Of course Obama's an extremist, don't you remember when he enacted Sharia Law and took away all your guns? Or the incarceration and subjugation of all white heterosexual males? Or outlawed Christianity, Christmas and the US flag?

I think it gets back to the "ick" factor, @MilkmanDan. I think. See if this makes sense to you:

At the lizard brain level, if you are strongly heterosexual, same sex activity is repulsive to you -- triply so if you are a man watching male activity. It is instinctive, the revulsion, because it comes from the core of your non-verbal brain.

Even if you are completely in favor of anti-discrimination, you can still understand that instinctive revulsion and can sympathize.

The thing is -- that strong revulsion is in part due to not being exposed to the thing that repulses you. See it enough, have friends and family who are LGBT, that instinctive response gets muted.

And bottom line -- yeah. Private businesses who are open to the public cannot discriminate based on who you are.

Sidebar -- when I was in my early 20's, I lived in Los Angeles. It was at the beginning of acceptance of gay culture, which included what I can only label as "slumming." It was fashionable for heterosexuals to go to known gay clubs. This was deeply annoying to the gay folks, of course, because they were out to have a nice time on a Saturday night, not be essentially creatures in a zoo for entertainment value.

The clubs had a really clever way of dealing with it. The standard policy was -- no open-toed shoes. If you were truly friends and not gawkers, you would know to wear the right shoes. If you were a tourist -- well, most women out for the evening wore open toed shoes.

I was young and stupid and was one of those tourists. My friends and I were turned away. Everyone else was miffed. I was immediately impressed with the whole concept. Yeah. I SHOULD be turned away, and weren't they brilliant at finding a way to do it.

I can still see the sneer on the face of the bouncer. He did NOT like us. That was 40 years ago and I still admire him and that business for protecting themselves from us gawkers.

What seems mostly overlooked in this is, the molester has, for years, made his living by insisting that gay people are molesters and should be shunned and not have the rights heterosexual people do.
How can we still be fooled by these people? When a person demonizes another group and tries to deny them rights due to a behavior, invariably that person is 'guilty' of the offence they complain about.

Secondly, isn't having more than two children really a crime against the planet? In my eyes, too many people is the root reason for every problem the planet faces today, making 19+ more is criminally selfish and should be punished severly. I think the Chinese had it right with one family one child, and we have it 100% backwards by giving tax breaks for having more children.

If you don't want people (male or female) looking at your boobs, why wear a tight dress that barely contains your breasts and has a plunging neckline? Men are both biologically engineered and culturally trained to look, especially if you're going to do the fashion equivalent of putting a fucking spotlight on them.

And no, I don't believe women need to "cover up" or wear burkas or some such strawman that'll I'll likely get as a reply to this comment. Women can go around naked for all I care, but they shouldn't expect heterosexual men to pretend like they're fully clothed.

EDIT: OMG, Andy's response is perfect! He gets a big bouquet of flowers and puts it on Conan's desk right in between Conan and Nicole and says "Hey Nicole! Ignore the flowers!" LMAO.

@ant Here's the full interview if you're interested in including Andy's comeback:

Let's extend it past white people. Almost* everyone in the world has got where they by an accident of birth.

I have a good job and I earn a decent living. I worked hard to get where I am and I continue to work hard to provide value to my boss so he pays me well. But I didn't get here entirely on my own.

First, I was lucky enough to be born in a first world country. Second, I have a reasonable aptitude for math and science and logic/programming comes easily to me.
Third, my parents both had good jobs (partially a product of their own births) and they cared about my education and gave me the opportunities to study.

And yeah, I'm white, English speaking, heterosexual and even more fortunately, male .

All of which gave me a frankly insurmountable head start over someone born in a 3rd world country whose family are scrapping by. Even if I had the same skills and work ethic, it's highly likely that I wouldn't have been able to have the quality of life I have now.

So yeah, I didn't own any slaves and neither did my ancestors. Hell, my country was oppressed for centuries. But that doesn't mean I still didn't come into this world with a massive privilege and it would be the height of hubris not to acknowledge that.

* obviously there are people who have pulled themselves out of extreme adverstiy despite everything against them. I'm not talking about those people.

How so? If anything, it means gay people can normalize into family units, rather than choosing paths of rebellion against their families.

I've never understood your path of logic. The only thing I can imagine you mean is... well, sort of what this video is poking fun at. Gay marriage does not convince heterosexual people to be gay, nor does it convince them to somehow give up on the concept of the family unit.

Have you even really thought this out beyond some abstract belief that somehow *gasp* through the process of natural selection, we slowly EVOLVE into homosexuals... Is that what you're trying to say? That the hardwired heterosexual drive in some humans will fade out, sort like how eventually all white people will be gone because of all the Mexican and Chinese immigrants in America?

Who knew that the our final step in evolution is the break down of the family unit via gay marriage. I guess that means no more babies. Is this the end of the world God predicted for us? Gay marriage apocalypse!!

She seems like an actress engaged in some sort of self-promotion who would be well-served to check her white/cis/thin/heterosexual privilege and realize that People of Color can't harass her because harassment = talking + privilege, and they don't have privilege. Where are all the white guys in $1,000 suits?


And to call most of these pleasantries "harassment" seems to diminish real harassment.

And furthermore, I don't get it: How does someone donate money to end "street harassment?" What exactly does this charity do? Run around and put muzzles on street gawkers? Write citations to anyone who whistles? How do they plan to legislate against people saying "good morning" or "you're hot" to someone on the street?

Says who? What authority do you have to define what is and what is not gay? Your essentially saying that gays can only be gay in respect to whom they are attracted to. Anything else which deviates from mainstream heterosexual norms is "immature" and the mark of an "asshole". In other words you're only willing to tolerate difference so long as it's in a way that's acceptable to you. Who is the asshole again?

Again, the flamboyant character is caricature and much of his behavior is not work approrpriate. But it's entirely possible for a gay man to be effeminate and still be professional. According to you and this video however, once a gay man crosses the line into effeminancy, and starts to be different in a way that's harder to understand, then he deserves what's coming. I have a problem with that.

You've just countered your own point. The "majority" of Americans (and indeed humans in general) are and have frequently wrong on just about every issue in history.

• A few hundred years ago, the majority were for slavery.


• 120 years ago, the majority believed that only white men should be able to vote.


• It's only in the last 5-10 years that the majority decided that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals (and it's only barely a majority now).

Meanwhile, as you said, the majority seem to be fine with the slow erosion of every other freedom enshrined in your constitution.

Frankly, the majority are idiots.

Each of the issues outlined above were opposed by the majority, but a few progressive intellectuals slowly changed things.

The same will happen for guns.

If it doesn't, it will be due to the triumph of lobbyists over citizenry.

Thanks for changing the title. Much better.

Except I don't think she is a "fake feminist." What about her is fake?

I don't agree with her statement at "all men harass women." My best buddy, a heterosexual man, is such a non-harasser and so gentle he earned the title "Honorary Woman" years ago. It is just logically wrong, and makes her sound silly.

But she surely isn't a fake feminist. A silly person, but not a fake feminist.

@lantern53

jesus hung out with the prostitutes,the beggars,the sick and the broken.

basically the freaks.

you would not find him in your station house,nor having cocktails in the posh businessmans house but rather you would find him in the crack houses,the whore house and maybe sleeping on a park bench with the homeless.

you know...the people you arrest on a daily basis.

there is actually a reason why many gay folk are flambouyant,gregarious and do not fit into a societal norm that you may find comfortable.

the process in coming to terms with ones sexuality can be arduous and takes immense courage.it is an experience a heterosexual human never encounters...ever.

so while you may find their decisions and behavior abnormal,and it may even make you uncomfortable if too much in your face.you should respect the fact that they lives their lives with a freedom you could never match.

societal norms have you firmly shackled to the wall.
they are free.
and you ridicule something you have little understanding of,but at its heart...you envy.
and what you envy.....you ridicule.

these folks are not moved nor influenced by your (or others) opinion of how they live.
can you say the same?

Don't misconstrue (or misunderstand) my words.

I said it's ignorant to just blindly state everyone who circumcises is barbaric and misinformed and that otherwise everyone is only possibly motivated by religious or aesthetic reasons.

The bottom line is we were not sure about doing it one way or the other, but we decided to give our boys what we know is the best chance against contracting HIV (heterosexually) among other things.

Finns probably have a lot less disease to worry about spreading around.

Yes, like everything in life, there may be valid reasons that could convince anyone to do it or to not do it. In my case, we made an informed decision that the foreskin isn't necessary and the only real consequences of it removed would be beneficial. Others don't feel that way, and that's fine. I'm not going to shove my opinion down everyone else's throat or call them names for disagreeing.

It would be nice to be afforded the same courtesy.

Its always funny when someone is trying to insult someone with "fag" when the whole reason for the anger is a heterosexual act.