That said, it is funny that we are discussing this. Just a few minutes ago as I was coming home from school I witnessed anti-gay behaviour. An elderly lady on the bus moved over when a gay man sat next to her, she had this disgusted look on her face. The guy noticed this and told her to fcuk off. She gave him the finger and then moved to another seat. This type of thing is unfortunate, and I am all for eradicating such behaviour. Thankfully, I have yet to see something as devastating at this school.

:O That's all he did? Wow I would've most definitely punched her in the face... call me an idiot, jackass, heartless person, or whatever you want... but I personally just cannot tolerate closed minded people. People like her should not even exist during this time and age.

Originally Posted by IbrahimH

:O That's all he did? Wow I would've most definitely punched her in the face... call me an idiot, jackass, heartless person, or whatever you want... but I personally just cannot tolerate closed minded people. People like her should not even exist during this time and age.

You have to understand that this elderly lady grew up in a time where gays were hated and discriminated against. I know that still exists, but I feel like it's getting better.Its all she knows, she probably doesn't watch Will and Grace or any shows like that, so she really has no way of thinking otherwise. She's not closed minded, it's just thats the only behaviour she knows. You have to be a little more open minded and understand that not everyone was raised like you were. Especially an elderly lady. You saying you would have punched her in the face is just as inappropriate as what she did, except she doesn't know better but you should.

Originally Posted by jo87

You have to understand that this elderly lady grew up in a time where gays were hated and discriminated against. I know that still exists, but I feel like it's getting better.Its all she knows, she probably doesn't watch Will and Grace or any shows like that, so she really has no way of thinking otherwise. She's not closed minded, it's just thats the only behaviour she knows. You have to be a little more open minded and understand that not everyone was raised like you were. Especially an elderly lady. You saying you would have punched her in the face is just as inappropriate as what she did, except she doesn't know better but you should.

She can be disgusted all she wants... but for her to shift over or change seats because a gay man sat beside her is just plain unacceptable no matter where and when you were raised. And I'm sick of people creating excuses for people like her... what she did shouldn't have been done. Period. No excuse would justify it.

Originally Posted by IbrahimH

She can be disgusted all she wants... but for her to shift over or change seats because a gay man sat beside her is just plain unacceptable no matter where and when you were raised. And I'm sick of people creating excuses for people like her... what she did shouldn't have been done. Period. No excuse would justify it.

She can choose where she likes to sit. There's no law saying you have to like or agree with other's lifestyles, religions etc. and I don't think there should be. I don't think it's acceptable to respond to bigoted but legal actions with assault 1) because it would certainly result in criminal charges if you punched an elderly lady in the face and 2) because every human has the right to be safe. I support LGTQ rights because I have the belief that every human being has the rights to believe and act as they want as long as they are not harming others. Tell me, other than hurt feelings how did what she do harm gay individuals. To say she doesn't deserve to exist goes against what I believe to be the cornerstone of human rights: that everyone has the right to exist and the right to their own conscience.

Sometimes that stuff suprises me so much that I start laughing. I realize there are hurt feelings involved, but if you move out of your seat and act disgusted because you think someone is gay, I would probably burst out laughing at how ridiculous that is.

I think the notion that words such as gay and retarded have changed and evolved meanings is a valid point. there are many words that have two different meanings. for example - bank. It could an establishment where people deposit and withdraw money or it could be the side of a river. the real issues is the context under which its used. I mean would saying an assignment is stupid offensive to stupid people or is saying a shoe is black offensive to black people? I wouldn't think so at all.

I hope im not over simplifying the issue and offending people.

This issue is a bit more complex than that. Using "stupid" or "black" is obviously not offensive, because they aren't used as a negative term that stemmed from association with a group.

When gay started to be used in a negative sense, it was because gay people were using it to describe themselves. This isn't a case of the word just evolving to mean stupid in an unrelated way, people used gay negatively because they viewed homosexuals negatively.

The closest example is probably using "jewed" as a synonym for cheated or scammed. It didn't evolve that way independent of a term to describe Hebrew people, it evolved because people associated Jewish people with cheats. And I don't think you could ever make an argument for acceptably using that term. (Gypped is the same thing, except it refers to Gypsies)

I will however refuse to apologize for calling someone retarded. It literally means slow, and was used in that sense way before it was used to refer to people with mental handicaps. I see no problem with using that to describe someone who is being... well... slow.

Originally Posted by arathbon

She can choose where she likes to sit. There's no law saying you have to like or agree with other's lifestyles, religions etc. and I don't think there should be.

She can indeed choose where she likes to sit. She can indeed choose to disagree with someone's sexual orientation, political beliefs, religion, etc. BUT for her to demonstrate acts of hatred and discrimination due to her beliefs is not acceptable. She should've just kept it to her self.

I don't think it's acceptable to respond to bigoted but legal actions with assault 1) because it would certainly result in criminal charges if you punched an elderly lady in the face and 2) because every human has the right to be safe.

Let me break down what I said about the punch in simpler terms (this is not directly aimed at you arathbon, but for everyone on here that would think my actions would be unacceptable):

Discrimination against one's sexuality = act of hatred
A punch in the face = act of hatred
Discriminatory elderly lady = kinda deserves it
Someone who can't help the way they feel or what gender they're attracted to = does not deserve the discrimination

I'm sure that if I said I would punch a 25 year old guy in the face for discrimination, not everyone on here would be making such a big deal out of it. But I guess since she's a female, and she's a senior, we have to make excuses for her behaviour. Two words: Double standards. Just like how Madonna and Britney can kiss on TV and the world has no problem with it. But when Adam Lambert kisses a guy on stage, ABC is suddenly swarmed with thousands of complaints.

Tell me, other than hurt feelings how did what she do harm gay individuals. To say she doesn't deserve to exist goes against what I believe to be the cornerstone of human rights: that everyone has the right to exist and the right to their own conscience.

How did she harm gay individuals? It may not seem very apparent to you, but by showing these acts of discrimination and closed-mindedness, she is actually just another individual that is holding up the world from becoming more of a positive place. The more discrimination, the less of a positive environment we live in. The more people like her, the longer it will take for the LGBTQ society to be accepted. And notice how I use the word 'accepted'... and that's because one should really take a look around society and ask themselves: are queers really accepted or just tolerated? The two terms have very distinct meanings.

@IbrahimH

i feel that queers should be accepted in society but punching people in the face is not the right way about going about it. Its the whole 2 wrongs to make a right. Sure the old lady acted extremely inappropriate but telling her to f-off isn't helping the situation and neither would punching people in the face. Its just fighting hatred with hatred.

Isn't they whole point to build an accepting community and not exclude and persecute people who are different?

Originally Posted by IbrahimH

She can indeed choose where she likes to sit. She can indeed choose to disagree with someone's sexual orientation, political beliefs, religion, etc. BUT for her to demonstrate acts of hatred and discrimination due to her beliefs is not acceptable. She should've just kept it to her self.

She should've, but she's not your slave or your puppet. She is a human being with the rights to do what she wants.

Let me break down what I said about the punch in simpler terms (this is not directly aimed at you arathbon, but for everyone on here that would think my actions would be unacceptable):

Discrimination against one's sexuality = act of hatred
A punch in the face = act of hatred
Discriminatory elderly lady = kinda deserves it
Someone who can't help the way they feel or what gender they're attracted to = does not deserve the discrimination

I agree with everything except the "kinda deserves it" thing.

There is a difference between causing offense and committing assault. I'm sorry but unlike you I don't believe anyone deserves to have violence committed against them.

I'm sure that if I said I would punch a 25 year old guy in the face for discrimination, not everyone on here would be making such a big deal out of it. But I guess since she's a female, and she's a senior, we have to make excuses for her behaviour. Two words: Double standards. Just like how Madonna and Britney can kiss on TV and the world has no problem with it. But when Adam Lambert kisses a guy on stage, ABC is suddenly swarmed with thousands of complaints.

Actually I seem to recall many people upset with the Madonna/ Britney kiss and I never heard of the Adam Lambert kiss. But that really is irrelevant.

I don't think people are offended because you want to punch a female senior, but rather that you'd punch another human being with intention to cause them harm and not in self-defense.

How did she harm gay individuals? It may not seem very apparent to you, but by showing these acts of discrimination and closed-mindedness, she is actually just another individual that is holding up the world from becoming more of a positive place.

So you can disagree, as long as you don't do anything because that creates a "negative space". If LGBTQ want to live in society, than they have to accept that no one will baby them. The world isn't a "positive environment" in the way you describe for ANYONE. Based on your argument, forcing her to not move would be creating a negative environment for her.

The more discrimination, the less of a positive environment we live in. The more people like her, the longer it will take for the LGBTQ society to be accepted. And notice how I use the word 'accepted'... and that's because one should really take a look around society and ask themselves: are queers really accepted or just tolerated? The two terms have very distinct meanings.

No one has to accept you, no one has to like you. Society is not based on a lovey-dovey concept that we have to love other people's religions, sexual orientations, choice of clothing, political beliefs, high BMI, race etc. etc. Society is based on tolerance; "I don't have to like what you do, but I will defend your right to do it".

Tolerance even extends to letting bigoted old ladies choose not to sit next to a gay individual on a bus. In this case acceptance would prove an impossible situation to achieve. You could either 'accept' homosexuality or 'accept' her anti-homosexual point of view (which may well be religious). Either way, you've now ceased to accept or even be tolerant to one or the other.

Before you say it would be a good thing to exclusively accept homosexuality and to deny tolerance to those who hold different views on it, have you ever considered the fact that sometimes if forced to make the choice, society won't come down on your side?

Originally Posted by arathbon

She should've, but she's not your slave or your puppet. She is a human being with the rights to do what she wants.

You're really not getting it... and I'm not in the mood to explain. So go back and re-read what we were talking about please. I said she could do/think whatever she wants... but it is unacceptable for her to make someone feel so uncomfortable and discriminated against. I don't understand what's so hard about that to understand.

I agree with everything except the "kinda deserves it" thing.

There is a difference between causing offense and committing assault. I'm sorry but unlike you I don't believe anyone deserves to have violence committed against them.

I'm going to once again break down things for you in simpler terms:

committing assault = offensive
no one deserves having violence committed against them = no one also deserves to be discriminated against

Actually I seem to recall many people upset with the Madonna/ Britney kiss and I never heard of the Adam Lambert kiss. But that really is irrelevant.

1. This is not irrelevant at all. I was talking about double standards and I mentioned this as an example.
2. "CBS blurred footage of Lambert's male-on-male kiss, but did not blur the footage of Madonna kissing Britney Spears at the MTV Video Music Awards, a move many are seeing as hypocritical." - http://www.huffingtonpost.co m/2009..._n_371117.html
3. The Britney and Madona kiss had no complaints. In fact, the kiss was named as "The Kiss of the Decade" based on polls at a Selfridge (UK department store). Last time I checked, having a kiss voted as the best kiss of the decade is no where close to or similar to 1500 complaints received by ABC.

I don't think people are offended because you want to punch a female senior, but rather that you'd punch another human being with intention to cause them harm and not in self-defense.

Ok.. so you're clearly not getting it once again.
lady switching seats because of the guy's sexuality = harm (might not be necessarily physical)
punch in the face = harm

And the punch should be considered as self-defense because the man's sexuality was just attacked.

So you can disagree, as long as you don't do anything because that creates a "negative space". If LGBTQ want to live in society, than they have to accept that no one will baby them. The world isn't a "positive environment" in the way you describe for ANYONE. Based on your argument, forcing her to not move would be creating a negative environment for her.

Baby them? Are you effin' kidding me? All they're asking for is tolerance and basic human rights that everyone else seems to get. That's not being babied... that's asking for basic rights.

Tolerance even extends to letting bigoted old ladies choose not to sit next to a gay individual on a bus. In this case acceptance would prove an impossible situation to achieve. You could either 'accept' homosexuality or 'accept' her anti-homosexual point of view (which may well be religious). Either way, you've now ceased to accept or even be tolerant to one or the other.

When the LGBTQ asks for tolerance, they're asking for society to stop mocking them, to stop looking down on them, and to stop discriminating. You're saying that tolerance also means letting an old lady change spots because a gay man sat beside her. There's a difference between tolerating a group of people and tolerating acts of hatred. Acts of discrimination/hatred should never be tolerated. In other words, that woman's behaviour should NOT be tolerated at all.

Before you say it would be a good thing to exclusively accept homosexuality and to deny tolerance to those who hold different views on it, have you ever considered the fact that sometimes if forced to make the choice, society won't come down on your side?

I tolerate closed-minded individuals. I just don't tolerate actions of discrimination or hatred. And society is not forced to make the choice of accepting the LGBTQ community, society is being asked to demonstrate basic fundamental equality and non-discriminatory actions.

Originally Posted by IbrahimH

You're really not getting it... and I'm not in the mood to explain. So go back and re-read what we were talking about please. I said she could do/think whatever she wants... but it is unacceptable for her to make someone feel so uncomfortable and discriminated against. I don't understand what's so hard about that to understand.

Listen: You obviously care about this, so I'm going to break it down for you. If you say that she can do think whatever she wants and do whatever she wants you can't say "but only if she does it for reasons x, y, z and not for reasons m, n, l, o, p."

In fact there is nothing to prove that she moved over because she knew or suspected the man was gay. She might not have liked the way he smelled, she might be a crotchety old lady and not sit next to anyone, she might even not care about his sexuality but merely how he was dressed. I mean the reasons she could have been disgusted and moved are two many to count and they don't all focus around his sexuality.

But the thing that is most shocking about your suggestion is that you haven't considered that by making her stay there you are making her feel uncomfortable and making her feel discriminated against, because now you've said "A gay person sat next to you, you can't move for any reason lest someone thinks your homophobic and punches you in the face".

And even if you knew 100% that she was homophobic, put yourself in her shoes. Imagine a catholic priest complete with holy water and tracts on tradition marriage sat next to you on the bus. Would you support the right to move because you're uncomfortable? If so, you've just caused the same offense to him that this old lady did to the gay man. And by your definition of rights you shouldn't be allowed to move.

I'm going to once again break down things for you in simpler terms:

committing assault = offensive
no one deserves having violence committed against them = no one also deserves to be discriminated against

Committing assault is offensive and you are right about the no one deserves statements. But the conclusion you drew is shocking, scary and quite frankly dangerous. If I went around punching people any time the insulted me or offended me then I'd be in jail for the rest of my life. Not physically assaulting other people isn't an option in Canada. You can't just say "That person is awful! I'm going to punch him!" Next thing you know we're off on the road to mob killings and mob justice.

In addition imagine if the situation was reversed. Homophobes we're saying its alright to punch homosexuals because their acts cause grave offense to their beliefs.

We can not allow ourselves to be the sort of society where we become violent over perceived and real offenses caused by people exercising their rights. It is dangerous, immoral and could just as easily turn back on the LGBTQ community.

1. This is not irrelevant at all. I was talking about double standards and I mentioned this as an example.
2. "CBS blurred footage of Lambert's male-on-male kiss, but did not blur the footage of Madonna kissing Britney Spears at the MTV Video Music Awards, a move many are seeing as hypocritical." - http://www.huffingtonpost.co m/2009..._n_371117.html
3. The Britney and Madona kiss had no complaints. In fact, the kiss was named as "The Kiss of the Decade" based on polls at a Selfridge (UK department store). Last time I checked, having a kiss voted as the best kiss of the decade is no where close to or similar to 1500 complaints received by ABC.

1. Different networks do things differently.
2. I would be shocked if there were no complaints. The amount of whining and stupid comments I heard from social conservative spokespeople and individuals did not lead me to believe that the whole thing just blew over all rosy happy.

Ok.. so you're clearly not getting it once again.
lady switching seats because of the guy's sexuality = harm (might not be necessarily physical)
punch in the face = harm

Ok, next time I'm insulted I'm going to punch the insulter in the face. Harm=harm, do you agree or do you think LGBTQ is a special case.

And the punch should be considered as self-defense because the man's sexuality was just attacked.

"Sexuality was attacked"? Listen this is what pisses me and a lot of other individuals off. I spent years in an environment extremely hostile towards my belief in god. I was mocked and listened to others mock my religion day in and day out. You could even say my "Spirituality was attacked"? I never once punched someone in the face to dole out my own form of "self-defense". Self defense does not mean you get to dole out vigilante justice. If someone breaks into your home your not allowed to shoot him through the head and kill him.

Baby them? Are you effin' kidding me? All they're asking for is tolerance and basic human rights that everyone else seems to get. That's not being babied... that's asking for basic rights.

If you're asking for everyone to agree with you and to love you and to approve of your sexuality then yes. You are asking to be babied. That's like asking everyone to think christianity is a great thing and act in the according manner

When the LGBTQ asks for tolerance, they're asking for society to stop mocking them, to stop looking down on them, and to stop discriminating. You're saying that tolerance also means letting an old lady change spots because a gay man sat beside her. There's a difference between tolerating a group of people and tolerating acts of hatred. Acts of discrimination/hatred should never be tolerated. In other words, that woman's behaviour should NOT be tolerated at all.

Listen that's like saying I tolerate homosexuals but not when they have sex with each other. It's a complete crock. You can't 'tolerate' someone but not tolerate the actions that come from who and what they are unless those actions are causing harm and by harm I don't mean offense, I mean harassment, assault, threatening behavior etc.

I tolerate closed-minded individuals. I just don't tolerate actions of discrimination or hatred. And society is not forced to make the choice of accepting the LGBTQ community, society is being asked to demonstrate basic fundamental equality and non-discriminatory actions.

You just completely contradicted your last post, where you claimed we needed acceptance more than just tolerance. But the real question is where we draw the lines in interfering with other's rights to boost yours. The lines are generally drawn that you can't discriminate access to housing or to employment but there is no obligation to be social or be around someone for whatever reason.

I hope this post doesn't wreck anyone's opinion of me or anything...but I'd just like to state beforehand (so you don't over-react mid-post) that this is not meant to be anti-gay whatsoever.

Originally Posted by A.Marlowe

I will however refuse to apologize for calling someone retarded. It literally means slow, and was used in that sense way before it was used to refer to people with mental handicaps. I see no problem with using that to describe someone who is being... well... slow.

Then why should someone apologize for using 'gay' to describe someone who's acting... well... queer? (as in, strange/abnormal, not as in homosexual)

You can't have your cake and eat it too... using a derogatory term is using a derogatory term. In fact, I consider 'retarded' much worse since it attacks a group which is largely incapable of defending itself whereas gays can clearly voice their objections.

It's all conditioning...as a society, we've been conditioned to go on Red Alert whenever someone says 'gay' (regardless of the context) but that clearly hasn't happened with 'retarded.'

--------------

And in regards to the elderly woman, who here, has read her mind? First of all, how do you know she knew he was gay, and second of all, how did you know he was gay? Can you be completely certain that she didn't move for another reason, such as odour (which I see all the time), or being dressed in revealing clothes, etc.?

The answer is, he was probably dressed like a flambuoyant idiot**. Whenever I see someone dressed like an idiot on the bus (gay or not), I'd rather they didn't sit next to me on the bus. Particularly since once I had a bit of a situation on the bus myself where I came off as 'closed-minded' when really they just crossed too many lines.

What happened was, I of course, had a terrible day. I was on a rather long bus ride, and at some point this (flambuoyantly dressed...I think he was pretty much wearing a set of briefs, and a torn open vest in completely mismatched colours) individual got on the bus, and by chance sat directly behind me. At some point during the trip, this guy started to talk about blowjobs and all this stuff I didn't care to hear about (and I was particularly irritated since there were children around). Then he went ahead and started to caress and run his hands through my hair.

Of course, I wouldn't let anyone do this gay or straight, so I got a bit upset. I can't remember what I said exactly, something slightly rude, but of course the first thing the guy throws out there is that 'you can't treat me like this just because I'm gay' and I have a bus-full of people giving me dirty looks. So I got up and went to a different seat, and of course, everyone must have thought I was just like that elderly woman.

**Note: The stereotype of 'dressing like a gay man' does not go hand in hand with being gay. In addition I must emphasize that I don't have anything against gays who 'dress well' and in fact wish I had a little more fashion sense.

No, what I'm refering to is when people dress completely absurdly, with mismatched clothes, flambouyant 'neon' colours, just in an attempt to catch peoples' attention. Plenty of gays don't dress this way, and if you do...well, frankly, being gay doesn't give you a license to be a douche. I find this 'stereotypical' gay behaviour extremely annoying without ever having any mention to sexual orientation itself...that's something you have to live with too. It doesn't make me closed minded, I just don't like annoying people (gay or straight). And I assure you that if a straight guy dressed that way, I'd be just as annoyed.

Some people claim that 'this behaviour gives gays a sense of identity.' But in and of itself, that's not a good enough excuse...murder gives serial killers a sense of identity too. On the contrary, there are plenty of ways to express yourself without irritating other people.

So take home point: Don't take this the wrong way, I don't have a problem with gays, but I am seriously irritated by some of this 'stereotypical' gay behaviour. It's got nothing to do with being gay...it has to do with being annoying, and demanding that you're the centre of attention (which really, for gays is an oxymoron).

Originally Posted by arathbon

In fact there is nothing to prove that she moved over because she knew or suspected the man was gay. She might not have liked the way he smelled, she might be a crotchety old lady and not sit next to anyone, she might even not care about his sexuality but merely how he was dressed. I mean the reasons she could have been disgusted and moved are two many to count and they don't all focus around his sexuality.

But the thing that is most shocking about your suggestion is that you haven't considered that by making her stay there you are making her feel uncomfortable and making her feel discriminated against, because now you've said "A gay person sat next to you, you can't move for any reason lest someone thinks your homophobic and punches you in the face".

Well played...you beat me to raising this point, lol.

Originally Posted by arathbon

"Sexuality was attacked"? Listen this is what pisses me and a lot of other individuals off. I spent years in an environment extremely hostile towards my belief in god. I was mocked and listened to others mock my religion day in and day out. You could even say my "Spirituality was attacked"? I never once punched someone in the face to dole out my own form of "self-defense". Self defense does not mean you get to dole out vigilante justice. If someone breaks into your home your not allowed to shoot him through the head and kill him.

I gotta applaud this one too...excellent example.

Everyone here should take 20 minutes and watch an episode of south park from the most current season, episode 1312 "The F word"

just google "comedy network", click on the "video library" tab, then find southpark, season 13 and episode 12.



I realize people have a hard time getting past the crude nature of the humor, but South Park is possibly one of the most informed and intelligent shows on TV. They tackle the broadest range of topics with a very informed way of thinking. They use rational thought and reason instead of being shackled to the ignorant politically correct way of thinking that plagues society.

Oh yeah and just another note, a person can define themselves as a certain type of sexuality, but a large part of the discrimination comes from what others perceive your sexuality to be. I dont have to be gay to be called a "homo" with hate.


In gradeschool/highschool people should have to takes clases on biological sexual functions, gender identity, sexuality, and relationships. Showing old diagrams of where the ***** goes in the ******, and telling people to wear condoms is not enough.