First off let me begin by saying I think homophobia is a bad and undesirable trait for any self-respecting person that lives in the 21st century. I see no reason for me to care what sexuality other people have. In that same place I would like to, also, already clarify that the same goes for genders. I disagree that there's more than three genders, but I respect anyone's right to think otherwise, I don't really care about what gender people ascribe themselves because it's really none of my business until they try to make it mine. I came to my conclusion after much deliberation, some research and some (in my eyes) rational thoughts. I hope you can respect that first and foremost before you consider writing up a reply.

The LGBT+ community has been at the tip of my spear quite a few times as I am quite critical of them. Not for their sexuality - as stated before I really don't care who they fuck behind closed doors - but because of their methods of 'preaching acceptance' such as gay prides that have little to no benefit in my eyes.

But at the same time I support those that are rational and just want to live their lives 'normally' like most other people.

Before you scream 'STOP PUTTING A HETERONORMATIVE LIFE ON MEEEEE!! REEEEEEEE!' I want to clarify;

normal
[nawr-muh l]
adjective
1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

As we all know the % of heterosexuals is far, far higher than that of any other sexuality (due to biological reasons for the most part) therefore it could easily and factually be said that heterosexuality is indeed the norm. There's simply no debate about this. Heterosexuality is the standard.

That's not good, not bad either, it just is.

Moving on, as I was saying I completely agree with these homosexuals/bisexuals that want to live their life normally, i.e. have a job, get married, do well in life and find joy in their day to day life without being harassed.

Now that I've established that I really don't care about your sexuality, and that I am not a homophobe, I can move on without having to fear for being called a homophobe. Well actually I don't really care. Maybe you think I'm a homophobe and that's fine.

---

So moving on from that spectacle, homophobia is obviously an existing trait in some people, and people have varying opinions on homophobia. The common one is 'homophobia is bad' because unlike Tumblr wants you to believe, heterosexuals do not all hate homosexuals, and most people are of the opinion that homophobia is bad.

This is partly because the label of homophobe has a bad connotation, nobody wants to be associated with homophobia, and therefore, when asked, people will reply that they don't like homophobia, even if they disagree with homosexuality. And that is within their right - there is a difference between hating homosexuals and going full Westboro Baptist Church, and simply thinking homosexuality is wrong but respecting those peoples rights to practice it anyway.

But besides that, between the anti-homosexuality and pro-homosexuality camps, there is large, large amounts of people who simply don't care. And rightfully so, it's not their business, it goes on behind closed doors (unless you get like gay prides, which is shoving homosexuality in peoples faces) and so they don't care. I like to think I belong in this camp but obviously I am quite argumentative and enjoy discussing and debating people about topics like these so I don't think I can really say I'm indifferent, haha.

So I think homophobia is far less widespread than people (especially Tumblr feminists, Tumblrina's, DA ES JAY DABBAYOO'S and active LGBT+ activists) think. In fact it's probably a bit of a non issue in most of the western world. (We'll get to that later, though.)

Never the less, regardless of your idea about homophobia, or the dislike of homosexuality, homophobes still have rights. It is allowed for them to dislike homosexuality in the same way it's allowed for me to dislike how a certain breed of dogs look.

So the idea that homophobia needs to be rooted out by force is both unrealistic and unlawful. You can't fight ideas, people, the only natural progression here is to let people adapt to the modern times and have them realize that it's not so bad.

You don't do that with gay prides, you don't do that by screaming in their face and protesting, you do that by showing that you're regular like them, or by peaceful debate. So in that way I respect homophobes.

They fight for what they think is right even though I disagree with them.

---

So okay, I said homophobia was a non-issue for most of the western world. But obviously USA is included in that, and in the US homosexuals/bisexuals are often shunned for their sexuality. Now obviously that's what I mean with country perspectives.

And to be honest, this is one of the most annoying things when I debate about homosexuality/bisexuality/sexuality in general. Americans often seem to think that homophobia is normal in the rest of the world.

It really isn't.

June 26, 2015 was the day that gay marriage was legalized in the USA.



Some countries here have allowed legal gay cohabitation from 1989, with the first country to legalize it being mine in 2001. That's 15 years ago now.

So as you can see the USA is quite a bit behind. In fact, even before 2001, homosexuals were widely accepted here in the large cities (it was the bible belt that didn't. Crazy anti-vaxers..) Even in former east-bloc countries that are largely homophobic, they will still allow same sex marriage.

So please consider this when you read my points. The most homophobe problems we have here are from immigrants from the Arab world where homosexuality is still very much non existent. Contrast this to the USA where the homophobes are, often, quite literally your own parents.

Moving on to the brunt of the discussion and my favorite point:

---

So we all live in democracies. I hate democracy, it's a terrible system when you live in countries with a large population that consists of 60% uneducated people that don't know a thing about what it takes to run a country.

But it's the (sad) reality. I can't change it for you, you can't change it because you're just one tiny ant and the leaders don't want to change it because it's nice to have democracy as a politician. It funds their salary after all.

What is the relation to homophobia though?

Well it's really rather simple, since a democracy implies that anyone can advocate their ideas and opinions and if they get a large enough following, they can make their ideas and opinions the norm. That's the sad reality of living in democracy, especially when you're living in the USA.

I think democracy should be renamed to idiocracy, but that's another matter.

Fact of the matter is, you can advocate pro-LGBT+ but at the same time they have a right to advocate anti-LGBT+ and they don't even need a good reason for it. All they need is a gut feeling.

This doesn't make them a bigot, this doesn't make them ignorant, it doesn't make them anything other than someone who fights for what they believe in. Unless they're Westboro baptist levels of stupid, then no. But otherwise the majority is actually just rational people with a different view.

Once you realize this you should be able to enter a rational discussion with them at least, but the fault I see on both sides is often that they enter the discussion unwilling to see the other sides story, or their feelings, and their points.

It's like 2 deaf guys screaming at each other trying to tell them what they mean. There's no order and neither is listening.

It's important to realize very much that democracy is mob rule and, actually, it's kinda primitive. We like to think we're super advanced and shit but honestly, democracy is simply a more organized mob rule. In the end, the largest group decides what happens and the largest group of people are uneducated and usually don't read about what they're voting on.

I'll add a small addendum about mob rule in the end. It'll be interesting.

As for free speech I'd like to refer to the top of the page, the comic illustrates what the mistake is that people make when it comes to free speech.

I don't have to listen to you rant about why LGBT is the savior of the universe (or the devil, either way) and I have full reign to remove you from private properties if I own it. Free speech =/= a free card to say whatever the fuck you want. It's always important to remember that, and if that's not enough, keep this in mind:

nobody really cares about what you think either. Sad reality.

---

So my addendum about mob rule:

It's quite laughable when people (Black Lives Matter comes to mind, as does feminism from Tumblr) are anti-majority. Like shit, you can hate white cishet males but the fact of the matter is white cishet males are the majority of the country, and you need them to solicit any type of real, big legal changes.

So if you villify them and make them feel like a villain (what BLM and Tumblrina Feminazi's like to do) with movements such as hating on white people or making hashtags like #killallmen, you're not gaining favor and in fact are creating a sort of segregation from yourself and the rest of the country.

In fact this makes people less likely to support you. I, for instance, always thought feminism to be kinda good, same goes for Black Lives Matter, until I realized that actually these two groups are just loud obnoxious people that are not about the core message (equality for all races/genders) but rather are about protesting the large majority that they perceive slight from (even if this isn't the case, a lot of feminist claims are false, and a lot of BLM claims are false).

Doing this (I see it on this site too, LGBT people going 'dem damn' hetero's always ruinin my lives!!') actually makes it less likely for you to ever be accepted. Mostly because people accept people that they like.

If you make me dislike you, I'm not gonna accept you. Actually, you can fuck off then.

Anyway, thanks for reading! I look forward to seeing your thoughts.

Also, I just want to say something about Russia, for the American's.

Do not always believe the media. I'm not one of those 'lizards control the media' people but your media has a tendency to oversimplify things that Russia does.

For example the 'anti gay law' in Russia was not 'anti gay' at all. In fact it was a completely reasonable law. The law pertained to homosexual propaganda which was their way of saying; 'do not advocate sexuality to young people' which wasn't specifically catered to homosexuals, but it was pretty clear it was aimed at them.

In short, do not tell young people to become gay and you should be fine. That said Russia is very homophobic and it's their good right to be so because it's their country, not yours.

The general consensus there is don't ask don't tell.

You're allowed to be gay, but you're expected to shut your mouth about it. If you don't like that then the solution is simple: don't live there. You're free to not move to Russia and you're free to move out of Russia or become a politician/lobbyist to try and change this.

Buddha, first off, I’d like to say that you’re my homie and I always have an enjoyable time discussing shit like this with you. Not as much as our other stupid conversations, but almost. This was well-written and a good read, my die or die.

2 WARNINGS:
I'm tired. I might read this tomorrow and realize its garbage.
I’m not going to comment on the democracy/political side of things.

Now, to continue on to my point, I believe the fact that your country does not exhibit the same level of homophobia as mine does makes our perspectives wildly different (as we discussed in our PMs.) The fact that I am also not a straight person also does give me some bias on the topic, which I am more than willing to admit. Our life experiences granted us completely different viewpoints, and I am utterly satisfied with that.

However, I do love to talk about this.

The reason that many of us, especially in the United States, have such a strong opinion about homophobia is that is that it can often times not be limited to words. Protests, murders, and hate crimes are a very scary and real thing to people who are not heterosexual here. I’ve often not told people about my sexuality for this exact fear. On the internet under anonymity, why the fuck not?

That’s why homophobia and homosexuality are two different ballgames. Heterosexuals are not a marginalized group, as they are the norm. They don’t get their weddings protested. They don’t get the shit beat out of them for being seen with their significant other. Politicians aren’t discussing their bedroom affairs to see if it should be okay or not. Straight people do not go through struggles with their sexuality like those in the LGBT community, too. That’s why homophobia is wrong. And even though your country doesn’t witness that, it still doesn’t make it less wrong.

And oooooof course, they are allowed to speak their mind. To quote what I said to you in our PM:

if some dude was like "ew u like pussy but u have one too ??? that gross" id be like "yeah cool man w.e"

People’s opinions on homosexuality are not the problem. Some people may not like my fucking hair cut and I’m not going to cry about it. It’s the fact that straight people get so angry about it, either with words or with physical assault, that is wrong. It’s an advantaged group “attacking” (using that word liberally there) a disadvantaged group because of their opinion on the matter, an opinion that originated from religious books supposedly written thousands of years ago by a mystical man in the sky.

I am not involved in the community. I don’t go to parades. I don’t sign petitions or wear bisexual pride colors head to toe on designated days. I just want to hold a hot girl’s hand down the road if I am so lucky, or be able to explain something about myself without fear. I’ve accepted a long time ago that homophobia will always exist. I just think that its form right now is cruel and barbaric. PEOPLE JUST NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THEMSELVES.

In regards to my status bar activity today, I don’t want to see kids discouraged from things that they probably get on the internet to run away from. I love the dumb insensitive part of the internet as well, but this is an open roleplaying forum that we all know damn well attracts a lot of young people. That’s why I can’t do a group smut roleplay in the casual section. The status that sparked all of this came off as “look at me I’m edgy” and that its sole purpose was to get some likes and make others feel bad. As someone who has been told her whole life that my sexuality is wrong, if I see it happening, I’m gonna say something. Don’t like it? That’s okay.

Do I think roleplays are completely over-saturated with non-straight characters now? Yes. I do.
Do I join those roleplays? No. I know how to close my eyes and move on.

Anyway, I’m not mad about homophobes speaking their mind from a point of being open minded and not just mean. It helps me weed out the people I don’t want around me : - )

ANYWAY BACK TO SHIT POSTING

I respect your opinion, but like you said everyone has the right to live normally. That means, if we're talking about heterosexuality as the norm, non-het people should be able to be openly gay in all capacity as hetero people are allowed to be openly hetero. Therefore the law you're speaking of is pushing non-het people to a no disclosure lifestyle that hetero people are not subject to. But as you said don't live there if you don't like it, but this is an over simplification that many people use to bash a lot of movements.

You can't choose where you live. LGBTQ people in Russia who grew up there didn't choose to live there and until their legal, can't do a damn thing about it. I'm from America so I won't speak extensively on Russia cus lord knows I don't know jack shit about it and I won't pretend to. So, pertaining to BLM I am part of it. Obviously you have extremists in every group however when it comes to "others" (those who are not the norm) suddenly those extremists speak for the entire group.

For example, Dylann Roof shot and killed 9 African Americans in a church in order to insight a race war. However, all nonPOC clambered together to scream and shout he does not signify all nonPOC. Then, when it comes to others such as ISIS, BLM extremists like the man who shot and killed cops on Dallas, and man-hating feminists, suddenly these movements/religions/people are all defined by the actions of the many. It's completely illogical and has everything to do with prejudice.

About protests and pride. No one ever got anything done by being silent and accepting the status quo. MLK, although peaceful, protested. Malcom X was more physical in his protests. Protests get things done. By no means should anyone not protest and if you think that's counterintuitive to what these movements get done, name one person who made change without making noise. Does that mean screaming on the Internet and saying kill all white people or kill all men. No. Not it does not and its up to these movements to call out these extremists in their own ranks.

But like you said, people have the right to agree and disagree and everyone has the right to ignore them. You're not going to change their beliefs and screaming at people until you're blue in the face isn't going to change that. I agree with you on this but I don't agree that not protesting or having pride to let people know that their love is normal, is counterproductive or unnecessary. It is very necessary. Especially when kids still get death threats for not being hetero normative.

On that note, homosexuality or non-hetero lifestyles really aren't being shoved in anyone's faces. Heterosexuality is the norm and has been celebrated for millennia. So who really gives a flying fuck of non-hetero people are showcased in television or in movies. Don't like it don't watch. It's really that simple.

I hope I got my point across without sounding too preachy. I'm on my phone so I hope it's all cohesive. Thanks.

I respect your opinion, but like you said everyone has the right to live normally. That means, if we're talking about heterosexuality as the norm, non-het people should be able to be openly gay in all capacity as hetero people are allowed to be openly hetero. Therefore the law you're speaking of is pushing non-het people to a no disclosure lifestyle that hetero people are not subject to. But as you said don't live there if you don't like it, but this is an over simplification that many people use to bash a lot of movements.

You can't choose where you live. LGBTQ people in Russia who grew up there didn't choose to live there and until their legal, can't do a damn thing about it. I'm from America so I won't speak extensively on Russia cus lord knows I don't know jack shit about it and I won't pretend to. So, pertaining to BLM I am part of it. Obviously you have extremists in every group however when it comes to "others" (those who are not the norm) suddenly those extremists speak for the entire group.

For example, Dylann Roof shot and killed 9 African Americans in a church in order to insight a race war. However, all nonPOC clambered together to scream and shout he does not signify all nonPOC. Then, when it comes to others such as ISIS, BLM extremists like the man who shot and killed cops on Dallas, and man-hating feminists, suddenly these movements/religions/people are all defined by the actions of the many. It's completely illogical and has everything to do with prejudice.

About protests and pride. No one ever got anything done by being silent and accepting the status quo. MLK, although peaceful, protested. Malcom X was more physical in his protests. Protests get things done. By no means should anyone not protest and if you think that's counterintuitive to what these movements get done, name one person who made change without making noise. Does that mean screaming on the Internet and saying kill all white people or kill all men. No. Not it does not and its up to these movements to call out these extremists in their own ranks.

But like you said, people have the right to agree and disagree and everyone has the right to ignore them. You're not going to change their beliefs and screaming at people until you're blue in the face isn't going to change that. I agree with you on this but I don't agree that not protesting or having pride to let people know that their love is normal, is counterproductive or unnecessary. It is very necessary. Especially when kids still get death threats for not being hetero normative.

On that note, homosexuality or non-hetero lifestyles really aren't being shoved in anyone's faces. Heterosexuality is the norm and has been celebrated for millennia. So who really gives a flying fuck of non-hetero people are showcased in television or in movies. Don't like it don't watch. It's really that simple.

I hope I got my point across without sounding too preachy. I'm on my phone so I hope it's all cohesive. Thanks.

i agree with all of this

Buddha, first off, I’d like to say that you’re my homie and I always have an enjoyable time discussing shit like this with you. Not as much as our other stupid conversations, but almost. This was well-written and a good read, my die or die.

2 WARNINGS:
I'm tired. I might read this tomorrow and realize its garbage.
I’m not going to comment on the democracy/political side of things.

Now, to continue on to my point, I believe the fact that your country does not exhibit the same level of homophobia as mine does makes our perspectives wildly different (as we discussed in our PMs.) The fact that I am also not a straight person also does give me some bias on the topic, which I am more than willing to admit. Our life experiences granted us completely different viewpoints, and I am utterly satisfied with that.

However, I do love to talk about this.

The reason that many of us, especially in the United States, have such a strong opinion about homophobia is that is that it can often times not be limited to words. Protests, murders, and hate crimes are a very scary and real thing to people who are not heterosexual here. I’ve often not told people about my sexuality for this exact fear. On the internet under anonymity, why the fuck not?

That’s why homophobia and homosexuality are two different ballgames. Heterosexuals are not a marginalized group, as they are the norm. They don’t get their weddings protested. They don’t get the shit beat out of them for being seen with their significant other. Politicians aren’t discussing their bedroom affairs to see if it should be okay or not. Straight people do not go through struggles with their sexuality like those in the LGBT community, too. That’s why homophobia is wrong. And even though your country doesn’t witness that, it still doesn’t make it less wrong.

And oooooof course, they are allowed to speak their mind. To quote what I said to you in our PM:

<Snipped quote by megatrash>

People’s opinions on homosexuality are not the problem. Some people may not like my fucking hair cut and I’m not going to cry about it. It’s the fact that straight people get so angry about it, either with words or with physical assault, that is wrong. It’s an advantaged group “attacking” (using that word liberally there) a disadvantaged group because of their opinion on the matter, an opinion that originated from religious books supposedly written thousands of years ago by a mystical man in the sky.

I am not involved in the community. I don’t go to parades. I don’t sign petitions or wear bisexual pride colors head to toe on designated days. I just want to hold a hot girl’s hand down the road if I am so lucky, or be able to explain something about myself without fear. I’ve accepted a long time ago that homophobia will always exist. I just think that its form right now is cruel and barbaric. PEOPLE JUST NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THEMSELVES.

In regards to my status bar activity today, I don’t want to see kids discouraged from things that they probably get on the internet to run away from. I love the dumb insensitive part of the internet as well, but this is an open roleplaying forum that we all know damn well attracts a lot of young people. That’s why I can’t do a group smut roleplay in the casual section. The status that sparked all of this came off as “look at me I’m edgy” and that its sole purpose was to get some likes and make others feel bad. As someone who has been told her whole life that my sexuality is wrong, if I see it happening, I’m gonna say something. Don’t like it? That’s okay.

Do I think roleplays are completely over-saturated with non-straight characters now? Yes. I do.
Do I join those roleplays? No. I know how to close my eyes and move on.

Anyway, I’m not mad about homophobes speaking their mind from a point of being open minded and not just mean. It helps me weed out the people I don’t want around me : - )

ANYWAY BACK TO SHIT POSTING

Most if not all your points are related directly to the whole US vs. EU debate where I can't really comment on it because I know the US is fucked up and this is just one of the 300 bulletpoint list of why the USA is not the greatest country in the world, has never been it, and will never be it either.

The only point I have something to comment on is that heterosexual couples face their own troubles. Homophobia is just one of the many many things you can suffer from.

It's bad.

But at the same rate, it doesn't mean heterosexual couples have a perfect love life, have a perfect life in general. It sucks when you see homosexuals/bisexuals/whatever complain about how perfect heterosexuals life must be. They're not hated after all? Thing is that even in a heterosexual relationship you can face problems.

That doesn't mean homophobia is good. It just means there's multiple perspectives, and the simple, easy to grasp 'muh homophobia bad, hetero couples = perfect lives' is an oversimplification.

The fact you don't go to prides makes me more likely to accept you, too.

_{Also the reason you can't do group smut RP's in casual is not because of young people (not only because of that) but also because there was some problems with google earlier which caused guildfall IIRC.}

---

I respect your opinion, but like you said everyone has the right to live normally. That means, if we're talking about heterosexuality as the norm, non-het people should be able to be openly gay in all capacity as hetero people are allowed to be openly hetero. Which is, more or less, how it is in the EU. Therefore the law you're speaking of is pushing non-het people to a no disclosure lifestyle that hetero people are not subject to. It's the problem with democracy. I won't deny that this sounds unfair, but it's the harsh reality. I would like you to know that you can still be openly gay in Russia. Many of Putin's political allies are homosexual. They're protected, of course, but it's possible. It's not a total non-disclosure lifestyle, and you can tell people in the street you are gay. There is no ban or law against this. The problem is homophobia, not laws. And culture in Russia dictates that homosexuality = bad. Fun fact though, homosexuality originated not only out of Greece but also out of early Russia (when it was still Novgorod, Muscovy, Tver, etc.) But as you said don't live there if you don't like it, but this is an over simplification that many people use to bash a lot of movements. I'm of the opinion that if you are below the age of 16, you should not make any decisions related to sex or sexuality anyway, so this point is kinda moot.

Sucks for them. There's many similar situations that have nothing to do with sexuality where you also can't move away until you are legally able to. Besides that I did offer an alternative - enter politics and change it.

You can't choose where you live. Yes, you are right! You can't move to another country. In all seriousness, yes you can. LGBTQ people in Russia who grew up there didn't choose to live there I mean, if you're over 18 and still decide to remain there despite an anti-homosexual culture, then that's your own choice. and until their legal, can't do a damn thing about it. Noted. Sucks for them. It's reality, though. I mean, if you want to be 100%, you can move when you're 16. Before that, you have no business telling people all about your sexuality anyway. But I'm a little conservative. I can see why a more liberal person might disagree and I can agree to your reasoning. I just think this is life. You'll have to deal with it until you're 16/18 and then you can move. Sucks. Everyone deals with rough periods. I'm from America so I won't speak extensively on Russia cus lord knows I don't know jack shit about it and I won't pretend to. So, pertaining to BLM I am part of it. Obviously you have extremists in every group however when it comes to "others" (those who are not the norm) suddenly those extremists speak for the entire group.

Now this is a bad example you're giving and I'm going to tell you why:

The KKK does not speak for the entire group. White people hate the KKK.
White pride does not speak for the entire group. White people hate the White pride movement. (I mean shit, they stole my religious symbols for their logo, of course I hate them.)

We do not condone the actions of either of those two groups and whenever one of them acts violently, I can assure you 100% no doubt about it, white people will speak out, they will protest these groups. I feel comfortable speaking in the name of all white people that aren't associated with these groups or any other, because I know we as a 'ethnicity' (ethnicity isn't really biologically a thing more so than it is sociologically, but it helps create order in this debate) we are against these groups. I am sure of that.

The problem with it is, we live in democracy. These people have a right to have their groups as long as they behave non violently and just protest.

Which is what happens a large amount of the time nowadays. In fact the KKK have extensive selection procedures, and while many of their members are known to be violent and have track records, do you really think the FBI and police do not keep an eye on these people?

Predominantly white male agencies?

For example, Dylann Roof shot and killed 9 African Americans in a church in order to insight a race war. However, all nonPOC clambered together to scream and shout he does not signify all nonPOC. Cognitive bias, you're seeing what you want to see in order to further your point. Let me ask you if you think there wasn't 20x as much white people that simply felt bad that this happened? I know that in Europe, in my country and others, there was outrage over this and there was outrage that it even got as far for that guy to shoot up a culturally black church.

I know exactly what story you were talking about. The Netherlands as a country was outraged, it was in the news here and shit. Didn't hear anything about 'not all white people'. It was only when I went onto twitter and saw that black people were bashing white people that I saw that white people were defending themselves.

The issue with this is also that these type of stereotypes (black people = thugs) go both ways (white boys = school shooters.) I actually got called school shooter before. Granted I look a little bit like a school shooter so..

Point being, it's not one way traffic. The same thing you're pointing out now, you see it with every ethnicity. Then, when it comes to others such as ISIS, BLM extremists like the man who shot and killed cops on Dallas, and man-hating feminists, suddenly these movements/religions/people are all defined by the actions of the many. Again, it's a no true Scotsman argument. You're comparing an entire ethnicity (which is a LOT of people) to groups of individuals that are grouped only because they choose to be. ISIS, BLM members, man-hating feminists.. they're all groups defined by association, NOT by ethnicity. They're defined by a CHOICE to be in that group, not because they were born in it.

And yes that's ironic because black people face the same thing, but that's the European vs. American bias, we don't have nearly as serious racial issues here in the Netherlands or in Europe in general, so I can see why there's need for a group like BLM. Which is why I agree with the ground works of the group, their ideals, but not their methods (which are borderline extremist, even when the 'regular' activists do them). It's completely illogical and has everything to do with prejudice.

Maybe if you tried to word it fairly, like a group vs. a group and not an ethnicity vs. extremist groups, it'd be more logical, but now your argument just boiled down to 'white people are also bad like ISIS and BLM extremists.' If you said that white people didn't want the KKK and White Power movement to speak for them, but seem to think that ISIS or BLM speaks for all muslims/blacs, I'd be inclined to agree if it weren't for the fact that we're speaking about American groups vs. Islamic extremists and a group that's built upon disruptive, militant behavior.

Europeans don't have an active KKK or white power/pride movement. They're very small here and really only found in the east bloc (where there are little blacks or muslims anyway.)

Again, I see your point. I just don't think it applies here because you used a bad example.

About protests and pride. No one ever got anything done by being silent and accepting the status quo. MLK, although peaceful, protested. Isn't that what I advocated? I'm sorry, I think I said peaceful discussion is the way forwards. Malcom X was more physical in his protests. S-so you're saying it's bad when white people get physical, but it's good when black people do? Honestly can't follow your logic here. Maybe it's cause you typed it on your phone. I'd love to know more about what you mean.

I'm also not afraid of violence, so don't think I am saying 'muh violence is bad.' Violence is a good way to resolve conflict if you're willing to deal with the aftermath. Protests get things done. I disagree in most cases. Protests rarely get shit done unless there's a lot of people/money behind them. By no means should anyone not protest and if you think that's counterintuitive to what these movements get done, name one person who made change without making noise. Again, didn't I say peaceful discussion is the way forwards? Does that mean screaming on the Internet and saying kill all white people or kill all men. No. Not it does not and its up to these movements to call out these extremists in their own ranks. 100% agreed.

But like you said, people have the right to agree and disagree and everyone has the right to ignore them. You're not going to change their beliefs and screaming at people until you're blue in the face isn't going to change that. I agree with you on this but I don't agree that not protesting or having pride to let people know that their love is normal, is counterproductive or unnecessary. It is very necessary. Especially when kids still get death threats for not being hetero normative. Told you above that I don't disagree that protest is neccesary, I don't think I said protest is futile. I just complained about the methods some groups use. You know... like the whole blocking off a freeway and then complaining when someone gets hit. Isn't that just counter productive? That's not protest, that's just being obnoxious.

On that note, homosexuality or non-hetero lifestyles really aren't being shoved in anyone's faces. Generally? No. Which is something I am happy with. Not that I want hetero lifestyles to be pushed in peoples faces either - but it's just the largest market share and sex sells. Sorry, it's the facts. I hope this changes some day but I strongly doubt that.

On the flip side, gay prides are kinda 'shoving your sexuality in someones face' and unlike with heterosexuals, gay prides can get kinda.. shady with the sex things. Heterosexuality is the norm and has been celebrated for millennia. So who really gives a flying fuck of non-hetero people are showcased in television or in movies. I don't. I generally don't really care for the sexuality of a television/movie character. Don't like it don't watch. It's really that simple. Agreed.

I hope I got my point across without sounding too preachy. I'm on my phone so I hope it's all cohesive. Thanks. It was fine, thanks for your time.

I'm gonna insert my opinions on what you write in red because it's easier for me.

@SilentWriter83 Also to add about Russia: there's no laws that ban homosexuality, what I meant with homophobia was more so that the people there really just don't like homosexuals. And you can't force them to like homosexuals. It's a generational change that needs to happen (and, actually, that is slowly happening.. it recently slowed down because the anti-US sentiment is growing due to vilification. Meaning they're making use of any ammo they can get against the US, Orthodox church loves pointing out the liberal lifestyles of the US.)

I understand why you think that gay pride parades aren't necessary. As a gay/questioning man (which I don't often say because I don't feel like that I should have to tell everyone that I am gay), I also think that pride parades aren't necessary and often too crazy for me. However, some people that go to the pride events is a chance to be themselves. To be away from their families and friends (if they are homophobia towards said person), to do whatever you want. That's why there are gay bars and other things that often only LGBT+ people go to.

Plus, America is so different from Europe. You get that as well. I just want to clear up why America was so behind same-sex marriage.

Back in the good old days of colonial America (before the America Revolution happened and European nations still looked for gold), many people that went to the New World were Protestant. During the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Pope became worried of them and the losing power of the Catholic Church. The Spanish Empire is the New World, mostly alone besides Portugal down in the south. Then, the Counter Reformation happens and the Pope begins to look at the New World as a chance to spread Catholic before any Protestant nation gains more of a foothold in the New World.

Then, the British came out of nowhere in the New World and managed to keep Jamestown alive (somehow). Their cash crop, tobacco, was doing so well that made more than gold for a bit. And then we have more British colonies forming from Maryland that established the Act Concerning Religion, giving both Catholics and Protestants the same rights. Puritanism was huge in New England (before it broke off into smaller pieces). The Puritans went to the New World in hopes that they would established "a city upon a hill" and basically speed up the Reform in England.

Massachusetts was formed in 1629. Roger Williams gave his criticisms about Puritans and was an early proponent of religious freedom and separation of church and state. He's ban for Massachusetts and decides to form his own colony, Rhode Island. Thomas Hooker soon leaves Massachusetts and established New Haven in 1636. Then New Haven and Hartford combined and became Connecticut, the first colony to established religious freedom.

As you can see, the New World was a filled with Protestants and other religions (that weren't Catholic) that escaped Europe. And you have Catholics who wanted controlled of the entire New World and wanted to spread their religion at the same time. I could even say that those events are the main reason why America is more religious than Europe in the modern day. Plus, there were more religious event that happened during the American Revolution and beyond that into the modern day. Same-sex marriage is an example of that.

It's becoming more accepted in the country, but I think that it will never be accepted by everyone--given America's background in religion and other things. I think that you know that Europe and America are totally different, but I just wanted to share my thoughts on it with historical events. I also agree that LGBT+ representation is low because 3.8% of adult in America are LGBT, while there are a high percentage of straight people. "Heterosexuality is the standard" as you said. I just want to live a normal, peaceful life without shoving my sexuality into peoples' faces. I hope that helps and if you have any questions, you can ask me. By the way, my source for all of this is my American History class that I am taking in college.

Buddha bruh you KNOW i know hetero couples aren't perfect (i.e. my marriage falling apart.)
<3

@BuddhaI think you misunderstood what I was saying about Dylann Roof and BLM etc. My point was, that when a white man does something terrible, they don't represent all white people, and (in America) most white people get together and scream and shout about it. When that happened the whole country was shocked and outraged (rightfully), but when a black man shot and killed white cops, and specifically white cops, suddenly, BLM is a racist terrorist group and all black people hate white people. This is what I was talking about.

In America, if you're white and you do some terrible shitty thing, it doesn't represent the race as a whole. If you're not white, and you do something terrible and shitty, then you alone are the face for your entire race, movement, religion, etc.

I hope that cleared it up. If you wanna talk about it over PM I'm always up for a good discussion.

@BuddhaI think you misunderstood what I was saying about Dylann Roof and BLM etc. My point was, that when a white man does something terrible, they don't represent all white people, and (in America) most white people get together and scream and shout about it. When that happened the whole country was shocked and outraged (rightfully), but when a black man shot and killed white cops, and specifically white cops, suddenly, BLM is a racist terrorist group and all black people hate white people. This is what I was talking about.

In America, if you're white and you do some terrible shitty thing, it doesn't represent the race as a whole. If you're not white, and you do something terrible and shitty, then you alone are the face for your entire race, movement, religion, etc.

I hope that cleared it up. If you wanna talk about it over PM I'm always up for a good discussion.

Hmm. Can't say I've ever met someone that took one extremist as the face of an entire religion/ethnicity. I get your point. Not sure I agree, because I've never dealt with this, but I'll trust that it goes like this.

gay prides aren't about being prideful lmao they're to show there is nothing wrong with being queer.
Before you say, "but Neuro! pride is in the name!"
There's a reason heterosexual pride doesn't exist, because it's already accepted everywhere.

If you think they're too preachy consider this.

There is a teenager, completely alienated from his family due to his sexuality. He goes to a gay pride, has the time of his life with the community that he is in. Meets new people, makes a new family.
What's wrong with that?
Also don't tell me that hasn't happened I have friends who I've made through that scenario. (with them as the kid because my family accepts me c:)

They also give churches, community centers, and other organizations to show their acceptance for queer people.

@Neurovoid I'd argue that dancing around half naked kind of is about showing pride. Not that there's nothing wrong with being homosexual. And even if what you're saying is true, I've explained this before - I'd be much more supportive if it happened behind closed doors in a private venue, where people that are interested can visit it and those that aren't don't have to pass through it.

Something like the 'Kamasutra fair' we have in the Netherlands.

And something tells me that a gay person that isn't accepted at home would have a hard time going to a gay pride to begin with, but yeah sure. I never said I can't see the benefits, I just see them as useless to spread awareness and acceptance to other people that aren't homosexual.

@Buddha I got your point now. I would have to agree that Pride isn't about awareness to other people. Pride is more so an internal acceptance for the individual/community in and of themselves.

As for keeping it in a 'private area' eh we can agree to disagree on that. Two different places, cultures, and opinions. Lol. I don't think anyone should only be allowed to express themselves in private vs the public. But you've stated your opinion on this already so I won't rehash it (or at least try not to?)

BUT MY POINT IS, I get what you mean about Pride now.

@SilentWriter83 It's not so much about 'allowing' them to only express there.

Look at it like this. You say hetero-prides aren't a thing and I'd be inclined to agree but the Kamasutra fair here is largely heterosexual. It attracts a lot of attention and people want to visit. It's still held in a private area and you can buy tickets for cheap, and enjoy the shows and walk around and buy shit, right?

Now you also have the gay pride, which is an initiative not made by the government or so, but is still paid for by the government in most cases (here it's the case.) meaning the government is theoretically spending my money on this. Which I'm fine with. But it also happens in public locations - on the canals in Amsterdam, mostly, but in other cities too. Not always on a canal.

It's a bit of a hassle when I have to travel through there, ya dig?

Now that is ignoring the fact that the content of the Kamasutra fair is.. very sexual. In fact it's 100% sexual.

I wouldn't say the gay pride if 100% sexual, but it's borderline. Just do a google image search of gay pride.

I'm all for expressing homosexuality on public areas. Trust me.

But on this scale, with this kind of content, I'd rather it was just held in a venue.

@BuddhaGot you. Idk if its paid by the government in America. I want to say it isn't and other than the actual parade in and of itself on a specific day I want to say its all pretty confined here. At least, the one in NYC. I didn't get to go because my parents were worried what would happen since it was rather close (sort of) to the Orlando shooting. But from what I looked at their schedule. It was all pretty confined.

Can't say that Pride isn't sexual but kamasutra is 100% so I see why that would be confined. I do get your point though but perhaps pride is different in Amsterdam than it is in America. I'm actually really curious about it now.

@SilentWriter83 Well its smack dab in the middle of the city here, because this is the Netherlands, and we don't really have large open spaces anywhere.

@Buddha I could see how that would be hinderance. I mean NYC is big af and they have a bunch of shit all the time so its not as big a deal when things get blocked off I guess lol

@SilentWriter83 I mean shieeeeeeeeeeeeed you ever seen how we build here? Our houses are like 6 meters wide and 3 stories tall just because we need to fit as many houses as we can into 1 street. :/ I can imagine that in NYC you can have a bit more space but you really can't here. Hence, private venue = best bet.

@Buddha I can see your point lol. Idk how big meters are cus FUCK YOU USA YOU WANNA BE 'SPECIAL' AND USE FEET SO I CAN'T HAVE A REASONABLE UNDERSTANDING OF OTHER COUNTRIES DISTANCES (im salty af about this) But yeah I can see how you would need a private venue if there's not a lot of street space anyways.