"I hate gay people"

[Chryso]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: DigDug
Come on, Carbo. In an attempt to appear consistent, you only prove the absurdity of your stance. The reality is not that you are standing up for free speech, but rather free derision of those you've admitted you percieve as deviant.

Seriously. Carbo, your opinion on this matter is influenced by your own dislike of homosexuals. You don't always have to respect a person for telling the truth. An opinion that is based on ignorance and bigotry deserves no respect. You might as well say "Hitler as an evil man, but I respect him for believing that the Jews needed to be exterminated."

You are using flawed logic though. You are comparing two unlike things, and using it in a straw man context. I'll state for the record that I don't agree with the Homosexual lifestyle because I believe that there are certain factors that haven't been thoroughly explained. The difference is I don't advocate the destruction of or the singling out of those communities. I think the whole issue that people have is tolerance vs acceptance. I work with Gay people on a daily basis and have no issues with them, I tolerate the lifestyle they choose but it is not an acceptable lifestyle to me.

I only used that example because someone asked if he would respect someone for saying they hate Jews, and he said that he would. He's saying that it doesn't matter what a person's opinion is, he'll respect them for standing up for it. When really he was backed into a corner. He only respects Hardaway's opinion because he agrees with it.

While your conclusion may be correct I don't believe that your reasoning is.
In your statement, "Hitler as an evil man, but I respect him for believing that the Jews needed to be exterminated." you say the respect is for the belief. That is different than respecting someones admission of a belief.

Here is similar but slightly different example. Let's say that Tom Brady comes out and says he is gay right now while he is still playing football. That would take a lot of guts to do that in the sports world. Now, would you now have more respect for him because he is gay or because he admitted that he is gay in the face of possible negative consequences?
Do you see the difference here?

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: DigDug
Come on, Carbo. In an attempt to appear consistent, you only prove the absurdity of your stance. The reality is not that you are standing up for free speech, but rather free derision of those you've admitted you percieve as deviant.

Seriously. Carbo, your opinion on this matter is influenced by your own dislike of homosexuals. You don't always have to respect a person for telling the truth. An opinion that is based on ignorance and bigotry deserves no respect. You might as well say "Hitler as an evil man, but I respect him for believing that the Jews needed to be exterminated."

You are using flawed logic though. You are comparing two unlike things, and using it in a straw man context. I'll state for the record that I don't agree with the Homosexual lifestyle because I believe that there are certain factors that haven't been thoroughly explained. The difference is I don't advocate the destruction of or the singling out of those communities. I think the whole issue that people have is tolerance vs acceptance. I work with Gay people on a daily basis and have no issues with them, I tolerate the lifestyle they choose but it is not an acceptable lifestyle to me.

They are not unlike comparisons at all. If someone uses irrational fear to derogate others for whatever characteristic the derogated person exhibits, then it's intolerance. That's all that people are asking for, tolerance. No one is asking and no one is expecting that you accept anything that they do, merely that you do not inflict your will on others due to your beliefs. Hardaway can hate gay people all he wants but he should not be praised for stating a belief based on nothing but irrational emotions.

Your point of respect is a valid one but it still does not make the examples similar. Hitler and this NBA player are not like things

 

[Muse]

He spoke his mind and for that he gets credit. He has a point that it would be unsettling for a team to have an openly gay teammate sharing the locker room. Later, he apologized for his remarks and undoubtedly because of the storm they created (not because he changed his mind).

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Muse
He spoke his mind and for that he gets credit. He has a point that it would be unsettling for a team to have an openly gay teammate sharing the locker room. Later, he apologized for his remarks and undoubtedly because of the storm they created (not because he changed his mind).

There are gays in EVERY locker room and have been since locker rooms were invented, most of them just don't wear a sign letting you know.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled irrational fears.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Chryso
While your conclusion may be correct I don't believe that your reasoning is.
In your statement, "Hitler as an evil man, but I respect him for believing that the Jews needed to be exterminated." you say the respect is for the belief. That is different than respecting someones admission of a belief.

You're right. It's a subtle but important difference.

Here is similar but slightly different example. Let's say that Tom Brady comes out and says he is gay right now while he is still playing football. That would take a lot of guts to do that in the sports world. Now, would you now have more respect for him because he is gay or because he admitted that he is gay in the face of possible negative consequences?
Do you see the difference here?

There's a difference here too - Tom Brady would be admitting to what he is, not what he believes or how he feels. Tom Brady couldn't choose to be straight. Tim Hardaway could choose not to be a bigot. I don't think being willing to admit that you're a bigot. Being willing to admit that you're a bigot and wanting to change is.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: Carbo
Good for him. Nothing wrong with expressing an opinion. Is there? I find it amusing that the liberals whine about how intolerant the "unenlightened" are, yet don't tolerate an opinion that differs from their own.

Forget opinions. Homophobes ignore the science that has all but proven homosexuality is biological. Course, what could we expect? These are often the same people that ignore the science of global warming, or ignore the science of geology/carbon dating/friggin' dinosaurs...Maybe social conservatives are really just anti-science.

lol...wtf does science have to do with it?...nothing

Scientific fact: dogs are 4 legged, fury mammals.

Many people like dogs because they are friendly, obedient, devoted and playful. Dog owners often look upon their dogs as an extension of their families.

So what?

I hate dogs.

They are stupid, slobbery and smell bad when they get wet. I hate to clean up after them.

The scientific facts of what dogs are, and why they are dogs is irrelevant to the fact that I do not like them.

Just because something is scientifically true and accurate does not mean you have to accept it and like it.

Believe it or not you can understand the science of something and accept it as true facts and still not like it.

 

[AMDZen]

If I had to live in the Bay Area I'd hate gay people too.

Of course I'd never live in SanFran simply because of that

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: AMDZen
If I had to live in the Bay Area I'd hate gay people too.

Of course I'd never live in SanFran simply because of that

FYI: San Francisco does not hold the entire world's gay population.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: AMDZen
If I had to live in the Bay Area I'd hate gay people too.

Of course I'd never live in SanFran simply because of that

FYI: San Francisco does not hold the entire world's gay population.

No but for anyone outside of San Fran, ask them the first thing that pops into their head about the city. It will usually be Riceroni or Gay people.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: AMDZen
If I had to live in the Bay Area I'd hate gay people too.

Of course I'd never live in SanFran simply because of that

FYI: San Francisco does not hold the entire world's gay population.

No but for anyone outside of San Fran, ask them the first thing that pops into their head about the city. It will usually be Riceroni or Gay people.

Personally for me it's the Golden Gate bridge, Dirty Harry, or socialists.

But more to the point, why wouldn't you live someplace even if it was perceived to have a large number of gay residents and you are straight (presumably)? Only morons think the whole city is gay.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: AMDZen
If I had to live in the Bay Area I'd hate gay people too.

Of course I'd never live in SanFran simply because of that

FYI: San Francisco does not hold the entire world's gay population.

No but for anyone outside of San Fran, ask them the first thing that pops into their head about the city. It will usually be Riceroni or Gay people.

Personally for me it's the Golden Gate bridge, Dirty Harry, or socialists.

But more to the point, why wouldn't you live someplace even if it was perceived to have a large number of gay residents and you are straight (presumably)? Only morons think the whole city is gay.

Sorry but IMO at least, San Fran is a trashy city and I'd never live there. It may or may not be solely because of gay people, its actually because of a lot of things. I just wouldn't want to live in a city, that I believe any way, is most well known for being the capital of gay'dom. Right or wrong. Frankly I remember reading something about it having the Highest percentage of gay men, gay clubs, AIDS or maybe just STDs per capita (per male capita) in the entire united states. It might even be all of those, I know I didn't come up with it on my own. I'll seek out some of these stats if i have a min and post them, I can't remember which stat it was.

And it should be added that when I say "gay" i'm only referring to men. Lesbians don't bother me for some reason. Although I wouldn't have wanted to live in the modern day equivelant of the roman's lesbos island either, simply because I'd never get laid. And trust me, know I'm a bit homophobic you don't have to tell me. And it doesn't both me, I'm not sure why it bothers you.

 

[smopoim86]

I haven't really read the thread, but why can't ppl just accept that some ppl are different than them and leave it at that. Wheather being gay is right or wrong, i dont really care, but as long as it's not forced on me it's not even of concern

this argument is almost as bad as the religious ones

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: AMDZen
And it should be added that when I say "gay" i'm only referring to men. Lesbians don't bother me for some reason. Although I wouldn't have wanted to live in the modern day equivelant of the roman's lesbos island either, simply because I'd never get laid. And trust me, know I'm a bit homophobic you don't have to tell me. And it doesn't both me, I'm not sure why it bothers you.

Lesbians don't bother homophobes, because they like to think of all lesbians as fantastically attractive women who are just waiting to be turned straight in the midst of a threesome.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Syringer
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/stor...6213&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

"You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known," Hardaway said. "I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

:Q :Q

Damnit, I used to love this guy growing up =/

No wait, it's okay though, he rescinds it all!

"Yes, I regret it. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said I hate gay people or anything like that," he said. "That was my mistake."

AH! Self hate.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: AMDZen
And it should be added that when I say "gay" i'm only referring to men. Lesbians don't bother me for some reason. Although I wouldn't have wanted to live in the modern day equivelant of the roman's lesbos island either, simply because I'd never get laid. And trust me, know I'm a bit homophobic you don't have to tell me. And it doesn't both me, I'm not sure why it bothers you.

Lesbians don't bother homophobes, because they like to think of all lesbians as fantastically attractive women who are just waiting to be turned straight in the midst of a threesome.

Thats not true because the only true "lesbians" i've ever actually known are the short hair butch type. I used to have a teacher in middle school who was a les, and she looked an aweful lot like ellen degenerus (Sp??) and she actually hooked up with (i think any way they might of just been friends) another of my teachers who wasn't as stereotypically lesbian but would be the other side of the spectrum. Think whats her name in that "Monster" movie.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: AMDZen
If I had to live in the Bay Area I'd hate gay people too.

Of course I'd never live in SanFran simply because of that

FYI: San Francisco does not hold the entire world's gay population.

No but for anyone outside of San Fran, ask them the first thing that pops into their head about the city. It will usually be Riceroni or Gay people.

Personally for me it's the Golden Gate bridge, Dirty Harry, or socialists.

But more to the point, why wouldn't you live someplace even if it was perceived to have a large number of gay residents and you are straight (presumably)? Only morons think the whole city is gay.

Sorry but IMO at least, San Fran is a trashy city and I'd never live there. It may or may not be solely because of gay people, its actually because of a lot of things. I just wouldn't want to live in a city, that I believe any way, is most well known for being the capital of gay'dom. Right or wrong. Frankly I remember reading something about it having the Highest percentage of gay men, gay clubs, AIDS or maybe just STDs per capita (per male capita) in the entire united states. It might even be all of those, I know I didn't come up with it on my own. I'll seek out some of these stats if i have a min and post them, I can't remember which stat it was.

And it should be added that when I say "gay" i'm only referring to men. Lesbians don't bother me for some reason. Although I wouldn't have wanted to live in the modern day equivelant of the roman's lesbos island either, simply because I'd never get laid. And trust me, know I'm a bit homophobic you don't have to tell me. And it doesn't both me, I'm not sure why it bothers you.

I don't doubt the stats, but I wondered why a straight guy would be concerned about it or the perception enough to refuse to live there. If anything I'd think the women hunting would be easier because of it.

I don't really care that you're homophobic as it doesn?t effect me in the slightest. I suppose I just can't resist scratching at the surface of it on occasion.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: AMDZen
And it should be added that when I say "gay" i'm only referring to men. Lesbians don't bother me for some reason. Although I wouldn't have wanted to live in the modern day equivelant of the roman's lesbos island either, simply because I'd never get laid. And trust me, know I'm a bit homophobic you don't have to tell me. And it doesn't both me, I'm not sure why it bothers you.

Lesbians don't bother homophobes, because they like to think of all lesbians as fantastically attractive women who are just waiting to be turned straight in the midst of a threesome.

Thats not true because the only true "lesbians" i've ever actually known are the short hair butch type. I used to have a teacher in middle school who was a les, and she looked an aweful lot like ellen degenerus (Sp??) and she actually hooked up with (i think any way they might of just been friends) another of my teachers who wasn't as stereotypically lesbian but would be the other side of the spectrum. Think whats her name in that "Monster" movie.

I said "like to think..." Another reason male homophobes don't have an issue with lesbians is because they know the lesbians don't want to stick anything in their (the homophobes') ass.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Sorry but IMO at least, San Fran is a trashy city and I'd never live there. It may or may not be solely because of gay people, its actually because of a lot of things. I just wouldn't want to live in a city, that I believe any way, is most well known for being the capital of gay'dom. Right or wrong. Frankly I remember reading something about it having the Highest percentage of gay men, gay clubs, AIDS or maybe just STDs per capita (per male capita) in the entire united states. It might even be all of those, I know I didn't come up with it on my own. I'll seek out some of these stats if i have a min and post them, I can't remember which stat it was.

And it should be added that when I say "gay" i'm only referring to men. Lesbians don't bother me for some reason. Although I wouldn't have wanted to live in the modern day equivelant of the roman's lesbos island either, simply because I'd never get laid. And trust me, know I'm a bit homophobic you don't have to tell me. And it doesn't both me, I'm not sure why it bothers you.

STD Rates in the US

From the Gay and Lesbian Atlas

Major cities with high levels of same-sex couples per capita include San Francisco, Oakland, Calif., Seattle, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and Austin, Texas, according to The Gay and Lesbian Atlas, published last year by Urban Institute demographer Gary Gates and researcher Jason Ost using 2000 census data.

SF is up there but so are some less predictable cities.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: AMDZen
And it should be added that when I say "gay" i'm only referring to men. Lesbians don't bother me for some reason. Although I wouldn't have wanted to live in the modern day equivelant of the roman's lesbos island either, simply because I'd never get laid. And trust me, know I'm a bit homophobic you don't have to tell me. And it doesn't both me, I'm not sure why it bothers you.

Lesbians don't bother homophobes, because they like to think of all lesbians as fantastically attractive women who are just waiting to be turned straight in the midst of a threesome.

Thats not true because the only true "lesbians" i've ever actually known are the short hair butch type. I used to have a teacher in middle school who was a les, and she looked an aweful lot like ellen degenerus (Sp??) and she actually hooked up with (i think any way they might of just been friends) another of my teachers who wasn't as stereotypically lesbian but would be the other side of the spectrum. Think whats her name in that "Monster" movie.

I said "like to think..." Another reason male homophobes don't have an issue with lesbians is because they know the lesbians don't want to stick anything in their (the homophobes') ass.

Now thats probably got a bit of truth to it. I have been hit on by gay guys, it doesn't bother me a huge amount - but public displays of affection do.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Sorry but IMO at least, San Fran is a trashy city and I'd never live there. It may or may not be solely because of gay people, its actually because of a lot of things. I just wouldn't want to live in a city, that I believe any way, is most well known for being the capital of gay'dom. Right or wrong. Frankly I remember reading something about it having the Highest percentage of gay men, gay clubs, AIDS or maybe just STDs per capita (per male capita) in the entire united states. It might even be all of those, I know I didn't come up with it on my own. I'll seek out some of these stats if i have a min and post them, I can't remember which stat it was.

And it should be added that when I say "gay" i'm only referring to men. Lesbians don't bother me for some reason. Although I wouldn't have wanted to live in the modern day equivelant of the roman's lesbos island either, simply because I'd never get laid. And trust me, know I'm a bit homophobic you don't have to tell me. And it doesn't both me, I'm not sure why it bothers you.

STD Rates in the US

From the Gay and Lesbian Atlas

Major cities with high levels of same-sex couples per capita include San Francisco, Oakland, Calif., Seattle, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and Austin, Texas, according to The Gay and Lesbian Atlas, published last year by Urban Institute demographer Gary Gates and researcher Jason Ost using 2000 census data.

SF is up there but so are some less predictable cities.

I need to find the exact page I was looking at. If I remember correctly, the stats were of gay men only and not women. And I believe it was AIDS. That per male capita, SF had the highest number of AIDS infected men. Which if this is what I remember reading, speaks volumes.

 

[Oceandevi]

I also dislike biological dead ends.

 

[Chryso]

Originally posted by: K1052

I don't doubt the stats, but I wondered why a straight guy would be concerned about it or the perception enough to refuse to live there. If anything I'd think the women hunting would be easier because of it.

That is exactly the way I look at it. More gay men per capita = less competition for straight women for me. It's a no lose situation. The only thing I don't understand about gay men is the not liking women part. I am not bothered by their liking men. I just can't wrap my mind around the not liking women part.

 

[Smartazz]

Yeah, I just saw this on tv before while I was getting lunch.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: K1052

I don't doubt the stats, but I wondered why a straight guy would be concerned about it or the perception enough to refuse to live there. If anything I'd think the women hunting would be easier because of it.

That is exactly the way I look at it. More gay men per capita = less competition for straight women for me. It's a no lose situation. The only thing I don't understand about gay men is the not liking women part. I am not bothered by their liking men. I just can't wrap my mind around the not liking women part.

Bend over in front of a mirror, that what gay dudes like... yummy eh? :disgust:

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Oceandevi

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: K1052

I don't doubt the stats, but I wondered why a straight guy would be concerned about it or the perception enough to refuse to live there. If anything I'd think the women hunting would be easier because of it.

That is exactly the way I look at it. More gay men per capita = less competition for straight women for me. It's a no lose situation. The only thing I don't understand about gay men is the not liking women part. I am not bothered by their liking men. I just can't wrap my mind around the not liking women part.

Bend over in front of a mirror, that what gay dudes like... yummy eh? :disgust:

1. Some straight guys like that too. They just like it to be less hairy.
2. The vagina is not all that attractive...