Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

When will people accept 100% the LGBT community?


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

Poll: When will people accept 100% the LGBT community? (30 member(s) have cast votes)

When will people (from developed countries) accept 100% the LGBT community?

  1. In 10-20 years (3 votes [10.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

  2. By 2050 (3 votes [10.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.00%

  3. By 2100 (14 votes [46.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 46.67%

  4. Never (10 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth
Probably when Abrahamic religions no longer exist.

Exactly.  So never.

Actually, one can dislike gay people without believing in an Abrahamic religion. Some/Many people in countries such as Russia and China are good examples of this.



#42
TheComrade

TheComrade

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,642 posts
The "never" option is not meant for your reasons (aka homophobia, and that doesn't necessarily mean "fear", but also hatred, intolerance and nonacceptance, which you clearly stated in your first comment, so yes, you are indeed being homophobic),

 

OMG, this is just incredible. Seems i accidentally kicked someone's sacred cow. OK, i'll try to explain, especially for you & for the last time. My initial statement was:

Voted for "never". "Being tolerated" and "being fully accepted" are two different things. Naturals feels rejection to homosexuals, and this reaction is instinctive and hardcoded, despite all beatiful words about tolerance, political correctness and so on.

...and it means exactly what it means, no more, no less. Yes, both homosexuality & rejection to gays may be hardcoded in human behavior. In that case, blame people for "homophobia" is the same ridiculous thing as blame them for being gays. That's why LGBT-people may be fully recognized by the law (free marriages, right to adopt children, etc) and still rejected by certain part of society (not even "anti-gay movements" you so worry about, just instinctive anti-gay feelings not leading to any real actions). if you have power, you may put pressure on those poor "homophobes" and make them say: "Oh, what a wonderful change, sun became brighter and grass became greener, now we are all tolerant, now we love LGBT... just leave us alone, please" but these words will be lie! Like it or not, but you will have to deal with it.

 

...then you honestly need to go away. I won't tolerate homophobia in my own damn thread.

 

Yeah, and the very phrase "I won't tolerate..." very well characterises "fighters for tolerance" like you! With all my respect, sir, this damn thread is NOT YOUR OWN. Don't worry though, i'm leaving now. Gays and THEIR phobias is the last thing I came for...

 

===

PS reminded me another place and another time... imagine some discussion about racism:

Someone: "even the race itself is only a social construct with no connection to reality"

Me "this is wrong, race is not just a social construct. You can't distinguish communist or liberal person in street crowd, but you can easily distinguish black or white person, and so..."

Everyone "Racist! RACIST among us!!! Ban him! BAN!!! Immediately!!!"



#43
Colonel O'Neil

Colonel O'Neil

    From Time Immemorial...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK
lol not for a long time. Let's try and deal with racism first.

 

 

What do you consider racism? Pointing out solutions for crime and ways to improve a community certainly isn't racism....Racism is going around beating up people for the color of ones skin color....

 

Every race has racist and people that don't like others. I believe it is better to show good deeds towards others and not rub a populations nose into it. That normally causes more hatred.

 

I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

You can have racism, even if people aren't being beaten up on the streets. Usually it's a lot more subtle than that.


The art of forgetting is inherent in human minds; the art of being forgotten  is the normal fate of knowing. We as futurists don't accept that. In the panels of the Universe, we alone will remain standing; remain unforgotten.


#44
Jared

Jared

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 130 posts
lol not for a long time. Let's try and deal with racism first.

 

 

What do you consider racism? Pointing out solutions for crime and ways to improve a community certainly isn't racism....Racism is going around beating up people for the color of ones skin color....

 

Every race has racist and people that don't like others. I believe it is better to show good deeds towards others and not rub a populations nose into it. That normally causes more hatred.

 

I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

You can have racism, even if people aren't being beaten up on the streets. Usually it's a lot more subtle than that.

Sometimes, it's so subtle that it doesn't really exist.



#45
Colonel O'Neil

Colonel O'Neil

    From Time Immemorial...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 816 posts
  • LocationLondon, UK
lol not for a long time. Let's try and deal with racism first.

 

 

What do you consider racism? Pointing out solutions for crime and ways to improve a community certainly isn't racism....Racism is going around beating up people for the color of ones skin color....

 

Every race has racist and people that don't like others. I believe it is better to show good deeds towards others and not rub a populations nose into it. That normally causes more hatred.

 

I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

You can have racism, even if people aren't being beaten up on the streets. Usually it's a lot more subtle than that.

Sometimes, it's so subtle that it doesn't really exist.

 

your'e joking right? Please tell me that your'e joking. Otherwise that's a pretty damn ignorant statement to make.


The art of forgetting is inherent in human minds; the art of being forgotten  is the normal fate of knowing. We as futurists don't accept that. In the panels of the Universe, we alone will remain standing; remain unforgotten.


#46
Jared

Jared

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 130 posts
lol not for a long time. Let's try and deal with racism first.

 

 

What do you consider racism? Pointing out solutions for crime and ways to improve a community certainly isn't racism....Racism is going around beating up people for the color of ones skin color....

 

Every race has racist and people that don't like others. I believe it is better to show good deeds towards others and not rub a populations nose into it. That normally causes more hatred.

 

I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

You can have racism, even if people aren't being beaten up on the streets. Usually it's a lot more subtle than that.

Sometimes, it's so subtle that it doesn't really exist.

 

your'e joking right? Please tell me that your'e joking. Otherwise that's a pretty damn ignorant statement to make.

No, I'm not joking.  As always.  Some people are incredibly paranoid about racism, and they tend to be the most racist themselves.



#47
JesseBrandon

JesseBrandon

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts
The "never" option is not meant for your reasons (aka homophobia, and that doesn't necessarily mean "fear", but also hatred, intolerance and nonacceptance, which you clearly stated in your first comment, so yes, you are indeed being homophobic),

 

OMG, this is just incredible. Seems i accidentally kicked someone's sacred cow. OK, i'll try to explain, especially for you & for the last time. My initial statement was:

Voted for "never". "Being tolerated" and "being fully accepted" are two different things. Naturals feels rejection to homosexuals, and this reaction is instinctive and hardcoded, despite all beatiful words about tolerance, political correctness and so on.

...and it means exactly what it means, no more, no less. Yes, both homosexuality & rejection to gays may be hardcoded in human behavior. In that case, blame people for "homophobia" is the same ridiculous thing as blame them for being gays. That's why LGBT-people may be fully recognized by the law (free marriages, right to adopt children, etc) and still rejected by certain part of society (not even "anti-gay movements" you so worry about, just instinctive anti-gay feelings not leading to any real actions). if you have power, you may put pressure on those poor "homophobes" and make them say: "Oh, what a wonderful change, sun became brighter and grass became greener, now we are all tolerant, now we love LGBT... just leave us alone, please" but these words will be lie! Like it or not, but you will have to deal with it.

 

...then you honestly need to go away. I won't tolerate homophobia in my own damn thread.

 

Yeah, and the very phrase "I won't tolerate..." very well characterises "fighters for tolerance" like you! With all my respect, sir, this damn thread is NOT YOUR OWN. Don't worry though, i'm leaving now. Gays and THEIR phobias is the last thing I came for...

So what is it exactly the point you're trying to make here, huh? Because I really don't get it. Rejection to homosexuality is not "hardcoded" in human behaviour, as you claim. I don't think so. I think human beings are better than that, and we are capable of learning from our mistakes and maturing, we can learn to be accepting if we want and care to do so. So yes, we CAN blame homophobes because they CHOOSE to be, they aren't just simply "that way", like homosexuals/bisexuals/transgenders/asexuals/demisexuals/pansexuals/people of colour/women/disabled people etc. are. I myself am asexual, and do you think I should be blamed for something I have no choice in? Homophobes, however, reject homosexuality for their own (often religious) beliefs. So yes, I'm indeed a "fighter for tolerance", as you say, but I however won't tolerate anyone who hates on someone else simply for falling in love with people of their same gender.

 

And as for anti-gay movements, I worry about them because the people who actively campaign against LGBT people are the ones who are wronging our society. Why should I worry though for people who simply have anti-gay feelings but won't do anything to act on them and harm other people? If they keep those feelings to themselves, then I see no problem. If they lie and say they accept gay people, but in private dislike them, then there's no problem for me either. Of course I wish no one had anti-gay feelings, and I sure as hell won't ever be friends with someone like that, but if some people don't want to change for the better, then that's on them. The problem comes when homophobes speak up on the internet and in RL actively hating on homosexuals and/or fighting against their rights and/or making homophobic statements like you yourself do. THAT is what worries me. I may dislike cheese or milk or hamburgers but I won't go campaigning against it so that it becomes forbidden for everyone to eat it, would I? The difference here is that I can publicly say "I hate cheese", and cheese won't be affected. Gay people who have to fight every freaking day against discrimination from their families, friends and society WILL. 



#48
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

@JesseBrandon: I think that PhoenixRu is trying to say that some people will still instinctively feel disgusted by homosexuality and/or (certain) homosexual behaviours, while still supporting having these things be legal. Frankly, I myself have noticed this even among many liberals--many liberals support gay marriage, but are still disgusted by gay kissing and gay s*x and whatnot (which is a large part of why they do not want to do these things themselves). Also, for the record, I support gay marriage and gay adoption. Finally, just curious (since you're mentioned that you are asexual): Do you ever plan on having s*x and/or getting married in the future? If so, do you plan on doing these things with males, females, or both males and females?


Edited by Futurist, 18 August 2013 - 01:18 PM.


#49
JesseBrandon

JesseBrandon

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts

Futurist: Hmm, yeah he might be trying to say that. And it's a pity that some people feel that way about homosexuality, but I do understand. As long as they don't harm other people and are not against their rights, then I'm okay with this. Especially because being asexual, I know the feeling of being "disgusted" by sex, not only gay sex of course, but sex in general. So as to your question, no, I'm not planning on ever having sex or getting married, but if I ever wanted to have a relationship with someone, I wouldn't mind whether they were male or female. The thing about asexuality is that one can /emotionally/ (not sexually) be and identify as heterosexual (which would be called heteroromantic), homosexual (homoromantic), bisexual (biromantic, like in my case, though I often have preference for men), among other sexualities. Then there are the asexuals who don't feel emotionally/romantically attracted to any gender, those are called aromantics. Hah, it's somewhat complicated isn't it? Anyway, just sayin' in case anyone is interested in learning more about asexuality. Asexual people can still fall in love with other people (though I personally haven't), the difference is that we don't like/care/want sex. 


Edited by JesseBrandon, 18 August 2013 - 03:17 PM.


#50
IzzyIngleby

IzzyIngleby

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 610 posts
  • LocationBristol UK

As someone already brought up on the forum, (don't think it was this thread) just because you find something unappealing doesn't mean you can't tolerate it. Homosexuals probably find straight sex equally unappealing, but you never hear them complaining.



#51
qfeys

qfeys

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

I think that this is one of those things were the most important part is what parents tell to their children. An other important factor is how tolerant the society is. I am proud to announce that I live in a country where the prime minister is gay and no one actually cares. (Belgium)



#52
WithoutCoincidence

WithoutCoincidence

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts
  • LocationSomewhere above Zero Latitude.

Don't exactly understand why everyone's jumping on PhoenixRu. He thinks never, and his reason for that is that he believes (Correct me if I'm misinterpretting, Phoenix) that just as homosexuality is natural in humanity, so too is aversion to homosexuality. Naturally, not everyone is affected by this aversion; after all, neither is everyone homosexual. But it is a part of human nature passed down genetically, therefore 100% acceptance is impossible.

 

I don't see how this is homophobic in any way. He's stating a hypothesis (Never) and a theory (Genetic homosexuality aversion amongst some of the populace). 

 

Honestly.

 

OT, I think Never, simply because 100% is, well, 100. All you need is one person not accepting lgbt, and you fall short of 100. We'll come close, but not quite.


The universe has gone from unimaginable, featureless heat to complexity and it will return in time to unimaginable, featureless cold.

-Chris Impey, How It Ends


#53
TheComrade

TheComrade

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,642 posts
Hmm, yeah he might be trying to say that.

 

Yes, exactly that. Our views on "attractive" or "unacceptable" or "disgusting" things are based on our sexual orientation, which is exactly "hardcoded" and can not be changed. Some person (let's call him PhoenixRu) can fully understand that "gays/lesbians are the same people as i myself, they also have right to be happy, etc" yet his instincts are still disagree: "...but look at them, dude! Look at what they doing, it's just unatural, isn't it?".

 

Btw:

 

You are saying it's inherently ingrained within - I don't think so, dunno. A quick question: If your hypothesis is correct, why is there generally seen more hatred towards gay men than lesbian women?

 

Answer is the same quick as question: lesbians more acceptable for straight men just because they are women. For the same reason, kissing gay teenagers still more acceptable than kissing gay adults. Boys just look more feminine, that's all... So yes, this hypothetical PhoenixRu agrees to accept the gay rights & no, he still don't like what are they doing. 

 

Now, you may curse me again, if you wish, but i'm PRETTY SURE: many of you, who will curse and who are so proud to have gay prime minister, still feels the same in the most hidden corners of your soul.


Edited by PhoenixRu, 18 August 2013 - 06:12 PM.


#54
WithoutCoincidence

WithoutCoincidence

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts
  • LocationSomewhere above Zero Latitude.
still feels the same in the most hidden corners of your soul.

It is a very dangerous thing to assume such things about others.


The universe has gone from unimaginable, featureless heat to complexity and it will return in time to unimaginable, featureless cold.

-Chris Impey, How It Ends


#55
Thaizasaskand

Thaizasaskand

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
Voted for "never". "Being tolerated" and "being fully accepted" are two different things. Naturals feels rejection to homosexuals, and this reaction is instinctive and hardcoded, despite all beatiful words about tolerance, political correctness and so on.

WTF? See, these are the kind of homophobic comments that our society needs to get rid of. Seriously, go away. 

Homophobia is not real.  You can tell gays feel insecure about their sexuality by the way they delude themselves into thinking that everyone who doesn't like them is afraid of them.

 

Homophobia sounds like it means fear of homosexuals, though it is what Lily's Wikipedia quote described. Like how anti-semitism means being against Jews, even though analysis of the term would suggest hatred of anybody who speaks semitic languages (which includes, but is not limited to, native speakers of Arabic, Amharic and Hebrew).

 

As for your comment about homosexuals feeling insecure about their sexuality: where do you get this impression? As far as I'm aware (I am speaking in part from personal experience), pretty much nobody in the gay community would agree with what you say. Most homophobes in England are as such because they are of a socially-conservative mindset, follow a religion which condemns homosexuality, do not consider them masculine enough (generally, these are the ones who use homophobic insults, in quite a few cases not just directed at homosexuals, to buff up their masculinity) or otherwise do not like the idea of two men in bed with each other and are arrogant enough that they believe the poor opinion of homosexuality justifies them criticising those who fit that criterion.

 

Please get your facts right if you are going to make such big statements about how people feel. If it was a common misconception, then it would be understandable. I've never heard such sh*te in my life, however, so I suggest that you go and do your research before making such bold statements.

It's not a common misconception, it's common sense.  Phobia means fear.  There is no fear.  It is an intentionally misleading term.

 

Anti-Semitism is also a stupid term.  It's especially idiotic when applied to Arabs, as it often is.  Anti-Semitic Arabs?  Lol.  Let's stop using both of those terms.  I don't know why anti-Semitism means what it does, but the answer is pretty clear for homophobia- the people who created and use the term wish to paint dislike of homosexuals as irrational and fearful, when it generally is not.

 

And I can dislike whomever I want.  Get over yourself and stop whining about how people don't like you.

 

Yes, 'homophobia' is a mis-leading term, but it is the term that we are using. You have stated that there is no fear in feelings against homosexuals, yet you have clearly stated otherwise (incorrectly) in one of your other posts, as I have highlighted in bold for you.

 

I refuted your comment by stating the reason that people express/feel hatred towards homosexuals and that homosexuals would not agree with your comment.

 

If you don't want to use 'homophobia' as a term, then use 'heterosexism' instead.

 

Yes you can dislike whomever you want, as can anybody else. You do not, however, have to make comments with negative connotations about people because of something that they do, which they naturally feel inclined to do and harms nobody. Given the negative connotations that it carries, the term 'pervert' is quite offensive. The word 'spastic', by correct definition, means:

1) "Of, relating to, or characterized by spasms: a spastic colon; a spastic form of cerebral palsy."

2) "Affected by spastic paralysis."

Just because somebody has spastic cerebral palsy, however, does not justify calling them 'spastic'. One of the definitions of "perversion" may mean "A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant." and, seeing as some would consider, through extremely literal interpretation, that homosexuals are not normal (not in any derogatory way, rather in that 'normal' refers to what is common and homosexuals are a small minority in comparison to society's heterosexuals, who make up a vast, vast majority of the population) and so they are, through this extremely literal interpretation, abnormal (this view also varies from country to country, e.g. many Britons don't consider homosexuals 'abnormal', while people from homophobic countries may do). The term perversion more commonly refers to people who are, sexually speaking, 'sick' and, quite often, whose sexual activities have victims (e.g. zoophiles, nepiophiles, voyeurs etc). 'Unconventional' is fine, though 'pervert' is offensive.

 

Please do tell me at what point I was "whining about how people don't like" me. I have stated why homophobes are generally homophobic where I live as part of my refutation of the statement you made. Did you genuinely mis-interpret what I'd said, or (knowing you) did you just pull that statement out of your belly button?



#56
Thaizasaskand

Thaizasaskand

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
'Phobic' might or might not be an accurate descriptor, but that's irrelevant in the greater scheme of things - the bottom line being that disliking or even hating someone when you have no legitimate reason to, people that might be perfectly decent and kindhearted and never do a thing to hurt anyone, is pretty douchey. "I hate that guy because it's gross when dudes make out" is, in fact, irrational.

 

For you, Jared!



#57
Jared

Jared

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 130 posts

First of all, I never said I hated homos.  I think they should get help.  Also, finding their behavior disgusting is a good enough reason to dislike it.  I have a better reason, though: the bible says it's wrong.



#58
Jared

Jared

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 130 posts
Please do tell me at what point I was "whining about how people don't like" me. I have stated why homophobes are generally homophobic where I live as part of my refutation of the statement you made. Did you genuinely mis-interpret what I'd said, or (knowing you) did you just pull that statement out of your belly button?

I don't remember who said what, but yes, that's basically what the whole gay rights movement is about at this point, or in the near future.  Gay sex is legal, and gay marriage will be soon/already is in a lot of places.  You're going the way of feminism- once the actual discrimination is gone, keep on going for years "battling" the extreme "oppression" of people saying mean things on the internet because you don't have the self-confidence/strength of character to ignore it.



#59
IzzyIngleby

IzzyIngleby

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 610 posts
  • LocationBristol UK
First of all, I never said I hated homos.  I think they should get help.  Also, finding their behavior disgusting is a good enough reason to dislike it.  I have a better reason, though: the bible says it's wrong.

 

The bible also says not to eat seafood, and never to wear clothes of more than one fabric, it's irrelevant, you've cherry picked which rules to follow.


  • zEVerzan, Yuli Ban, Thaizasaskand and 1 other like this

#60
Lily

Lily

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • LocationBerlin
Answer is the same quick as question: lesbians more acceptable for straight men just because they are women. For the same reason, kissing gay teenagers still more acceptable than kissing gay adults. Boys just look more feminine, that's all... So yes, this hypothetical PhoenixRu agrees to accept the gay rights & no, he still don't like what are they doing. 

 

Now, you may curse me again, if you wish, but i'm PRETTY SURE: many of you, who will curse and who are so proud to have gay prime minister, still feels the same in the most hidden corners of your soul.

 

I think I understand what hypothesis you are bringing forward and I admit that it got me thinking. Do you think this inherent "natural" defence/dislike-mechanism works only in men? I am asking because you just said that lesbians are more appealing to straight men because of their gender, but what about straight women? Don't they feel natural rejection as well, according to you previous hypothesis?

 

Actually, I like that you are being completely open and honest about this. Accepting is one thing, but liking is another matter. I don't know about other people, but I think there are some who really mean it if they say they're proud of their gay prime minister or whatever. I am sure, though, that there are people out there forcing themselves to accept and think about homosexuality in a positive light. I, for one, always attributed that to upbringing and education: It's a fact that homosexuality was considered wrong and sinful, immoral, perverted etc. in the past and that anti-homosexual behaviour and thinking/feelings were much more acceptable and even promoted than nowadays. Also, people used to be more conservative and religious, so they basically learned from a young age that homosexuality was wrong, if not by directly hearing that, by bein confronted with an exclusively heteronormative surrounding and society. If you grew up like this, you'll automatically believe homosexuality is wrong.

 

And at that point, the question arises: Nurture or nature?

 

My point is that a lot, if not all, "homophobic" (term used to describe offensive anti-gay behaviour) attitude stems from your parent's and educators beliefs. Why do I think that? Well... It's what I experienced, in a way. I grew up in a quite religious family where I was never confronted with homosexuality at all and believed that man and women as partners were the only option in life. Then, I didn't follow that route, but it was not deliberate behaviour on my part - at least I'd argue it wasn't. I'm sure some might disagree... But back to the point: I was experiencing something I never thought about before, something that was not normal and wasn't part of my world as I knew it - and I hated it. I hated myself for being gay, just like you said it would be considering it is a "natural reaction". Over time, I came to accept it - because I learnt that it is in fact natural human behaviour in some indivudals and acceptable, because it doesn't make me a bad or worse person. Doesn't this point to it being more nurture related than anything else? Or do you think my experiences are invalid because I'm, well, gay and therefore a part of the problem myself? This mechanism you are talking about, I guess you think it is turned off in homosexuals. So why did it still work, and later didn't anymore?

 

I'm not trying to provoke a fight or anything, I just want to understand your point of view, Phoenix. I hope you are not offended by anything I wrote - after all, you weren't insulting or anything but actually putting forward some arguments. I don't have to believe they are correct, but I'd like to hear more about it.


"All scientific advancement due to intellegence overcoming, compensating, for limitations. Can't carry a load, so invent wheel. Can't catch food, so invent spear. Limitations. No limitations, no advancement. No advancement, culture stagnates. Works other way too. Advancement before culture is ready. Disastrous."

There's definitely truth in that...





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users