Neumond Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Look, it is not even our goal to increase our population as fast as possible, because lets be honest we are more limited by limited ressources than we are limited by our ability to reproduce. The question becomes what is the intrest of the nation/country/society in general. And if you go down that line, anything which does not lead to stability, technological progress right now or the upbringing of a generation meeting certain criterias is irrelevant, because it does nothing for survival/general prosperity. So if you limit your question to what is needed or usefull and not to what is right, you have to be quite delusional to still get to the conclusions most people try to reach. But thats generally a problem in any discussion. We do not want to admit, that there is a price. But there always is. The real issue is, that as long as you have the money laying around you need to pay the price, it does not matter. The issue is not getting people to agree to something or to want something. It is to prevent them feeling the price. Thats where it is decided if any "social progress/change" will stay around or be lost! For this. You are talking about some price that has to be payed. It seems: you think letting gay people live in peace will cost something. And I would like to know what this price is. Perhaps I misunderstood your post. Then I apologize. But I wish for some clarification. Enmity: I guess this topic is rather emotional for you. I don´t think this is even a question of right and wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I was fine debating one of you but not 6. I don't have the time nor the interest to converse in such irrational views, writing out walls of text. Keep thinking you're right and I'm deluded. Agreed. These irrational views of yours are the reason the thread was created. Homophobia is stupid, yo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlefingers In The Air Posted March 16, 2015 Author Share Posted March 16, 2015 I updated the thread title to "Anti-gay bias is stupid" to respect Ormond's wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 For this. You are talking about some price that has to be payed. It seems: you think letting gay people live in peace will cost something. And I would like to know what this price is. Perhaps I misunderstood your post. Then I apologize. But I wish for some clarification. Enmity: I guess this topic is rather emotional for you. I don´t think this is even a question of right and wrong... To let somebody live in peace, there is no price. To enable somebody to live in peace, well thats something quite different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neumond Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 So what do we have to do to enable people to live in peace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 @NeumondDepends on who we are, who the "people" are and what you consider to live in peace actually means.Just prevent that they are beaten or attacked in the streets? Probably pay a police force and pay people to write laws and enforce them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neumond Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I know several gays and neither of them feels unsafe. And no, we don´t have a special gay force. The only price is the intolerance that people have to give up. Not a high price in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 But isn't the price of anarchy still far greater than that? Not directly of course, but still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 But isn't the price of anarchy still far greater than that? Not directly of course, but still. If you have the "money" to pay for it, of course. But if you have to ignore other issues, well not so much. @Neumond I know several gays and neither of them feels unsafe. And no, we don´t have a special gay force. The only price is the intolerance that people have to give up. Not a high price in my opinion. So I guess you do not live in a third world country, now do you? Sure, if just nobody would do something bad, everything would be great. So lets just wait for that. Why do we even have this discussion. And since it upsets people if you talk about gay marriage and this could make them less tolerant, lets not talk about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neumond Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I really didn´t say we shouldn´t discuss... And I think if something upsets people there is just more reason to discuss it.But we shouldn´t discuss if being gay is right or wrong. That´s not the question. The question should be: Why are they upset?Yeah if you are deeply religious that might be a reason. Or if being gay is styled as a western illness by certain leaders.But in both cases the true problem is intolerance and fear. And we should discuss these feelings rather than if it is ok to be gay or to have a same sex relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I really didn´t say we shouldn´t discuss... And I think if something upsets people there is just more reason to discuss it. But we shouldn´t discuss if being gay is right or wrong. That´s not the question. The question should be: Why are they upset? Yeah if you are deeply religious that might be a reason. Or if being gay is styled as a western illness by certain leaders. But in both cases the true problem is intolerance and fear. And we should discuss these feelings rather than if it is ok to be gay or to have a same sex relationship. So? You are saying we should make this effort because it would be the right thing to do... Well, now read what I have written at the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neumond Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 So the point of your first post in this discussion was to point out, it is too much effort to discuss this topic? I´m sorry to bother you then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 So the point of your first post in this discussion was to point out, it is too much effort to discuss this topic? I´m sorry to bother you then... My point was, that there is always a cost for every action. To ignore issues which will come up is just silly. To pad yourself on the back for beeing "open minded", which translate to "I would let people live in peace". Well, if it makes you feel good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I updated the thread title to "Anti-gay bias is stupid" to respect Ormond's wishes. I am very flattered that you would do that. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 My point was, that there is always a cost for every action. To ignore issues which will come up is just silly. To pad yourself on the back for beeing "open minded", which translate to "I would let people live in peace". Well, if it makes you feel good. I think the problem is that people are wondering what point you are trying to argue as it pertains to the subject. What's the cost? What's the action? You're speaking in generalities and it makes your argument vague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 The point is apparently that protecting us gays from those who would do us harm is too costly, so we should be thrown to the wolves. Or something. It's certainly a new angle, i haven't seen that one before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I think the problem is that people are wondering what point you are trying to argue as it pertains to the subject. What's the cost? What's the action? You're speaking in generalities and it makes your argument vague. If you make a change from the dogma that you need to have kids, espacially as a respected member of society (Middle and upper class), you will have to compensate. Raising kids costs money and they are needed by the state. Simple as that. So if you make the idea about relationships with no children socially exceptable, well you will need to compensate. Raising taxes and giving tax breaks to families with children. Using that money for childcare and education. Every change in society is a challange. If one fails to understand that, failure is quite probable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brook Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Where on earth do you live that a relationship with no children is not socially acceptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Where on earth do you live that a relationship with no children is not socially acceptable? Speaking about the past... I live in a country, where we have quite a high level of taxes and people are thinking about raising them and giving families with children even further benifits, investing in daycare etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brook Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 So, if having relationships with children is already socially acceptable and has been for a long time... you're going to have to spell out a little more clearly what point you are trying to make about gay relationships (which frequently do involve children ftr) because it is currently not making a whole lot of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.