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

This is going to seem a little bit like it coming out of nowhere, like out of left field or something, but this thread sort of reminds me of a conversation that everyone who knows my father had to have with him last October. In October of 2015, the Kansas City Royals (American Baseball) won the World Series (Baseball championship among the parts of the world that matter, namely the US and Canada). I just happen to be from that exact same city. And really, the entire place got really into it. There was a homecoming parade that basically shutdown downtown. I had to work that day, a few miles south of the event. The foot traffic was enough to make me fifteen minutes late despite planning for it. In a midwestern US city, that type of thing is unusual. Surreal even. If you see pictures of it on the internet, it looks a whole lot like an ant colony in a sidewalk crack.

Sounds pretty damn fucking annoying. Not anything I'd get mad about. In the same way I'm not mad about gay prides. The reason I find gay prides unnecessary is because they do not offer constructive furthering of acceptance for homosexuals. The fact that it obstructs the city is just a small side note for me.

The reason I bring that up is to set up the conversation everyone had to have with my father shortly after. He is the type of guy who secretly thinks he is the only person in the world doing enough work. Everyone else is too lazy or something. He also absolutely hates professional sports. There have been plenty of "My tax dollar" rants about that in the past, and about how frivolous people are being, drinking and just watching people play a game and all that. So when that parade happened, and when he heard a few co workers complain they couldn't get the time off to go there, he sorta popped. I got a variation of the rant a few days later. The gist was something to the effect that people were childish for being interested, that blocking traffic was denying hardworking people proper access to the roads, that there are better things to do, whatevs whatevs. And he was legit pissed off about it.
Don't assume I'm pissed off, because as I said, I really couldn't care less, gay prides happen like once or twice a year here. Like mentioned above, they are not furthering acceptance and therefore are not useful. Tax funding for these projects, therefore, is nothing more than funding a party. Which is stupid IMHO. If they did it through crowdfunding/entry tickets or some shit like all the other festivals and parades do, then I really, really couldn't care less what the fuck they do.

But that's not how it goes.

How dare anybody do something in public that he had no interest in?

And the sort of "Dude, who the fuck cares?" reaction I had to that is basically the same one I have to the complaint about public homosexual events. Like, your argument seems to be marketing one in essence. A sort of "I think the way you sell your candy-bar is shit because the ad campaign doesn't appeal to me" thing. Then you should maybe consider reading it again, because that's not what I think. But that isn't really the point. You'd have to get solid evidence that gay parades don't appeal or effect anybody at all to show them as absolutely useless, and even then, that would be more of a marketing gaffe than anything else. But as this stands, the argument seems to be "Gay parades are bad because I personally am not convinced by them." I can't prove a negative. If the organizers can come with constructive ways of showing me that gay prides do further acceptance (in my country which is already very very accepting) then sure, be my guest, have all the gay prides you want.



My question then also is; do things like this belong in there?

I suggest you translate and read this because it shows exactly why I have issues with the gayprides here and I am backed up by it by the creator of the gayprides in the Netherlands. Commercialisation of the gay pride has come thus far that it's no longer about acceptance, it's about 'showing you support homosexuals' even if you don't. I mean, even the SGP had a float. For those that don't know the SGP, it's a Dutch party that is notoriously Christian and notoriously anti homosexual. .. does that make sense to you? Because to me it shows that the event is no longer about acceptance but PR.

And the thing is, I suspect we both share basically the same view on Homosexuality itself. I am not personally gay, I don't know very many gay people, it isn't a part of my life beyond it coming up in political discussions. But the difference I suppose is that, if I were to see a Gay Pride parade, the only effect it would have on me (assuming there isn't something funny to point out) would be to make me think "Looks like Main St is plugged with gays, better take Grand so I can get to where I am going."

I can sense you're missing the backdrop of this discussion. There was a discussion about this in the status bar - about how homophobia is inherently bad and all homophobes were evil. I set out to prove that isn't the case and that the number of homophobes is drastically over exaggerated. This wasn't about gay prides to begin with. But I do enjoy discussions about this so I'm just gonna continue.

I don't want to petition to ban gay prides. I think people should be able to do whatever the fuck they want and if they're happy then cool. But it irks me that the government uses it as a PR-pony, funds it to 'look good' and is essentially just funding a festival for no reason. No other festival gets this type of funding, no other festival gets clearance to be hosted in the center of fucking Amsterdam, so why should homosexuals?

We want to accept homosexuals right? So why give them preferential treatment? Let them host a festival on the Malieveld in the Hague like all other festivals. Let them pay for it themselves, with minimal funding.

I think you're mistaking me for someone who really cares for this topic a lot and made this thread because of that. This is not the case. The case is I made this because we argued about it in the status bar and I wanted to continue the discussion.

I mean, shit, we had one of the more brawling Trump Rally's earlier in the spring, with people yelling about the wall and getting in fights with counter protesters and all that fun stuff. I don't particularly like Trump, but when I saw his rally, my reaction wasn't one of disgust, it was one of route-recalculation. It's a public place, and I'm only a tiny fraction of the population. As you said yourself, "Nobody really cares about what you think." Understandably, but you can't do this in Amsterdam. I am not American. We don't have 200 different blocks. We have tiny narrow streets with canals between them, that are hard to navigate, especially in a car, and if you go into a street, find out it's blocked, and then a car pulls up behind you, congratulations, you're stuck for the coming 5 hours before the blockage is removed.

I also feel like you are using the free speech argument backwards a bit here. The vibe I get from your argument is that vehemently disliking homophobes is an abuse of freedom of speech? No. This is not what I am saying. Read again. But wouldn't a person who is gay, or even just really pro-gay, naturally be inclined to dislike people who dislike them? That is their good right, just like it is the good right of homophobes to strongly dislike homosexuals. I am saying this works both ways and homophobes have rights too. And wouldn't, by the standards of free speech, a person who openly hates group A be open to the rebuke of group A? If you don't like the gays, the gays have every right not to like you. There is a sort of equal and opposite reaction thing that, really, both sides get confused by. If a person is openly homophobic, they should expect an equal and opposite reaction. If I spit on my neighbors cat, I've earned him spitting on mine. We don't seem to have a problem with homophobes being, like, lynched or anything, so I don't think that particular detail is out of control. The online hunt for homophobes I'd say is quite equal to that. Doxing someone and getting them fired is easy nowadays. It happened before. If the biggest threat is people saying stupid shit on tumblr, I think we're doing okay in the free speech department. My post really didn't have anything to do with free speech outside of the fact that homophobes have a right to free speech too. And really, except for the people everywhere who seem to think free speech means saying silly shit without being called out on it, I think the western world's free speech situation is doing quite well right now Refer to the comic in my OP. I don't disagree with you. It becomes a problem to me personally when social media platforms that really are just public platforms at this point (yes, twitter is a private platform, but it's so big and so public, it should be classified as such) are becoming echo chambers for those with specific sets of opinions, with the other side being blocked from accessing it or are severely limited in their ability to do so.

Democracy is a simpler thing to respond to: I do not think there is such a thing (outside of sci-fi novels and high school essays) as a society that can produce an ideal form of government. I have a solution, which is simply to switch government forms whenever society needs it. Fascism is great post-war if you lost. Communism is great when you need to carpet-bomb your country with factories. Democracy is great for small countries with good education systems. Dictatorship is great when you lack decisiveness and flip-flop between policies like the USA. There's benefits to all government forms, there is not one ideal form, there are many that in my opinion you need to combine.

But with human beings leading the countries, this can never exist. The photo on the box for democracy might be the old stiff-lipped citizen society of Athens as we want to remember it, but open the box and yes, it is true, you get a populist mess that veers with the wind. The photo on the box for Republicanism might be the stoic citizen-farmer-soldier Roman, but open it and you get corruption and more populism. But at the same time, look on the box for Monarchy you see the enlightened monarch, open it and you get George III, or Charles II of Spain, or Nicholas II. The box for Communism might be progression to a socialist utopia, but inside that box is Stalinist sycophantic bureaucracy, or whatever the fuck was up with Pol Pot. Fascism had the platonic, meritocratic dream-world, but the reality... i mean, holy shit Don't confuse fascism for nazism.. Humanity is just a messy species. It's what we do. Democracy as we practice it seems to keep society relatively balanced at least. For better or worse, we don't veer off in the Quixotic directions that modern anti-democracy seems to inevitably take. It seems like you're stuck with limited choices; corruption, or Caligula.

That being said, I am perfectly find with the rest of the world doing their own thing, because I understand that I don't really understand the rest of the world. If continental Europe wants to play with fascism again or something, go for it. I admit my Anglo-Saxoness makes it difficult for me to understand the attraction, but if you want to give everything up to some goofy fuck with a messiah complex and alcoholic-uncle type opinions, knock yourself out. Just don't invade France. I just want Antwerp back, man.

This doesn't pertain to anyone rn, just a thought:

Why is it called homophobia? like xenophobia? You aren't terrified of gay people. You don't see one and start screaming and running for your life. People just don't like gay people and that's that. You won't change their minds but the way I see it. You don't have to like gay people but you can and will respect them as fellow human beings and treat them with the same rights (marriage, not blocking off usage of certain restrooms, not allowing businesses to not allow them inside based on sexuality) and you do this through law.

You're not going to make people like others through law but you can grant them rights. People didn't, and still don't like black people. (I know this trust me) But we were granted the same rights as our white counterparts. Why? We're human. Same thing goes with non-hetero or non-cis people.

They wanna make some excuse that this 'bathroom law' will prevent rapes in bathrooms. False. It's just so conservatives can control the people that don't conform. I've watched a man follow a woman into a bathroom because she had short hair and wore basketball shorts. I've seen a woman, who didn't conform to the female archetype (basically short hair and 'boys' clothes) dragged out of the bathroom because police didn't believe she was born female. Like what, am I supposed to drop my pants and prove I have a vagina before I can pee?

idk. I think it's dumb. No, not everyone will like non-hetero people but laws that specifically target them aren't cool. Who cares if a transgender person wants to use the bathroom that makes them more comfortable. And if, this is a big if, a man tries to claim he's transgender just to get in, the trust me something will be done. No woman really goes to the bathroom alone. We go in pairs as we were taught since we were little to avoid situations such as these. (also no one seems concerned at all about women lying to get into mens bathrooms but I won't touch on the hypocrisy behind THAT one as if men are innately predatory and women are these meak things. bleh)

These are just thoughts. So basically. Homophobia is not a phobia. You aren't scared you just disagree. People will never fully accept gay people because (slight offense) religion won't allow it. You'll always have people steadfast in their beliefs and you won't rid them of them. But everyone deserves the same rights regardless of sex, gender, orientation, skin color, etc.

You don't do that with gay prides, you don't do that by screaming in their face and protesting.

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

<Snipped quote by Buddha>

At least in the UK, modern gay prides aren't screamy protests. The screamy bit was meant more towards screamy internet people. Some of them find their way into the real world. They're big ol' carnivals which explicitly go out of their way to ensure that LGBT+ people are welcome. Lots of people go to the biggest ones who aren't even LGBT+, because it's basically a big gay pissup - which, incidentally, is a nice change for LGBT+ from the usual mindset of 'must be vigilant when around my partner in public in case somebody literally beats us up'. Or it's an understanding space where people are uncertain about their gender or sexuality to go experiment with a new version of themselves. Yes, I've been to gay prides, I've seen in person how fun but absolutely useless they are.

You're right in that most people (at least in the UK) don't care one way or the other - and that's great. However, when people do care, it sucks for LGBT+ people. Yes. Just like it sucks to be pro-environment and to hear people say they don't care. It results in anything from low-level being made to feel shitty (whether intentional or not) to literally being killed, even in societies where people are broadly understanding.

Still, I can't help but read a chip on your shoulder when you pull up gay prides three times. Unless they're vastly different in the US I am Dutch., it does sound like you're in some way offended by LGBT+ people when they're doused in sparkles and boas and ... you know, gay stuff. Not at all. Why would that offend me? If anything I think it's a nicer fashion statement than some of the modern fashionable clothes we see nowadays. It's just gays having a gay party. What's the difference between a gay party and a party? IMHO they are the same. LGBT+ have historically had a pretty shitty time of it - let 'em party one day a year. I feel like you didn't read anything I posted after my OP, did you? If you don't like that stuff, do what I do and just stay at home that day. No, I'd rather go out and do stuff I want to do. I'm not going out and beating LGBT people up, in fact, in real life, I don't even say I disagree with the idea of gay pride. So I think that earns me a right to do whatever the hell I want, innit? God knows LGBT+ people spend enough time feeling like the world's ramming one particular version of existence down their throats: I think it's pretty polite of the majority of LGBT+ people who go to prides to condense all their public gay into one day a year in some cities.

<Snipped quote>

I'm pretty sure you've actually just defined a bigot. At least in my book, somebody who is intolerant and can't live by a 'live and let live' mentality is precisely a bigot. Sorry, can you read, isn't that exactly what I just said? I didn't say shit about not letting the LGBT people live their lives. In fact I've advocated nothing BUT that the entire thread. If someone can advocate being anti LGBT and at the same time remain respectful, then you really have no business calling them a bigot, because that's not a bigot, that is just someone with a differing opinion.

Please don't put words in my mouth. The law in the UK does not forbid the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, or even the dissemination of that opinion, but nor does it protect the people with that opinion from being ridiculed or told, more roundly, to fuck right off. It does, however, explicitly forbid the dissemination of the opinion that LGBT+ people should be harmed. Great, we're on the same page then, since I actually wrote that LGBT people should not be harmed even if you are against them. Thanks for repeating what I already wrote. Talking free speech is all well and good, but in the UK at least, it's freedom within the law. That is to say, one cannot advocate committing a crime. Discussing whether or not something (killing gays, for example) should or should not be legal is fine, but until you've won that argument one way or the other, the law's position is absolute. Same as above. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

Most LGBT+ people would be delighted with a world where people can pursue life in their own way (including being homophobic), but it's not unreasonable for them to want and expect the same legal rights and social acceptance as cishet people Hey holy shit!! We both live in countries where this is already the case! WOW! imagine that - the same privileges that the people that advocate against them have historically enjoyed. People who advocate against the rights or the lifestyle of a group that does no harm to anybody whatsoever fall into one of two camps; the religiously insane; or the interminably selfish. The 'god will smite us all' group, I think most people would agree, basically comprises dumbasses. Not at all. I do not agree. They just have differing world views. This is not a battle of right vs. wrong, it's a battle between multiple right's. The 'I don't like it so nobody can have it' group, meanwhile, is suffering a serious lack of the ability to share. They have the right to be nuts/selfish, but, you know, it doesn't stop them being nuts/selfish, or being judged for being nuts/selfish in a way that is directly opposed to a group that doesn't want anything more than the equality it typically hasn't experienced.

All of this cuts both ways, of course. I'm sure there are plenty of LGBT+ people (or supporters) who are militant and intolerant of people peacefully disagreeing, and they're bigots too. The only thing is, it's almost never the anti-gay bigots that get the shitty end of the stick. loloolollolololololololololo Ain't no anti-gay bigot who's afraid to be with their partner in public. Interracial couples, polygamous 'couples', couples where one or both sides have strict parents, couples with differing religions Ain't no anti-gay bigot whose right to marry/have consensual sex with the person they choose is something that has to be fought for. polygamous people. Many anti-same sex marriage people actually advocated that if people of the same sex are allowed to be married, so should they with their 3 cousins and 4 girlfriends. And they're not wrong. Ain't no anti-gay bigot whose sexuality and how it relates to free speech and the law is called frequently into question. There also isn't any sexuality that is as outspoken about their sexuality as the LGBT community. People that have sex with cars are not really heard. There's not many of them but they exist. I wonder how we'd feel if people like that wanted to get vocal about their rights to marry a car.

Because marriage is a lot more than marriage, you know? It's about taxes, paperwork, benefits, etc. I agree homosexuals should be able to benefit. But where do you personally draw the line?

The screamy bit was meant more towards screamy internet people. Some of them find their way into the real world.

Yes, I've been to gay prides, I've seen in person how fun but absolutely useless they are.

You're right in that most people (at least in the UK) don't care one way or the other - and that's great. However, when people do care, it sucks for LGBT+ people.

Yes. Just like it sucks to be pro-environment and to hear people say they don't care.

Still, I can't help but read a chip on your shoulder when you pull up gay prides three times. Unless they're vastly different in the US I am Dutch.

[...]

Most LGBT+ people would be delighted with a world where people can pursue life in their own way (including being homophobic), but it's not unreasonable for them to want and expect the same legal rights and social acceptance as cishet people

Hey holy shit!! We both live in countries where this is already the case! WOW! imagine that

it does sound like you're in some way offended by LGBT+ people when they're doused in sparkles and boas and ... you know, gay stuff.

Not at all. Why would that offend me? If anything I think it's a nicer fashion statement than some of the modern fashionable clothes we see nowadays. It's just gays having a gay party. What's the difference between a gay party and a party? IMHO they are the same.

LGBT+ have historically had a pretty shitty time of it - let 'em party one day a year.

If you don't like that stuff, do what I do and just stay at home that day. No, I'd rather go out and do stuff I want to do. I'm not going out and beating LGBT people up, in fact, in real life, I don't even say I disagree with the idea of gay pride. So I think that earns me a right to do whatever the hell I want, innit?

I feel like you didn't read anything I posted after my OP, did you?

I'm pretty sure you've actually just defined a bigot. At least in my book, somebody who is intolerant and can't live by a 'live and let live' mentality is precisely a bigot.

Sorry, can you read, isn't that exactly what I just said? I didn't say shit about not letting the LGBT people live their lives. In fact I've advocated nothing BUT that the entire thread. If someone can advocate being anti LGBT and at the same time remain respectful, then you really have no business calling them a bigot, because that's not a bigot, that is just someone with a differing opinion.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

The law in the UK does not forbid the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, or even the dissemination of that opinion, but nor does it protect the people with that opinion from being ridiculed or told, more roundly, to fuck right off. It does, however, explicitly forbid the dissemination of the opinion that LGBT+ people should be harmed. Great, we're on the same page then, since I actually wrote that LGBT people should not be harmed even if you are against them. Thanks for repeating what I already wrote. Talking free speech is all well and good, but in the UK at least, it's freedom within the law. That is to say, one cannot advocate committing a crime. Discussing whether or not something (killing gays, for example) should or should not be legal is fine, but until you've won that argument one way or the other, the law's position is absolute. Same as above. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.

- the same privileges that the people that advocate against them have historically enjoyed. People who advocate against the rights or the lifestyle of a group that does no harm to anybody whatsoever fall into one of two camps; the religiously insane; or the interminably selfish. The 'god will smite us all' group, I think most people would agree, basically comprises dumbasses. Not at all. I do not agree. They just have differing world views. This is not a battle of right vs. wrong, it's a battle between multiple right's.

All of this cuts both ways, of course. I'm sure there are plenty of LGBT+ people (or supporters) who are militant and intolerant of people peacefully disagreeing, and they're bigots too. The only thing is, it's almost never the anti-gay bigots that get the shitty end of the stick. loloolollolololololololololo Ain't no anti-gay bigot who's afraid to be with their partner in public. Interracial couples, polygamous 'couples', couples where one or both sides have strict parents, couples with differing religions Ain't no anti-gay bigot whose right to marry/have consensual sex with the person they choose is something that has to be fought for. polygamous people. Many anti-same sex marriage people actually advocated that if people of the same sex are allowed to be married, so should they with their 3 cousins and 4 girlfriends. And they're not wrong. Ain't no anti-gay bigot whose sexuality and how it relates to free speech and the law is called frequently into question. There also isn't any sexuality that is as outspoken about their sexuality as the LGBT community. People that have sex with cars are not really heard. There's not many of them but they exist. I wonder how we'd feel if people like that wanted to get vocal about their rights to marry a car.

Because marriage is a lot more than marriage, you know? It's about taxes, paperwork, benefits, etc. I agree homosexuals should be able to benefit. But where do you personally draw the line?

Fair. You just pulled up gay prides multiple times, so it does read like you had an axe to grind. I'm not arguing they're politically valuable, but they're still a useful social outlet for a group that doesn't typically get to safely be public.

I don't think it's comparable. Pro-environmental people don't typically (reasonably) have to fear for their safety in a given situation where they're just being themselves. Walking down the street with your pro-environmentalist partner is not the same as walking down the street with your same-gendered partner. One can be made to feel shitty as a pro-environmentalist in the same way that one can be made to feel shitty for being LGBT+, but the stakes are a lot higher for LGBT+ people who want to live the same way that cishet people do. Being physically attacked is a real threat for LGBT+ people and if you're walking down the street as a transgendered person or holding hands with your same-gendered partner, that's much more apparent than walking down the street as somebody who has opinions about the environment. LGBT+ people are walking targets.

Sorry, het leek me alsof je amerikaans was en daarom vond ik het belangrijk, het engels context te beschrijven. Eigelijk hebt je het bijna (maar niet duidelijk) gezegd, dat je Nederlands bent, maar dat heb ik niet echt gezien. But, still, at least in the UK, social acceptability is still at the very least a new thing and, in rural areas (which I know well), not guaranteed. I expect it's the same in the Netherlands for rural areas.

1) You pulled it up multiple times so it sounded like you had an axe to grind (as I said before)
2) Sometimes, LGBT+ people want to party in an LGBT+ way (which they rarely get to publicly do). So that LGBT+ness would be the difference between a party and a gay party.

Nope, genuinely didn't. There was a helluvva lotta text.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You said that X doesn't make one a bigot. I'm saying it kinda actually does. It's not putting words in your mouth, it's just disagreeing with you. I'm not saying you're an anti-gay advocate. I'm saying that somebody who is intolerant (of anything, and not necessarily you) is a bigot.

People who are respectful are tolerant and that has to mean, "I don't like it, but you can do what you want if you're not hurting anybody". Those people are not bigots. People who believe that something that harms nobody* is wrong and that therefore it needs to be banned or curtailed are not tolerant: those people are bigots. They are attempting to enforce their own personal worldview on everybody else - this is not respectful.

*^{unless one follows the 'gay marriage causes floods' policy, which I think we can agree is probably not a thing}

I agree that throwing round the word "bigot" at people that disagree with one isn't useful. But, still, when it's actually bigotry, it is bigotry.

You mentioned in the title of this thread, EU vs US contexts. Here's the British context. ^{I know that's a touchy subject recently :(}
Could be different elsewhere.

Multiple rights? They clearly have a differing world-view, but they're the people advocating that some people do not deserve certain rights to facilitate their harmless lifestyles and that some people do. LGBT+ people are generally more than happy for everybody to have the same rights to live their lives, I think. It's the anti-gay lobby who want to deprive LGBT+ people of the ability to live their lives the same way cishet people get to.

Okay, so I was mostly thinking the white cishet anti-gay advocates, so you do raise some valid points, but I'll address them:

1) Interracial couples have had the shitty end of the stick everywhere in the past and still do in some places nowadays. Still, the places where they have issues are the same places where LGBT+ people also have issues while there are places where inter-race is cool where LGBT+ isn't, though.

2) Polygamous couples: if everybody is happy with an arrangement where there's more than two people, more power to them. I think the law should also allow for it, in the same way it allows for groups of two. But, still, they come in either the strictly religious (whom I broadly discount from sensible discussion) or the very-much minority of secular people who share partners in some way or other (who aren't typically anti-gay advocates).

3) Couples with strict parents/religion: can be shitty for them at the family level but that shit ain't upheld by law (at least in the EU/US), as far as I'm aware, so I consider it irrelevant.

4) Polyamorous people: genuinely don't know how I feel about incestuous breeding (on account of it being shitty for the kids who have a better-than-average chance of coming out differently abled while I don't wanna live in a world that dictates who gets to breed) but I don't have an issue with polygamy or polyamy in and of themselves, and I think people who want to honestly make a commitment to each other in whatever configuration applies to them should have commitment respected, both socially and legally. So, no, I agree: they're not wrong.

5) Perhaps the reason that the LGB community is as outspoken as it is is because it's the widest, most obvious sexuality-based community whose rights are typically challenged. They're the loudest voices in that field nowadays on account of being the most numerous group.

6) People who have sex with cars: live and let live. Until we invent cars that can have an opinion about their own sex lives, then it's really not my place to say. And if they want to get married to the car, then, fuck it, I don't waive my right to find that a bit weird, but I'm happy for them to do that and I'd like to think if I met them and/or their car in a pub, I'd have the good grace to be polite and, at the very least, not talk about the ins and outs of who/what does what to whom/what.

7) I stand by 'almost never'. You've picked up on the exceptions. The majority of people who advocate against gay rights are people that are heterosexual: quite apart from anything else, it's not in the interest of people with even rarer sexualities to advocate against LGB groups.

In reality I don't give a crap who dogs who in the ass as long as it happens behind closed doors.

The point I was making is that shitty things are a simple fact of life. I agree that it's shitty - anyone will agree. But it's a fact of life. Now it's a fact of life we can do something about.

And I'll find you will see that a lot. In busy streets, if a homosexual or transgender gets attacked, you'll probably see people step in when it comes to blows. At least, that's the impression I have here.

Your Dutch is decent.

So yes, even the rural areas here are accepting. There are skits of old, old humor shows that feature 'village-gays'. Exceptions there, I'd advise any homosexual against walking through the Schilderswijk or any other primarily muslim neighborhood.

Still curious what an LGBT way of partying is.

I'd argue you should read it but if I were you I wouldn't either because fuck that shit.

Your definition of tolerance must be different from mine then. I agree that anti-gay advocate are intolerant. This is where the whole 'democracy' thing comes into place. If anti-gay advocates are the majority, in a democracy, they have the legal right to make homosexuality illegal.

That's how it works. That's why I am anti democracy. Therefore within a democracy, the concept of 'tolerance' only stretches as far as the majority wants it to stretch. And in case you disagree with that, let me propose a situation, and I'll tell you whether or not we should be tolerant.

As we know bestiality is illegal. Under your logic of not harming anyone, however, there are theoretically some animals that could engage in sexual acts with humans without harm befalling them and without harm befalling the human. Therefore nobody is harmed. Some would even argue that for some animals in the grey area, it's still not harmful.

It's still rather nasty. Do you think we need to be tolerant for these people? Do you think we'd need to offer them legal assistance to do whatever they want?

I don't.

And I also don't think that makes me a bigot. It makes me a rational human being who has social limits. I'm not saying I have these limits with homosexuals, but I could understand they have these with homosexuals.

Under this logic people can do drugs, drink and then go driving. As long as they're not hurting anyone then it's fine.

And there's a paradox in your argument. Aren't LGBT people trying to force their worldview on everybody else - namely that being LGBT is fine?

Be happy that UK is out. I hope my country leaves next.

Let me put it like this:

If you ask an ISIS warrior if he is in the right he will say yes.

I can not confirm that he is wrong. I don't know what is right and wrong. Right and wrong is the most subjective of all things that are subjective because they are based 100% entirely on what you think is right and wrong.

So no. It's very much a battle of two right's in my eyes. Both sides think they are right. Neither side will convince the other. The LGBT side will win because they are the younger generation.

Not because they have the moral high ground. It has nothing to do with that. It's pure generational conflict.

Why they gotta be white though? Blacks are notoriously anti-homosexual in the USA. Even in the UK they are. So why they gotta be white?

Agreed. They're still a group that doesn't fall under LGBT that has problems.

Yes, and being married to multiple partners also brings certain economical advantages that are important to me personally because, allowing polygamy means disadvantaging those that aren't polygamous.

You'd need to rework all the marriage papers.

Good luck.

Depending on country yes it most certainly can. And even so, what if these kids get thrown out by parents. Don't you think that's a legal issue too?

Point of the story is that you are wrong in a) incestuous couples have a near non-existant risk of diseases in children if they are either 1. far away enough in the bloodline from each other (a distant cousin marrying another distant cousin won't matter much more than any regular child will have risk of a disease) or 2. it's first generation incest. A brother and sister having sex and having a baby have low risk (slightly increased) but in the face of other risks, it's pretty small. It's generational incest (aka the children of that couple having babies, and then those babies having babies) that creates more and more risk.

b) I was writing something here and then I got distracted with shit and now I can't remember so whatever, score a free point here and call me stupid or something

The point I was making is there are much more marginalized groups that don't raise their voices. That's why homophobia is seen as a giant issue today where as in reality, in most of Western Europe, it's a laughable nonexistant issue where if it happens, everyone gets angry at the homophobe.

That's a strange reaction. I'd probably point and laugh.

Well yes. Because, besides heterosexuals, you can really only be asexual or homosexual.

Or anything in between those, such as bisexual. I don't think there's really any other sexualities. Because polygamy is still hetero/bi/homosexual.

Or, indeed, who tups whom in the vagina so long as that happens behind equally-closed doors. If you make a distinction between how closed a door should be between your eyes and a gay couple and a straight couple, then your opinion is definitely biased. I'm not saying yours is, but the 'behind closed doors' is an old phrase that always comes out to describe LGB people as though same-sex partnerships are in some way shameful, sordid, or in any way something to hide. The phrase doesn't exactly reek of acceptance - and never applies to straight people.

Not here. Metropolitan areas, sure. You go to anywhere in England (I'm talking England here, not the UK) that's not London, Manchester, or a major university town, and LGBT+ people don't have the luxury of the kindness of strangers.

Unless prides are vastly different in the Netherlands, I think you're being petulant. Sprinkles, glitter, terrible pop music. Gay as in 'that's so gay' rather than LGBT+.

That is their right. It doesn't prevent them from being awful (either on account of the religiously nutty or the belligerently selfish).

For me, that's an issue of animal rights. With humans, we expect there to be consent given for intercourse to be acceptable. For inanimate objects (say, a dildo), we don't expect that. I can't work out to what degree in the real world I can balance the 'are you upsetting the animal or is the animal into it?' because there's no way to tell, but if a canine could give consent and gave consent, it's no business of mine whether a human gets to do it doggy style.

I maintain my policy of 'live and let live'. If you find somebody with whom you can't live and let live (when you know nobody is being harmed), then you're probably intolerant of them. And that's most likely bigotry.

You're taking me too literally: drinking and driving is dangerous. It just basically is, and not just for the perp but also for anybody else on the road. An LGB person having consensual sex with another LGB person or committing to a life with them via marriage harms nobody, because it's all consensual. Sober drivers are abiding by the contract all drivers should be abiding by (the law) when they drive sober, and they deserve to be protected from people who are breaking that contract (drunk drivers). That is to say, they have not given their consent to engage in drunken vehicular intercourse with drunken drivers. There's your difference.

Nope. They're trying to exist in a way that is ideally equal to cishet people but at the very least doesn't put them in danger every day of their lives. They are entitled to live (and let live. My arguments have a theme.)

At a philosophical level, you're right, since nothing beyond maths can be proven.
That said, in real life, who're you gonna pick? The people who won't tolerate others or the people who just want to be recognised and allowed to live in their own way and otherwise to be left the fuck alone and ask for just one day a year to party publicly? Or, the ISIS fighter who won't tolerate any version of life other than their own understanding, or the person who just wants to live and let live?

Because in the UK, the US, and the Netherlands, it's broadly white people who have actual agency. The house of commons, congress and the tweede kamer are primarily made of white faces. White faces in all three of these countries primarily make up the politically-engaged cohort. I'm not saying that BME communities don't have their own opinions (and I'm certainly not saying that BME communities have great records on LGBT+ issues), but it's white people in the three countries that have power at a legal level. At a social level, it depends very much on your local environment at least in the UK. Being gay in London isn't something anybody's gonna give a shit about. Being gay in a Welsh village... would not recommend to a friend.

Not legally, in most places (unless the US is more backwards than I thought).

I don't really believe that beyond next of kinship, marriage should provide any benefits to the people involved. It's a statement of emotional and/or financial commitment to another person, not to the taxman (or, it should be).

I can't think of a Western country that forbids, say, a Christian marrying/getting with a Muslim. At a social level for some communities, it may well be an issue that could well cause something like, as you say, kids being kicked out. But the law can't account for parents being intolerant (it can't force them to be tolerant: that battle is won socially and not legally) and I can't help but wonder if the kids wouldn't be better off being independent of people that have disowned them - the law forcing the parents to hold onto kids they hate isn't helping anybody. In the UK, I'm very critical of the state-care of kids, but that's an argument for another day.

My overall point is I don't care who has sex with whom, but thinking of the consequences on kids that might be born is reasonable. I don't know the science and I don't know where I'd draw the line anyway (so I won't bother looking into it), but, ultimately, at the relationship-level, it's none of my business.

It might seem that way in the Netherlands, where you've enjoyed equal marriage for ages. In most other European countries, it's only recently been passed or been on the agenda at all. Once England got access to equal marriage, I noticed the LGB community basically stop protesting, because there was little to protest about (at the legal level) - LGB people had stopped being second-class citizens who had fewer rights than straight people. It's not laughable to be a second-class citizen, which is what the legal lack of provision for the equivalent rights that straight people enjoyed rendered LGB people.

That's not to say there aren't other marginalised groups or that those groups aren't worth listening to, but at the same time, their issues don't disqualify the importance of LGB issues for LGB people.

There remain social issues (the whole literal safety of walking around with one's partner), which I sincerely hope will be lessened by the current generation's sexual open-mindedness, but I also think that the law lends a legitimacy to LGB partnerships by putting them on the same footing as straight partnerships, which, at the very least, will give LGB people more confidence that they're accepted socially - and they need some of that.

It sounds like you think LGB issues aren't really a thing in the Netherlands - but you're ahead on LGB issues anyway. So, you might have now found the solution that is publicly accepting LGB people and are perhaps missing the divides that the lack of social and legal acceptance in other countries can cause.

That would be rude.

Your argument is that somebody's different worldview is legitimate, even if you disagree with them. Pointing and laughing is somewhat incongruous.

Well, you get a variety of people that you've mentioned (amongst others) that the law needs to take into account. LGB people are simply the largest single grouping, as opposed to, say paedophiles, zoophiles, people who're attracted to objects, etcetera. Each of these categories has a smaller cohort than the LGB community, and so the LGB voice is louder. It helps, of course, that LGB people can exist within a framework of adult consent, while the consent of a child, animal or object is much murkier territory.

So, yes, you're right when you say that the LGB community is the most outspoken voice among sexualities - but I'm not really sure who else you're expecting to hear from.

I mean, I think this is exactly the reason why gay prides are so bloody useless. If it was like a regular old festival, I think it'd do a lot more to show that gay people are just like us straight people, except they like a different sex (namely, the same as theirs). Now it's enforcing that they are different somehow and that enforces the 'different than us = bad' thing that you see in our tribal nature.

Tolerance doesn't mix well with democracy. Like I said, tolerance only has to extend as far as the majority within a country wishes it to extend. There's really .. not much more to it except your personal idea of tolerance.

Let me argue in the name of a religious nut (whether he be Christian, Jewish or Muslim) and say that homosexual sex is in fact dangerous. It does harm people because it means they can't go to paradise/heaven. It does harm people because it is inviting the devil into our society.

... which is forcing their worldview upon others that do not share this worldview. It's really not that hard, dude. The worldview that everyone should have an equal chance at living their life in the same way as others is a worldview in and of it's own. Even though I agree with this worldview I also acknowledge that it's still just a worldview and not everyone has to agree. The majority believes in this worldview and therefore you'll find that this is the worldview that everyone more or less agrees with.

Because if you disagree, you'll be branded negatively in a social regards

I make it a point to not judge other cultures, ideas or people. Reason being that yes, I can actually see why Wehrmacht soldiers fought for Hitler, and I respect them for fighting for what they thought was right. Yes, I can actually see why Hitler did what he did - I do not agree with it, but I can see why he did it and to a degree I think he deserves some objective respect for building an empire the way he did.

Note that that in no way means I agree we should kill the jews. It just means I can see his ideology, I can understand it, I can still disagree but respect that he fought for it.

And yes, in that regard, I also respect ISIS fighters who fight for their ideology. Because that's what you do.

So no, I don't pick between either of them. They are both right - or at least both think they are right, and therefore, both have a right to defend their claim.

Although the white people have the most agency, they are also the biggest group that is trying to help LGBT people because they have the agency. I believe this comes more from a PR perspective and they really don't care about LGBT people, but they're still helping.

blaming white people for all the shit

Gay community there is big as fuck.

Like we discussed before, in most western countries, LGBT people too enjoy the freedom that straight people do. Legally. Most of the time it falls under the umbrella 'no discrimination' laws.

What you believe [re marriage]doesn't matter in this case.

Well actually until you're 21, a parent is supposed to take care of their children no matter how intolerant they are.

Doesn't help that shelters for children like this are often lackluster and shitty.

But that's exactly my point. There's little to complain about nowadays in most countries. The EU actually enforces that member states offer some degree of equality between people legally.

Which is again my problem with gayprides. It's stopped being about acceptance and instead is a commercialized practice funded by the government.

Agreed, I was just raising the point that there's many smaller groups that do not get benefits simply because they're smaller.

It's all generational, man. In 20 years we'll probably have reached the point where nobody cares anymore bar the religiously devoted.

Oh no. I mean the USA has a long way to go socially, but what I have been saying is that in most western countries, LGB people are on equal footing already. And the transgenders are coming closer too.

Actually, we had a political party here called Party Martijn. They were a group that voted for the acceptance of pedophiles - medically/psychologically. They didn't want pedophilia to be legalized but rather wanted there to be more professional help for people that had pedophilic ideas in their head and wanted these ideas gone.

[...]

I was never against this party, in fact I kind of supported the idea of it even if I'd never vote for them (one-issue parties are a no-go for me). People, even pedophiles, have a right to democracy in our society, and if they had wanted to legalize pedophilia, I would've accepted that if they were the majority. That's how democracy works.

So, I disagree in the sense that there's other sexualities that want to be heard but that others, including LGBT people, do not want to hear.

I also want to note that while heterosexuals DO have problems, do they have to worry about holding hands in public? Just a thought I had.

@Neurovoid depending on ethnicity, cultural background and their age, yes, they may have that problem.