What's wrong with being gay?

[Daedalus X]

This thread is a continuation of an off topic conversation from here.

First, I think that we all agree that it's important to promote understanding, respect, and equality for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. Everyone should be treated with dignity and allowed to express their identity without fear of discrimination or harm.


Question for debate is LGTBQIA2S+ a harmless social contagion, or are there serious unintended consequences awaiting the individuals and societies that are going down this road?

[brunumb]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #86]

Not everything on your list is based on bigotry, and I will not go through it to explain which. A little unbiased self-reflection will allow you to realise which. Some of them may conform in some way to your worldview, but may not be what others see as correct or valid. What qualifies as bigotry may just be in the eye of the beholder, particularly the way we see the label tossed around so indiscriminately these days.

[boatsnguitars]

So, you eradicated your own bigotry. Great!

Had I been eradicated for it, I never would have had the chance. I would have been killed for my misinformed stance that stemmed from my religious upbringing.

You seem to be purposely trying to misunderstand my point.
But, yet, if you had continued to be a bigot, I would have wanted you to be educated - and the bigotry eradicated in you. However, if you continued to preach bigotry and started inspiring others to be bigots, I would have hope you killed.

Apparently I am not misunderstanding your point. I cannot support a quest to eradicate people that display bigotry. Murderers or rapists etc..., that is a discussion I would be willing to have, but you are clearly talking about an adjective (that guy is a doody head) and not an action (that guy committed murder). Brings me back to a lack of consistency in this position.

I don't have much sympathy for people, simply because they hate a certain group of people, can make otherwise peaceful, nice people's lives miserable to the point of them living if fear, actively attacked verbally or physically, etc.

I do agree and see a lack of sympathy. The rest of your rant is not necessarily actions that a bigot will act on and you know this. Again, if they do, they will be responsible for their actions/crimes, but if you ever kill someone because you feel they are a bigot, you will be the one in jail as you should be. I have a hard time supporting violence, even if people are jerks. Notice how you don't argue to punish someone that is a murderer, something I could get behind, instead you seek to punish people that are bigots. Who is going to be the bigot police? Surely those that don't share your points of view might be willing to call you a bigot. Now what? We need to punish actions, not adjectives. Like I said before, I can feel that a person is a bigot, unlike feeling that someone is a murderer.

So, yes, I still stand by my statement that I would like to see bigotry eradicated, and certain bigots. I suppose I'm not as squeamish as you to call for the death of someone how actively makes people's lives miserable.

This is true and one reason I cannot support you.

Life is hard enough. Creating a society is even harder. When you have groups or individual so willing to not live in peace,

Holy crap! Pot... meet kettle!
These people over there are making it hard to live in peace. Kill them!

we can try to educated them, but if they can't learn, I don't think we coddle them. I don't think society needs to bear the burden of their malice. I think society has legitimate problems it needs to tackle and letting someone feel they can poop in the punch bowl and laugh at us because we just have to accept it because of 'free speech' is absurd.

Like you said, life is hard, but you can't kill people if they laugh at you. Even if you say they are a bigot, you still cannot kill them. It's ironic to me to focus on name calling while calling for the death of others because of their speech. Truly, which is the worse evil?

How long would you let someone bully your child? Would you just let them call them names everyday? Make them feel scared? Make them feel horrible for not being attractive enough, wrong color of skin, disabled? What if your child was gay and your younger self continued to mock and deride that person into adulthood? Then they gained political power and was able to do it from a bully pulpit?

I would intercede whether is was my child or another, but that is not the point. You once again focus on name calling being bad while calling for death. I would much rather be called a name then be put to death.

You'd just take it like a beach?

I would take action and be responsible for my actions. I would not put anyone to death for making fun of someone though. I still cannot support such a thing and see it as the greater evil.
Society will do what society does (see the acceptance of homosexuality over the decades). Hopefully without resorting to violence. What's the worse evil, the high school quarterback making fun of the perceived nerd in class or killing the quarterback for making fun of the perceived nerd?

You can't kill the high school quarterback because he makes fun of the nerd in class.

Do you think eradication always means killing someone?

Eradicate:
: to remove (something) completely : to eliminate or destroy (something harmful) The disease has now been completely eradicated. His ambition is to eradicate poverty in/from his community.

Do you think that means he wants to kill all the poor people?

[Clownboat]

Do you think eradication always means killing someone?

Eradicate:
: to remove (something) completely : to eliminate or destroy (something harmful) The disease has now been completely eradicated. His ambition is to eradicate poverty in/from his community.

Do you think that means he wants to kill all the poor people?

No, and hopefully this will help you to see the difference:
Poverty is not an action that the poor commit. It wouldn't make sense to threaten a poor person to stop being poor, or you will eradicate them.
Bigotry involves actions committed by bigots. (Obviously no one would care or even know if a person was keeping their bigoted thoughts to themselves and I have already provided my thoughts on trying to punish 'thought crimes'. Let's leave that to the gods...)

Which brings us back to post #89: (Possibly eradicating...)Murderers or rapists etc..., that is a discussion I would be willing to have, but you are clearly talking about an adjective (that guy is a doody head) and not an action (that guy committed murder). Brings me back to a lack of consistency in this position.

I even provided a definition in post #72 to help clarify how I was using 'eradicate'.
e·rad·i·ca·tion
/iˌradiˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
the complete destruction of something.

You are not answering my questions posed to you and now seem to want to argue semantics. Am I not worthy of debate? I promise you, I am able to amend my thinking on matters, but it helps if you can show where my thinking is off. The above doesn't attempt to do that. Surely your goal is not to just obfuscate my position?

Why not start by trying to convince me as to why I should share in this position for example?:
Post #88 = boatsnguitars: However, if you continued to preach bigotry and started inspiring others to be bigots, I would have hope you killed.

Now I'm off to read more of your thoughts on gun control in the other thread.

[boatsnguitars]

Do you think eradication always means killing someone?

Eradicate:
: to remove (something) completely : to eliminate or destroy (something harmful) The disease has now been completely eradicated. His ambition is to eradicate poverty in/from his community.

Do you think that means he wants to kill all the poor people?

No, and hopefully this will help you to see the difference:
Poverty is not an action that the poor commit. It wouldn't make sense to threaten a poor person to stop being poor, or you will eradicate them.
Bigotry involves actions committed by bigots. (Obviously no one would care or even know if a person was keeping their bigoted thoughts to themselves and I have already provided my thoughts on trying to punish 'thought crimes'. Let's leave that to the gods...)

Which brings us back to post #89: (Possibly eradicating...)Murderers or rapists etc..., that is a discussion I would be willing to have, but you are clearly talking about an adjective (that guy is a doody head) and not an action (that guy committed murder). Brings me back to a lack of consistency in this position.

I even provided a definition in post #72 to help clarify how I was using 'eradicate'.
e·rad·i·ca·tion
/iˌradiˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
the complete destruction of something.

You are not answering my questions posed to you and now seem to want to argue semantics. Am I not worthy of debate? I promise you, I am able to amend my thinking on matters, but it helps if you can show where my thinking is off. The above doesn't attempt to do that. Surely your goal is not to just obfuscate my position?

Why not start by trying to convince me as to why I should share in this position for example?:
Post #88 = boatsnguitars: However, if you continued to preach bigotry and started inspiring others to be bigots, I would have hope you killed.

Now I'm off to read more of your thoughts on gun control in the other thread.

I'm not sure what we are arguing about. It appears you are parsing the language far more than I would. Eradicating poverty, bigotry, racism, sexism, cancer, rape, murder, Nazism, religion, etc. - all seem to be coherent statements. How one eradicates them is complex/multi-faceted and would only require killing individuals if they persisted in such a way that other means were ineffective.

To me, the issue is how much tolerance do we continue to have towards people who - as I have repeatedly mentioned - make other peoples lives feel threatened or otherwise miserable in a methodical manner? You being a bigot when you were young is not the same as you being a bigot that marshals young men to follow your bigoted ideology. A leader of an anti-gay group, while maybe not expressly telling them to kill gay people, would still be responsible if the rhetoric naturally lead to this happening. Being a White Supremist on the internet is bad, but it's not as bad as what Enrique Tarrio did. I'm not sure why this would be a controversial statement.
Likewise, being a racist is not the same as being Grand Dragon of the KKK. I believe the Grand Dragon ought to be killed, or at least imprisoned to the point that his message is eradicated. He's old enough to know better, and at some point a man has to acknowledge his responsibility.

We seem to have no problem wanting Nazi's to die when they were gassing Jews, but why would you defend people who have that same ideology that has resulted in deaths of others. And, again, if not death, pain and a miserable, fearful existence?

And, if bigots of that caliber live in fear of death because of this, I again don't see the problem. No one ever accused the Allies as being as bad as the Nazi's because they killed Nazis'. Universally, it appears there are things that are bad - and killing alone isn't bad. Sometimes killing is the good - when done in self defense from an aggressor. If you don't consider it bad that a person makes gay people's lives miserable every waking minute to the point that they want to kill themselves, then we simply differ on what evil is. Should every person who makes a gay person feel miserable be killed? No, but I think the bigotry ought to be eradicated, as it was eradicated in you through education. But, if a bigot continually makes gay people feel their lives are less worthy, and actively makes it so that their lives are less full, then educate him - forcefully. I see no reason to deal with bigots of this sort gently - as they aren't gentle with their victims.

You do seem to want to reduce this to the difference between the idea and the actions. It would not occur to me to kill someone for thinking things in private. It would not be a concern of mine if someone said, "I feel I don't like gay people, and it's difficult for me to understand the attraction, but I will let them live their fullest life." I am always concerned about the actions of people, not their intentions. So, to me there is an unnecessary step to discuss this. I'm concerned about the actions of people, and what their actions do to others. To eradicate poverty, one has to address the actions of people who contribute to poverty. If wealthy people steal from the poor, to the point that they are dying (a la, France in 1787), then behead the King who is responsible. He's a big boy. He can handle it.

And, maybe, if a few heads roll, more people will decide to be better human beings. Separate the wheat from the chafe. Not every person is a gift from God. Not every life is precious.

At this point, I feel I have repeated myself and have made my case, from my perspective.

[Clownboat]

I'm not sure what we are arguing about.

You want some people to be killed if they make other peoples lives miserable enough (which is hard to measure IMO) and you call these people bigots. I continue to point out that societies already have laws that punish actions. Those laws do not and should not include killing bigots, doody heads, republicans or people that offend others. I think you agree with me, until we get to bigot that is... and so here we are.

It appears you are parsing the language far more than I would.

I'm not though:
Post #88 = boatsnguitars: However, if you continued to preach bigotry and started inspiring others to be bigots, I would have hope you killed.

To me, the issue is how much tolerance do we continue to have towards people who - as I have repeatedly mentioned - make other peoples lives feel threatened or otherwise miserable in a methodical manner?

Again, more irony and a lack of consistency from where I sit.
"See that intolerant person over there? I should not have to tolerate their intolerance! Let's deal with them being intolerant by education or death even though they haven't committed any crimes". If/when a crime is committed, you do have my support.
I can support punishing people, even up to death for their actions, but not for adjectives being laid against them. We would probably share a lot of agreement here if you would lose the word bigot in this discussion and in place argue against actions you don't approve of (specifics actions that is, not alluding to some 'miserable in a methodical manner' for me to wonder what actions are taking place).

Scenario:
A Trans neighbor that is bigoted towards Muslims and a Muslim old lady next door that finds being transgender to be an abomination. They methodically try to make each other miserable whenever they see each other. Let's say they both lament about how miserable the other neighbor make them. Let's say they even claim to feel threatened. Does the bigotry matter? Should either come close to being put to death for their bigotry? They are both methodically saying some very unkind words to each other after all.

Nope. We shouldn't punish people for being bigots or for having people call them a bigot.
So back full circle to your question about what we are debating:
You want some people to be killed if they make other peoples lives miserable enough (whatever enough is) and you call these people bigots. I think we should stick to punishing people for committing crimes. Some of these people will be bigots and some not, so the claimed bigotry seems moot.

Likewise, being a racist is not the same as being Grand Dragon of the KKK. I believe the Grand Dragon ought to be killed, or at least imprisoned to the point that his message is eradicated.

For what crimes specifically would you like him killed? Let's see if we can come to an agreement.

He's old enough to know better

Please do better than this...

We seem to have no problem wanting Nazi's to die when they were gassing Jews

You need to stop equating the two (adjective with verb). It would be evil to kill anyone for being a Nazi. That is way too intolerant for me. Wanting murderers to be die is another discussion and one you are not having with me though.

but why would you defend people who have that same ideology that has resulted in deaths of others.

See, you just equated the two again (adjective/verb)! People will have whatever ideologies they will have, but holding a Nazi ideology (adjective) does not mean a person is responsible for the death of anyone (verb). It's dishonest for you to suggest I would defend a held ideology that resulted in the death of others when in fact I would seek to punish the actual said action.

If you don't consider it bad that a person makes gay people's lives miserable every waking minute to the point that they want to kill themselves

Now you allude to a literal impossibility. I would find such a thing bad by the way.

Should every person who makes a gay person feel miserable be killed? No, but I think the bigotry ought to be eradicated, as it was eradicated in you through education.

You have my support until you (generic you) start killing people. To justify punishment, you will need to point to a crime (action/verb) and you'll need to do better than referring to groups of people you don't like as an adjective.

But, if a bigot continually makes gay people feel their lives are less worthy, and actively makes it so that their lives are less full, then educate him - forcefully. I see no reason to deal with bigots of this sort gently - as they aren't gentle with their victims.

Someone having bigotted thoughts doesn't cause gay people to feel less worthy. I think we agree on this. The actions of a person that may or may not be a bigot might. Care to discuss actions? I see no reason to discuss adjectives.

Why you ask?
Assume both statements are true:
1. Joe is a murderer.
2. Joe is a bigot.
Which one necessarily matters when it comes to discussing putting Joe to death?

You do seem to want to reduce this to the difference between the idea and the actions.

Bingo. It's far to easy to call people names like bigot or doody head. Showing they did something society doesn't approve of (murder for example) is something entirely different and a much different claim.

It would not be a concern of mine if someone said, "I feel I don't like gay people, and it's difficult for me to understand the attraction, but I will let them live their fullest life." I am always concerned about the actions of people, not their intentions.

We are already dealing with adjectives (bigot), actions (murder), and now you want to introduce intentions? How do we measure a persons level of bigotry and how do we measure their intentions? Again, I see this as a lack of consistency. Punishing for actions is consistent and is what I'm arguing for and I would be against punishing anyone simply for being claimed to belong to a group.

So, to me there is an unnecessary step to discuss this. I'm concerned about the actions of people, and what their actions do to others.

The readers will need to decide for themselves if they feel you are concerned about adjectives or verbs in this discussion. You know where I stand. I do think we would have a lot of common ground if you were to not use the word bigot and instead argued against actions that cause suffering. That is likely the cause of our disconnect if I had to guess.

[boatsnguitars]

I feel the difference is that you are more squeamish about killing people, and you have a higher tolerance for people making other people's lives miserable.
I think I've expressed my view well enough. Not all bigots deserve to die, but some do - IMO. I'm all for giving them a chance, but when their beliefs turn into action - or cause others to act, then that's enough for me.
I don't feel any obligation to pander to bigots, or suffer them silently, or even tolerate them past a reasonable point. I'm not sure if you've had a lot of experience with unrepentant bigots who torture people mentally or physically - bully them to the point of endless fear; creating emotional scars that last a life time. I have met enough of them. They didn't do it to me, but ones I loved.
People I love, who are good, decent people have PTSD decades later. They struggle to form meaningful relationships because of bullies who didn't kill them, but changed their lives forever.
I have no sympathy for them. One of them became a cop - a racist cop. Another a homophobic (and abusive) priest.
Defend them if you will. I won't and I won't apologize for wishing them dead instead of enjoying the power and money they are rewarded with every day.
I find it sickening that they can leave a path of destruction in their wake and then enjoy a happy life as if they didn't ruin other people's lives.
Their death would mean nothing to me. The world would be better for them gone.
If you won't stand up for victims of bigots, I suppose I'll just have to work harder.

[brunumb]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #96]

On the other hand the trans activists and gender ideologists are more than willing to completely destroy the lives of people who do little more than misgender someone or question their beliefs. No need for bigotry to rear its ugly head, just an attempt to point people in the direction of reality will result in the mob descending.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #96]

On the other hand the trans activists and gender ideologists are more than willing to completely destroy the lives of people who do little more than misgender someone or question their beliefs.

In what way? Can you give me an example? I'm not disagreeing, but I'd like a real example.

[Clownboat]

I feel the difference is that you are more squeamish about killing people, and you have a higher tolerance for people making other people's lives miserable.

Thank you for illustrating why your way will not work. Far too many variances in peoples capacity for killing others and for tolerating struggles in life.

How do you measure an amount of miserable being received anyway? Especially when each person's capacity for handling struggles is not the same. You will have society catering to those that can't handle adversity as they will be the ones feeling the most of it, even when the amount of misery they are receiving will at times be less than the person that is more able to overcome it. I have been alluding to a lack of consistency in your position for quite some time now and you haven't been able to address it.

I think I've expressed my view well enough.

I feel I understand your view fairly well and find the lack of consistency with how it would be applied in a real world scenario to be un-addressed.

I don't feel any obligation to pander to bigots, or suffer them silently, or even tolerate them past a reasonable point.

Your bigotry towards such people is noted.

I'm not sure if you've had a lot of experience with unrepentant bigots who torture people mentally or physically - bully them to the point of endless fear; creating emotional scars that last a life time. I have met enough of them. They didn't do it to me, but ones I loved.

Is this to admit that your reaction is an emotionally charged one? I'm looking for the logic if so. So again, how do we measure the amount of suffering one feels and how do we mitigate for those that can handle it better than others?

People I love, who are good, decent people have PTSD decades later. They struggle to form meaningful relationships because of bullies who didn't kill them, but changed their lives forever.

On a scale of 1 - 100, how much misery did they suffer from and how did you measure it? I know you'll want to take this as me sounding uncaring, but please don't and try to answer the question. If you struggle, see my lack of consistency claim once again.

I have no sympathy for them. One of them became a cop - a racist cop. Another a homophobic (and abusive) priest. Defend them if you will.

What about the times when such people aren't actually racist or abusive and the slander is misplaced? What if they are both Christians and the person doing the name calling is a bigot towards Christians? Again, lack of consistency and why I argue for punishing crimes and not adjectives which has nothing to do with being squeamish about killing people or being tolerant about making peoples lives miserable like you think.

[brunumb]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #96]

On the other hand the trans activists and gender ideologists are more than willing to completely destroy the lives of people who do little more than misgender someone or question their beliefs.

In what way? Can you give me an example? I'm not disagreeing, but I'd like a real example.

I don't keep track of the accounts that I encounter on interviews and news clips so I would have to go back and try digging them up. One prominent case involves the rabid attacks on J K Rowling and the attempts ruin any of her new ventures. She is, of course, too secure to be brought down by the activists but one can see the tactics being used. I have heard of academics, scientists, medical practitioners being forced out of their positions by the same sort of tactics. But, as I said, they just register with me and I don't take steps to specifically record them. Perhaps I will from now on as people understandably like to have receipts to accompany claims.