Well, that's because homosexuality is natural. I don't think my neighbors dogs learned being gay from the TV machines. As to normal? That's kind of a loaded word, its not normal because most people aren't gay. But neither are redheads normal either. Are we supposed to treat them differently because they have fair skin and red hair? No.

 

And there's a difference between a social political agenda and a policy political agenda. Do gay people want to be treated like regular members of society and not thought of differently (abnormal or unnatural) because they are gay? Absolutely. I don't think that's unreasonable, and I don't think that's being more than equal. I'm sorry that you see it differently.

 

Dogs can be gay? How is that possible?

Edited December 22, 201015 yr by Jenksismybitch

That something that occurs in the small minority of situations isn't normal? 5% of the population in the US is gay. Say that number is really 10%. That still means 9 out of 10 times it's not the norm. That's my point. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, or that one way is preferred or not preferred, i'm just saying that's how it is. By definition it's not normal.

 

Same with evidence of homosexuality in nature. It's rare. It's not natural. In fact it's unnatural for a species to be homosexual as they would cease to exist.

 

You've contradicted yourself, and you've exposed your bias here.

 

If it occurs in nature, it is, by definition, natural. Even if it is rare, even if it doesn't propagate the species, it can still be natural. Childhood leukemia is rare and if everyone had it the species would cease to exist, but that doesn't mean it is unnatural.

 

Of course being homosexual isn't the norm, and it never will be. You're arguing against a strawman here. Generally speaking, I think the gay community would like it if sexuality was simply a non-issue and they were judged as evil degenerates who people need to protect children from. That's a far cry from something more than equal or preferential status.

Right, gay bars are just catering to a subset of people. Just like hipster bars, dance clubs, piano bars, wine bars, biker bars, etc. People choosing to congregate and socialize within a similar group doesn't make it ok for outsiders to discriminate or denigrate that group, especially within a legal framework like DADT.

 

One is a preference of a type of thing you like, IE, type of music, type of food. The other is a genetic trait, like skin color, or being gay.

 

Liking rock and roll vs rap is still liking one form of music or another. Gay vs straight, IMO, is not in the same class.

Dogs can be gay? How is that possible?

 

The same way it's possible in humans. Did you really not know that homosexuality is present through nature?

One is a preference of a type of thing you like, IE, type of music, type of food. The other is a genetic trait, like skin color, or being gay.

 

Liking rock and roll vs rap is still liking one form of music or another. Gay vs straight, IMO, is not in the same class.

 

Your last statement is a fair point, but what I'm trying to say is that choosing to congregate with like-minded or similar people isn't exclusionary. Discriminating againsta group of people is. Gay bars do not discriminate against straights.

I'd like to hear from an actual gay person on this thread...anyone? This is like a bunch of hetros arguing with other hetros bout something they can't possibly understand in a real sense.

Edited December 22, 201015 yr by Y2HH

I'd like to hear from an actual gay person on this thread...anyone? This is like a bunch of hetros arguing with other hetros bout something they can't possibly understand in a real sense.

Rex did chime in a few pages ago, in case you missed it.

I'd like to hear from an actual gay person on this thread...anyone? This is like a bunch of hetros arguing with other hetros bout something they can't possibly understand in a real sense.

 

Umm.......go back a couple dozen posts....

And they realize they can go into regular bars, right?

 

Sure, you can go into them, but should you?

Why not? You won't be physically threatened, like a gay person might be if they ran into the wrong group at a regular bar.

 

 

If this is the case, why can't I create a "White bar" for white people who want to hang out with other white people? I mean, I wouldn't be banning black people or anything...but I guarantee it wouldn't fly...not for a second.

 

You'd probably get opposition from the community, but there is plenty of self-segregation at bars.

 

Self-segregation versus outside discrimination. Big difference.

I'd like to hear from an actual gay person on this thread...anyone? This is like a bunch of hetros arguing with other hetros bout something they can't possibly understand in a real sense.

 

I would never imagine that it's the same as actually having to deal with it personally, but my brother is gay and I've seen the s*** he's had to put up with in his life. Luckily, he has a loving and accepting family who didn't throw him out on the street.

You've contradicted yourself, and you've exposed your bias here.

 

If it occurs in nature, it is, by definition, natural. Even if it is rare, even if it doesn't propagate the species, it can still be natural. Childhood leukemia is rare and if everyone had it the species would cease to exist, but that doesn't mean it is unnatural.

 

Of course being homosexual isn't the norm, and it never will be. You're arguing against a strawman here. Generally speaking, I think the gay community would like it if sexuality was simply a non-issue and they were judged as evil degenerates who people need to protect children from. That's a far cry from something more than equal or preferential status.

 

I think you're stretching the definition of natural. I guess it's also natural for human beings to murder people because it happens, albeit rarely.

 

What's the strawman? A loud segment of the gay community, mostly in the entertainment industry, throw it out like being gay is 100% normal. I'm suggesting by definition it's not. Just like a month ago that guy Drex (Drex in the morning) was arguing that every man has had a gay experience in college.

 

And OBVIOUSLY it's not everyone. It's a small minority who say these things. But it exists, which is all i'm saying.

 

 

The same way it's possible in humans. Did you really not know that homosexuality is present through nature?

 

Dogs hook up in one on one relationships? What kind of dog do you own?

Rex did chime in a few pages ago, in case you missed it.

 

I didn't know he was gay. And I missed this post.

Edited December 22, 201015 yr by Y2HH

I think you're stretching the definition of natural. I guess it's also natural for human beings to murder people because it happens, albeit rarely.

 

What's the strawman? A loud segment of the gay community, mostly in the entertainment industry, throw it out like being gay is 100% normal. I'm suggesting by definition it's not. Just like a month ago that guy Drex (Drex in the morning) was arguing that every man has had a gay experience in college.

 

And OBVIOUSLY it's not everyone. It's a small minority who say these things. But it exists, which is all i'm saying.

There's a reason people are pelting you on this though...it's your word choice. You're defining heterosexual to be "Normal", which in one sense it is, because it's more common...but you're implicitly (and almost explicitly) defining homosexual to be abnormal.

 

If you wanted to just say that "a large majority of the population is heterosexual", you'd be accurate and you'd be choosing words that are sterile enough that no one would take offense. However, you're not doing so...you're using words that give a different connotation, getting an emotional reaction in response, but then falling back on trying to defend the sterile statement, while ignoring the connotation that everyone else is justly taking from your words.

 

Calling someone part of a minority is one thing and it's not going to get a reaction if it's not a smear and it's also true. Calling someone "not normal" is going to provoke an angry response.

 

 

I've had gay friends go to my bars...and i've gone into gay bars. The music is obnoxious but beside that it's not that different.

Edited December 22, 201015 yr by bmags

I've had gay friends go to my bars...and i've gone into gay bars. The music is obnoxious but beside that it's not that different.

 

I doubt the music is any worse than the country bars here in Ames.

There's a reason people are pelting you on this though...it's your word choice. You're defining heterosexual to be "Normal", which in one sense it is, because it's more common...but you're implicitly (and almost explicitly) defining homosexual to be abnormal.

 

If you wanted to just say that "a large majority of the population is heterosexual", you'd be accurate and you'd be choosing words that are sterile enough that no one would take offense. However, you're not doing so...you're using words that give a different connotation, getting an emotional reaction in response, but then falling back on trying to defend the sterile statement, while ignoring the connotation that everyone else is justly taking from your words.

 

Calling someone part of a minority is one thing and it's not going to get a reaction if it's not a smear and it's also true. Calling someone "not normal" is going to provoke an angry response.

 

I see what you're saying. But I think that simply saying "part of a minority" isn't the same as "it's a rarity and shouldn't be expressed as the norm," which is what I'm trying to say, but without any moral connotation.

Dogs hook up in one on one relationships? What kind of dog do you own?

 

Wat?

I doubt the music is any worse than the country bars here in Ames.

 

Truth. Or country bars in chicago (houndstooth...ughghghghg)

Wat?

 

Rex was alleging that dogs can be gay. They don't have the social structure to be gay. They're pack animals.

I see what you're saying. But I think that simply saying "part of a minority" isn't the same as "it's a rarity and shouldn't be expressed as the norm," which is what I'm trying to say, but without any moral connotation.

 

That statement is loaded with moral connotation, especially given the context of the discussion (of gay rights in general, not just this thread).

 

It shouldn't be "expressed as the norm" because it's not. But the way you're phrasing it, unintentionally or not, comes across as saying it shouldn't be expressed as acceptable for the minority.

Rex was alleging that dogs can be gay. They don't have the social structure to be gay. They're pack animals.

 

Gay meaning homosexual meaning male dogs humping male dogs and not just for a dominance thing. I don't know where you got this bizarre relationship angle.

I think you're stretching the definition of natural. I guess it's also natural for human beings to murder people because it happens, albeit rarely.

 

Murder is natural. You're conflating natural and biological or societal normal.

 

And OBVIOUSLY it's not everyone. It's a small minority who say these things. But it exists, which is all i'm saying.

 

So a small minority of a minority says some things supposedly--so what? No one here is. What are you arguing against? What point are you trying to make?

 

Should I bring up Fred Phelps every time there's a discussion on gay rights to illustrate that some people are crazy, or would it correctly be viewed as an irrelevant distraction?

Edited December 22, 201015 yr by StrangeSox

Rex was alleging that dogs can be gay. They don't have the social structure to be gay. They're pack animals.

What the heck does being a pack animal have to do with being gay?

 

I already said that, and still find the existence of gay specific bars to be exclusionary, which goes against wanting to fit in.

 

This is just my opinion on the matter.

 

I've never been to a gay bar where straight people were turned away at the door. And I may or may not have lots of personal field research to substantiate this finding.