i'm on nuclear's side, kind of. lets make a hypothetical flow of events.
gay people are gay, and it's somewhat been proven this is inherited/natural, not a result of social conditions.
gay people hurt no one directly, and very few people indirectly.
homophobic people are a result of social conditions, but in the end they are given a choice.
homophobic people abuse & marginalise people both directly & indirectly
now at this point, zombie believes the intolerant should be tolerated by the tolerant, and doing otherwise would be hypocrisy according to the philosophy of 'free will' and 'democracy' and various other buzzwords. except free will is flawed and anyone with an open mind knows a balance is required. the most pragmatic and ideal society (which laws are meant to achieve, but have yet, if ever, to reach) gives a right to act & believe what you want* so long as it doesn't violate another's person's same right; failure to do so = equivalent punishment. a close-minded person ignores everything after the asterisk to simply call out supposed 'hypocrites', because they can't comprehend the notion that a line has to be drawn somewhere (where this line should be is an entirely different debate). so resuming the flow of events with this knowledge...
society draws a fucking line, believing hey homophobes shouldn't do that. also, by the power of logic we deduce that we should punish and marginalise them because they have a choice, and furthermore, they are high up in the flow of events.
society then proceeds to scrutinize homophobes (eg. giving them labels such as 'homophobes'), their only defense being "hey we're entitled to an opinion and not giving us one is hypocritical". they forget that having an opinion doesn't = being immune to other people disagreeing with said opinion, nor that acting unfavourably under said opinion = being immune to punishment/retaliation/scrutiny
as for my personal opinion on this highly off-topic argument, i actually am not a fan of gays. i get uncomfortable being near them, tho i wud never tell a gay to stop being near me just to fulfil a sense of security from a prejudice i noe to be irrational (i think my prejudice stems from a lack of contact and therefore understanding, not an inherent dislike). but a statement like "If it was to simply happen in their own bedroom, I wouldn't care." is just fucked. seriously, that's a fucked thing to say
I can generally relate to this, however, I was talking about opinions, not deeds.
I believe that people have the right to voice their concerns regarding their distaste for gay people (or anything else) or the (perceived) negative effects they have on society in general. I seriously do not believe that people should be despised by society/law just because they have an opinion that perchance attacks certain social groups.
I do not believe however that they have the right to enforce their thoughts, especially not in a way that it is unlawful, eg. via physical assault, unless it is needed. Opinions don't hurt and people should be prepared to accept or counter other people's opinions in a well-working society, as well as guarantee the possibility to share one's opinion under any political circumstance.
My point is simply that homophobes should not be shunned by society because of voicing an opinion, having opinions is not harmful.
In addition, by saying I wouldn't mind them if they were to do their thing in their own bedroom, I was merely reflecting to the post of Nuclear. It does not mean it is the only scenario I wish to tolerate, I specifically listed the things I have problems with beforehand.
If you had a really close friend, who is socially acceptable, not feminine in any way and suddenly decided to let you know of his sexuality, would you reject his friendship? You've known him for so long; you liked his personality, you took his sexual orientation for granted (that he is straight) and despite him hiding his true orientation, he still was homosexual or bisexual, regardless of whether he was signaling anything to you or not. How would you react in that case?
Unless coming out would change his entire personality, I would still accept him. Or unless he tries to hit on me afterwards. Or if he would try picking up same-gender people near me, I would surely be very uncomfortable.
Regardless, I would troll him to hell, even if I would generally accept him.
Also, I had a male "friend" eventually confessing his love for me, it was tad disappointing that he only befriended me to get in my pants. Curiously, it all happened while he knew that I am heterosexual, with him giving no respect to said fact.
There are people who say 'being homophobic' or 'being stubborn not to discuss anything related to same-gender sexual interactions' actually means that the person is afraid that they will enjoy it (sure, some of them are truly disgusted by the thought). So, consumed by their own rigid theories of how the social environments should be (as in, homosexuals being a mistake of nature and other extravagant beliefs) and how the social stigma is afferent to judgmental behavior, they restrain any kind of impetus to eventually try it.
Eh.... no, just no. I heard this argument often, but I've yet to see any proof regarding it. It sure does not apply in my case.
I also dislike the exaggerated "celebration" of pride in the parades, but the point is to loose the boundaries of discrimination: to make it look regular, so that they blend more easily within the societies.
It would only look regular and acceptable if other segments of the society would be celebrating their diversity in a similar manner as well. I'd have no problem with gay parades if there were heterosexual parades as well, if these were fundamental parts of any culture. They are not, however.
There was once an attempt in my country made by motorcyclists to celebrate traditional behavior in a form of a similar march: Heterosexuality, national culture and religion. They were barred from organizing the event.
Who is actually discriminated?
Same-gender encounters are everywhere and they are represented everywhere. Either we deal with it and pretend (at least) that we are okay with it or we decide to live in Plato's cave, where we are bound to see the truth we want and not the actual truth.
We can pretend we agree with something with which we don't actually agree and thus bend over to people trying to suppress our opinion. The question still stands: Why should I? I don't think things are going in a direction that is beneficial to my identity or my interests. Why should I stop protesting?
If I assemble a lot of people and create a slave-state wherein a certain minority is oppressed and they should shut up because the majority thinks such a state is accepted, does that make the majority right and the minority should keep tolerating it? No.
(Obviously, gay people are no such issue, it was just an example)
Life is not a coin, or, a binomial distribution, 50-50. It is a spectrum, where each combination is unique. You will not find a person identical to another. Even Facebook has acknowledged that the matter of sexual identity is subtle (and they have tons of social psychologists and neuroscientists to run experiments and researches for the bigger picture of the online network: a reflection of a real-life one):
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/techno.../facebook-gender-option-facebooks-new-3144022
I totally agree.
Diversity should be supported because that's what makes us human. If everyone suddenly starts thinking the same thing, we loose one portion of our humanity.
Too many walls of text appeared, good bye everyone.
Cya.
Also, special thanks goes to Solu9 for changing his avatar.