this:

Quote

Listen, I couldn't care less how you prefer to fornicate or who you do it with. But if you insist on acting out your gender blurring preferences and shove it in my grille and tell me to get used to it, expect to be told to fuck off. Your rights to be who you are I don't debate but screw you if you demand I have to "accept" you or your habits.


This kind of sums up my attitude. I do believe civil unions should be allowed. Insurance, inheritance, power of attorney and such should be allowed to two people who have entered into a legal partnership commitment....like marriage....like civil unions. But the push to co-opt the word "marriage", especially when it's not necessary to establish the rights they claim they want is nothing more than provocative and serves no other purpose than to piss people off.

What's more, there is a California court case that'll make its way to the Supreme Court shortly which will pretty much kill the gay rights movement on the spot. There's a long explanation but basically, gay rights advocates have maneuvered such that they're now going to force the Supreme Court to rule whether gender preference should be included as a protected class by the 14th Amendment (like race, color, religion, age, gender, disability, etc). Thing is, the SCOTUS won't do it for two reasons. One is the court is primarily conservative so picking now as the time to push this was exceptionally stupid. The second is...how do you know someone is gay? I mean, really, if gender preference is included as a protected class such that something like say job hiring was to include consideration of gender preference in their candidate selection criteria...how do you determine that someone is gay? They have to demonstrate fellatio on another man and declare that they like it? They get to choose pitcher/catcher and provide visual evidence of their activities? This seems like a stupid question but it will be at the heart of any "protected class" debate. People can't so easily fake other protected class status so as to derive the benefits that being a member of a protected class conveys. Think about where this leaves bisexuals, for instance.

Anyway, the short answer is yes, being the flaming flamboyant in-your-face gay person is a detriment to the gay movement overall if for no other reason than that same movement needs to convince a skeptical majority to support their minority push for equalizing legislation and the majority simply don't like the flamers and will use it as the excuse to not support the broader gay population.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#30 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4503
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,411
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: Are flamboyant gay people a detriment to their cause?

Posted 03 November 2010 - 10:43 AM


Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

  • (32 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »