Homosexuals should carry warning tattoos, says chaplain

[NAB]

...and less likely to try and push their orientation down the throats of others or infringe on the rights and lives of others.

Where you been hangin out that people are trying to push their orientation down your throat ????

If you made an effort to read thoroughly and with understanding, and stop with trying to make everything personal, you would see that I never even suggested that. It's not about my experiences, or even yours. There is also some related discussion going on in the BC forum, Election thread. Perhaps pay it a visit for more information. As I stated earlier, there are SOME People who infringe on the rights of others on both sides of the issue, that's life. For those folks, I defend neither and oppose both - why would you not also?

Nab

[steven lloyd]

What is a choice is whether you pursue EITHER or not, and how. It is also a choice as to HOW you choose to pursue it, or not. For example, there are lots of heterosexuals who CHOOSE to have nothing to do with the opposite sex in terms of a relationship, as well as lots of them who choose to, but are wise enough to keep their own sexual orientation and relations private where it belongs. I think my sex life and personal/marital relationships are my own business, and no one else's ;-) I'm not out to try and convince homosexuals to go straight, any more than I expect them to try to convince me to try the other side. But we all still have choices either way.

Nab

It still seems like you’re contradicting yourself to me Nabs (I admit I may be missing something). It seems you are saying it is all right to be homosexual, it is just not all right to behave like one - ie. to have sexual relations with the same sex. I accept that some heterosexuals have made the choice not to engage in sexual relations with the opposite sex, but I am personally very happy I did not have to make that choice or be judged for making it or have to hide my sexual orientation. I think the answer comes in educating people more, instead of asking a small group of people to hide from everyone else. Often prejudice (not calling you prejudiced) is caused by fear of something not understood. The greater the understanding (and resulting acceptance), the less fear.

[NAB]

What is a choice is whether you pursue EITHER or not, and how. It is also a choice as to HOW you choose to pursue it, or not. For example, there are lots of heterosexuals who CHOOSE to have nothing to do with the opposite sex in terms of a relationship, as well as lots of them who choose to, but are wise enough to keep their own sexual orientation and relations private where it belongs. I think my sex life and personal/marital relationships are my own business, and no one else's ;-) I'm not out to try and convince homosexuals to go straight, any more than I expect them to try to convince me to try the other side. But we all still have choices either way.

Nab

It still seems like you’re contradicting yourself to me Nabs (I admit I may be missing something). It seems you are saying it is all right to be homosexual, it is just not all right to behave like one - ie. to have sexual relations with the same sex. I accept that some heterosexuals have made the choice not to engage in sexual relations with the opposite sex, but I am personally very happy I did not have to make that choice or be judged for making it or have to hide my sexual orientation. I think the answer comes in educating people more, instead of asking a small group of people to hide from everyone else. Often prejudice (not calling you prejudiced) is caused by fear of something not understood. The greater the understanding (and resulting acceptance), the less fear.

LOL, I think you are trying to think too deeply and missing the obvious steven ;-) Try reading a chain of posts to the end instead of just one and specifically responding to it.

Nab

[steven lloyd]

LOL, I think you are trying to think too deeply and missing the obvious steven ;-) Try reading a chain of posts to the end instead of just one and specifically responding to it.

Nab

You could be right Nabs. I've been so busy lately I'm often just flying through these posts in the short time I have trying to remain a part of the dicussion (an interesting and controversial one). Humour me though please. What do you see as obvious in this discussion?

[Corneliousrooster]

...and less likely to try and push their orientation down the throats of others or infringe on the rights and lives of others.

Where you been hangin out that people are trying to push their orientation down your throat ????

If you made an effort to read thoroughly and with understanding, and stop with trying to make everything personal, you would see that I never even suggested that. It's not about my experiences, or even yours. There is also some related discussion going on in the BC forum, Election thread. Perhaps pay it a visit for more information. As I stated earlier, there are SOME People who infringe on the rights of others on both sides of the issue, that's life. For those folks, I defend neither and oppose both - why would you not also?

Nab

It isn't personal - I am not gay - but human rights are for EVERYONE!

I think it is pretty closed minded of you to think that someone born gay should have to surpress their Nature in order to choose what YOU think is right (when I say YOU I refer to all Non-gay people that think it is a matter of choice based on your own personal moral code that fits your hetero sexual lifestyle)

Sure there are People on both sides - that should not undermine the basic issue's of rights and biology.

[NAB]

...and less likely to try and push their orientation down the throats of others or infringe on the rights and lives of others.

Where you been hangin out that people are trying to push their orientation down your throat ????

If you made an effort to read thoroughly and with understanding, and stop with trying to make everything personal, you would see that I never even suggested that. It's not about my experiences, or even yours. There is also some related discussion going on in the BC forum, Election thread. Perhaps pay it a visit for more information. As I stated earlier, there are SOME People who infringe on the rights of others on both sides of the issue, that's life. For those folks, I defend neither and oppose both - why would you not also?

Nab

It isn't personal - I am not gay - but human rights are for EVERYONE!

I think it is pretty closed minded of you to think that someone born gay should have to surpress their Nature in order to choose what YOU think is right (when I say YOU I refer to all Non-gay people that think it is a matter of choice based on your own personal moral code that fits your hetero sexual lifestyle)

Sure there are People on both sides - that should not undermine the basic issue's of rights and biology.

Exactly! Human Rights (and related freedoms) ARE for everyone. No one said gay's or lesbians or whatever other orientation have to "suppress their nature" or whatever. What I do say is that they have no right to interfere with the beliefs, rights, and freedoms of other orientations either. But it seems to me some of them tend to do it quite regularly, and get away with it. That is what I refer to as their "choice", and IMO it is very wrong, even repulsive.

Put another way, while I have no inclination to try to dictate to 'them' what I think is right, I will oppose as long as I draw a breath 'them' assuming the 'right' to dictate to me and mine what 'they' think is right. That is my "choice".

Nab

[Born_again]

Interesting metamorphosis there, Nab. Ironically, your newly chosen signature may be rather apt ........ don't you think?

[steven lloyd]

Human Rights (and related freedoms) ARE for everyone. No one said gay's or lesbians or whatever other orientation have to "suppress their nature" or whatever. What I do say is that they have no right to interfere with the beliefs, rights, and freedoms of other orientations either. But it seems to me some of them tend to do it quite regularly, and get away with it. That is what I refer to as their "choice", and IMO it is very wrong, even repulsive.

Are you saying you know of circumstances where homosexuals have made an issue of heterosexuals expressing their sexuality – like holding hands in the street or hugging or kissing in affection? Are you saying you know of circumstances where homosexuals have made an issue of heterosexuals getting married in churches? Personally I’ve never heard of that, and if it did happen I could only imagine it was a form of protest to draw attention to the unfair double standard that exists between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

[Mr Danksworth]

I think what Nab is trying to say is "it's OK it be gay, just not around him."...or at least tone down your 'the gay' to make it more palatable for him. He has rights too you know!

[katzenjammer]

Prejudice runs deep.

I think it’s a jolly good idea to require faggots to wear a tattoo. Perhaps a large “H” (for *bleep*) should be tattooed on their foreheads--- but on second thought, maybe not an “H” as that might be interpreted as “Heterosexual” or perhaps “Hologram” al la the schmeghead Rimmer in the Red Dwarf TV series. And as this is Canada, we should ensure that any letter be equally understood in either official language. This would eliminate the letter “Q” for queer and besides some of us are a bit peculiar (queer). “G” for gay has its own difficulties so I have decided that any letter is wrong for this and a more fitting symbol would be the rainbow flag. Of course, the rainbow flag is quite attractive and there may be a number of non gay people wearing it simply for its decorative qualities. I’ll have to give it a bit more thought.

[NAB]

I think what Nab is trying to say is "it's OK it be gay, just not around him."...or at least tone down your 'the gay' to make it more palatable for him. He has rights too you know!

Thank you soulra, that is close although not dead on since I don't look at it as a personal thing. I am more concerned in a broader sense, and about others than myself.

Steven on the other hand seems to concentrate on the attempted intrusions by SOME into the rights and freedoms of LGBT individuals (I don't use "Gay" since that is only one element - albeit usually the most noisy one ;-) ) and no steven, I don't deny those things happen, nor have I personally witnessed much in the way of the specific things you mention either. (Edit: In fact I can only think of one time in my lengthy life where I was seriously and horrendously personally embarrassed by the behaviour of a "couple" in public, and it was a heterosexual couple! And I took serious action over it)

However, I have previously put forward what I consider more serious examples that I feel show the intolerance SOME LGBT individuals towards other cultures, beliefs, and organizations, particularly in a multicultural and non-homogenous society such as ours and as Homeownertoo discussed earlier... Yet you, like Al C, seem intent on ignoring those factors, and continue to remain in denial that they too exist. Why? At least I do not deny the argument you put forward, or even ignore it.

Nab

[Mr Danksworth]

I think what Nab is trying to say is "it's OK it be gay, just not around him."...or at least tone down your 'the gay' to make it more palatable for him. He has rights too you know!

Thank you soulra, that is close although not dead on since I don't look at it as a personal thing. I am more concerned in a broader sense, and about others than myself.

You must have missed my sarcasm. No matter how you crouch your words your stance makes you a bigot. Thanks for proving my point.

[NAB]

I think what Nab is trying to say is "it's OK it be gay, just not around him."...or at least tone down your 'the gay' to make it more palatable for him. He has rights too you know!

Thank you soulra, that is close although not dead on since I don't look at it as a personal thing. I am more concerned in a broader sense, and about others than myself.

You must have missed my sarcasm. No matter how you crouch your words your stance makes you a bigot. Thanks for proving my point.

Yes, I considered that you may be being sarcastic, but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt in this case since you didn't declare it. In future I will know better since apparently you are too close minded to fairly consider points of view, ethnicity, cultures, and beliefs that differ from your own.

Perhaps that even makes you the real bigot here.

Edit to add: "A bigot (in modern usage) is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own, or intolerant of people of different ethnicity, race, or class "

[steven lloyd]

I have previously put forward what I consider more serious examples that I feel show the intolerance SOME LGBT individuals towards other cultures, beliefs, and organizations, particularly in a multicultural and non-homogenous society such as ours
Nab

Nab

First I apologize for missing those examples. As I’ve said, things have been pretty hectic for me lately and I simply haven’t had the time to completely read through all these threads. I really don’t doubt there are strong examples that “show the intolerance SOME LGBT individuals towards other cultures, beliefs, and organizations, particularly in a multicultural and non-homogenous society such as ours.” I don’t doubt that at all. That doesn’t excuse us though.

Anyways ...

[NAB]

I have previously put forward what I consider more serious examples that I feel show the intolerance SOME LGBT individuals towards other cultures, beliefs, and organizations, particularly in a multicultural and non-homogenous society such as ours
Nab

Nab

First I apologize for missing those examples. As I’ve said, things have been pretty hectic for me lately and I simply haven’t had the time to completely read through all these threads. I really don’t doubt there are strong examples that “show the intolerance SOME LGBT individuals towards other cultures, beliefs, and organizations, particularly in a multicultural and non-homogenous society such as ours.” I don’t doubt that at all. That doesn’t excuse us though.

Anyways ...

Not sure to whom you refer as "us" steven. Perhaps it might be a good idea, for the purpose of discussion, to clearly define who is "us" and who is "them"? Are there only two sides to this question in your view? Seems to me that is the opinion of many ..."Us" and "them". I have difficulty viewing the world in such black and white terms.

PS. I know you are busy, and it is no small task to try and carefully read and absorbe all the posts in these threads, and how they relate to other posts by a variety of posters. It's difficult I know, but I must let you know I appreciate whatever effort you put into it.

Nab