@Dynamo Frokane except this is a serious thread where as yours is a thread full of edgy people doing their best to throw shade what 'subtle' unpopular opinions. That includes me.
Cheers mate.
<Snipped quote by Neurovoid>
<Snipped quote by Buddha>
I think the point that the Neurovoid was making that people dont have to worry about holding hands ont the basis of being heterosexual I'm sure a hetero jewish couple in an anti-semitic area might get shit for holding hands, but that would be because of their faith not because they are straight.
Hetero people just dont get shit for being straight in most of the world in the modern world and in history.
<Snipped quote by Buddha>
Surely you realise that you AND a few others in this thread, have also posted in unpopular opinions. Glad to see we are all part of the same edgy pirate ship.
<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>
Please read. Including me I wrote.
<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>
And the point I was making was that being homosexual is just one of the problems a couple can face, not the problem a couple can face. It's a variable within a relationship and the outsider response to that relationship, not the single defining factor, and therefore, there are many different ways for a couple to be endangered in public.
One such reason could be as simple as looking at someone in public.
Violence doesn't need a reason, a lot of the times. You are correct in saying that heterosexuals don't get shit for being heterosexual in the world. There's not a single country that gives people shit for that.
Because that'd be - quite literally - the stupidest thing to ever exist. The reason being that if you are anti-heterosexuals you are anti-human nature, because fact of the matter is heterosexual couples make babies and therefore every society looks at heterosexuals favorably.
A society that is anti-heterosexual can't exist because that society would die out within one generation.
The entire point I'm making is that the legal rights of LGBT people have been established, therefore there is not much more the LGBT crowd can protest for. Bar maybe the bathroom rights (which I find a ridiculous thing to feel the need to argue for to begin with). Socially yeah, there's a lot we can still establish and improve on.
Such as homosexuals not being targeted in public.
Sadly you can never eradicate homosexuals being targeted - not because of religion, not because of hatred, not for any reason, because even if you remove those factors, senseless violence for no reason other than the desire to be violent still exists, and it is not unlikely in my eyes that this is a large cause for the violence against homosexual couples.
Protests won't help you with that.
The overall impression, though, is that infertility has often been a frightening and societally damaging experience — and that women usually suffered for it.
In a pre-IVF, pre-feminist world, where motherhood and the ability to carry sons often proved a woman's worth, childlessness was challenging and dangerous — for everybody involved. So nowadays, if you're struggling to get pregnant, give a thought to the women in the past who've shared your fight. You're all part of the same surreal, difficult club.
Ancient Indian childless women appeared not to have a good life either. One of the earliest Vedic texts reads: "O woe is the woman who does not carry out the provided role of a mother [birth of sons]. O woe the unmarried, woe the childless, woe the mother of daughters, the widow." Women who couldn't get pregnant were viewed as "possessed by Nirrti," a particularly ferocious goddess, and could be cast away out of the family unit.
@Dynamo Frokane Historically infertile women were given a lot of shit actually, and so were men that were considered infertile (because it wasn't possible to prove it back then). So you are wrong in that department. It has nothing to do with 'considering it normal' because infertility for straight couples historically resulted in shit too. In fact for a woman it was considered dangerous too. Because women didn't work = women didn't earn income = women relied on husbands to earn = husbands wanted a child to further their family line. No child = no food on the table = death.The overall impression, though, is that infertility has often been a frightening and societally damaging experience — and that women usually suffered for it.
In a pre-IVF, pre-feminist world, where motherhood and the ability to carry sons often proved a woman's worth, childlessness was challenging and dangerous — for everybody involved. So nowadays, if you're struggling to get pregnant, give a thought to the women in the past who've shared your fight. You're all part of the same surreal, difficult club.
<Snipped quote>
Read a history book my man.
Generationally (that word comes up a lot when discussing social issues) we have gotten past that just like we will get past homophobia. But applying pressure like the LGBT community does now by forcing people to get over it is counteractive and makes it take longer to get over it. It makes people feel forced to do something and if anything, people don't like to be forced to do things.
I am unsure how protesting social acceptance would do any good. 'WE DEMAND YOU ACCEPT US' that's great, but.. who is going to listen to that? Do you expect to sway the hillbilly Christian who totes guns at homosexuals that steps too close to his property? How? He's not gonna have an epiphany, come on.
Race relations also don't improve with government bills but they're a start. Equal opportunity does not equal equal outcome. But it can lead to equal outcome. For example, lets say blacks were now getting educated (which they are more and more) meaning they're legally and socially on more equal footing with other races (let's say whites, because that's the prime target group I guess).
Not only that but it brings them into areas that were previously predominantly white, and perhaps Asian and Euro-Hispanic. That makes them mix with white people and other races, and it begins the fostering of the understanding of different cultures and the feeling that perhaps they are not so different after all. The in-group is no longer defined by skin color alone, but also by just sharing the same space, talking, etc.
Now imagine the same for homosexuals. They have the same rights and equal access to the same agencies and possibilities. Instead of mingling with the majority and fostering the growth of the in-group relations, they choose to out themselves at gay prides to show 'look how different we are!' Do you think that straight people will go 'well damn, they're kinda like us after all!!!' Fuck no.
Most people will no care, and those hard-liners that were already against homosexuals will see the.. half naked men.. and go 'GOD DAMN WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG' and continue toting guns. Like I said before, acceptance is already at a very high level in city areas, and as mentioned by Jigg, the areas that do not have a lot of acceptance are full of hard-liners that are not going to chance their mind with gay prides.
To summarise, black people are fine, not hurting anyone, if anyone doesnt like them they can cross the street and avoid it.
<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>
I'm not going to add much to this conversation, but I know Buddha so I'm going to lend you a hand here and point out how terrible your conclusion has come out to be. Might wanna rethink it.
I just enjoy reading conflicting opinions, before you ask.
<Snipped quote by j8cob>
lol you funny, i never said black people
<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>
The point was that your conclusion was flawed in its premise because I could easily change the subject matter to something else and your statement would be pretty racist or sexist or whatever else I felt like changing it to. It was to easily demonstrate to you your mistake without requiring me to sit here and lay it out word by word in a long-winded explanation.
