Lesbian aliens?


NO WONDER they're all going to Hell.

@Hanover_Phist

@ChaosEngine

There are several cases currently being discussed in the US regarding Christians not wanting to support a gay marriage either through attending/participating (photographer) or by providing goods thereby giving the impression that they celebrate gay marriage (wedding cakes, etc.). The case with which I am most familiar is the Oregon couple who decided not to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Here is my understanding: The bakers were already serving gays and lesbians in the course of their day-to-day business. In fact, the couple whom they refused to provide with a wedding cake were already walk-in customers of the bakery. So, this isn't 'you're gay, you can't come in here.' This isn't a case of bigotry. They aren't saying, "I'm not going to serve you because of who you are." They are saying, "I can't do that wedding because of who I am." Bigotry says, "you can't come in here because you're black, gay, asian, white, straight, muslim, whatever." The bakers said, 'you are welcome here. We can serve you. You are also welcome to get married, however, we are not able to go there with you.'

In Canada, a woman went to a Muslim barbershop which only serves men. She demanded a haircut. Devout Muslim men are not allowed to touch a woman who is not a member of their own family. They denied her a haircut based not on who she was, but on who they were. They offered to find her a barber who would cut her hair. Not good enough. She pressed the issue. It became a case of what is now called 'conflicting rights.'

This is what has begun and will increase - cases of conflicting rights. People on both sides have rights. But the law is so blunt that all it has been able to accomplish at this point is to protect one side of those rights. I think that sooner or later our Supreme Court is going to have to take up this issue although, to date, they have been reticent to do so.

I would rather err on the side of love than the side of law any day. Love knows how to protect everyone.

@bareboards2 such withering scorn!

Why are you making a big deal of the fact a male sent you that cartoon? Did you expect that I would respond with something like "oh a MAN sent it? Well, if it wasn't some awful feminazi type, then it must be right!"?? I would have thought that our interactions on this site would be enough for you to realise I don't think that way. The originating gender is irrelevant.

As it happens, I fully agree with the video.

What I dislike is the idea that any group of humans does not have a place in a discussion around interactions between other humans. If this was a discussion about an all-male field (let's say a male pro sports team), are womens opinions not relevant? Sure, you should have some basic knowledge of any subject before you espouse an opinion on it, but I think gender relations is a topic that pretty much everyone has at least some experience of.

The solution to past exclusionary, discriminative or even downright abusive practices is not more exclusionary practices. When Joss Whedon said "feminists are just people who think women are people too" , is that not a useful contribution?

I agree that it's not about making men the subject, but surely a white hetero man's opinion on gender, race and sexuality is no less valid than a black lesbians?

Not sure how that's relevant here. This video addresses the harassment of women BY MEN.

Saying that men are not relevant to the conversation is like trying to discuss crime without considering why the reasons behind it.

Some of the reasons are just that some criminals are arseholes, but sometimes there are cultural or societal reasons. This isn't trying to justify the behaviours, but trying to understand them so we can stop them.

Anyway that comic is just awful. We have a group of presumably women discussing various gender related issues including Trans, women of colour, lesbians, etc. sorry, but what gives these women the right to discuss issues relating to groups they are not part of (they can't all be trans coloured lesbians), but to exclude men. Are we not just another demographic? And yeah, I completely understand the white male hetero privilege thing, but that doesn't mean we don't have a view on a given issue. Unless you subscribe to the Suey Park philosophy?

I've always been ambivalent with those kind of people. Their actions and reactions either cause derisive humour or outright hostility. I kinda get the creeps if I ever have to talk to them, due to their unnatural and disturbing ways of thinking and acting. Most of the time, I kinda just want them to shut up and maybe just live their lives silently. They probably wouldn't have any troubles if they didn't broadcast their way of life to any who will listen.

I'm ok with gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transgenders though. They don't bother me.

Yeah, couldn't stand it. Poorly produced, inadequately rendered and 6 'gay' women who don't care to give their names in the production credits (paranoia?).

Guess I could go check out their gay women channel and see if they have any actual talent for making videos, like many lesbians (and people in general), there's an inordinate amount of gay folks that are hard to stand to be around for too long, and it has nothing to do with their sexuality or any phobias. More to do with their character and strength of will. A mixed-bag of personality disorders tend to remind me how fucked-up the world is becoming and I'm not a mental health professional. My empathy and sympathy stores go part and parcel with the energy allotment for my own well-being and sanity.

Get me started on pretentious children's names ....Lets share, shall we??

From bad to worse with three ratings, 1 being wannabe beat generation, 3 being, the only cure for you is checking-into a bar fight for some inexpensive therapy and the only hope for your kids being foster homes with white supremacist lesbians.

It's a contest people, submit entries below

1 g Sky, b Helms
2...

I have read the books and I can honestly say that her complaints are complete rubbish. If she is pissed about this, then she better stop reading or else she's in for some huge disappointment when everything she reads doesn't have a useful Asian person in it. I'm German, but I don't get pissed off when my people are represented as mass murdering, goose stepping, lab coat wearing, mad scientist types that are only out so as to sew someone's ass to another person's mouth. Could be worse though... l could be Russian. Bunch of vodka swilling, fun house of death loving, lesbian beating Cossacks over there.

You're right - it's a British institution if we're to take the books as they come. But let's look at it from a J K Rowling point of view - from a brief scan of wikipedia, she went to an average british school with presumably average british children probably around 30 years ago - vastly different from the stats quoted above in 2011. There weren't many africans, pakistanis, etc. nor were there many gay, bi, transgendered people when i went to school about 20 years ago (1 black girl and everyone was "straight"). What she wrote came from imagination based on her own experiences and why on earth would people chastise her for the sheer happen-stance of her life experiences? She didn't write a book to exclude people, she wrote a book that just happened to not include every type of person in a fantasy world where there existed entirely different sorts of people. Are we to expect another video from professional-offence-takers about how JRR Tolkein - another FANTASY writer - didn't represent the diversity of humanity in any of his books?

And that's selling her short; there are elements of the books that make allusions to homophobia, racism, etc. - "Mudblood," is a xenophobic term used by characters in the book and it's not accepted by any of the extended main characters, and people really should think long and hard before placing their own expectations and values on other people and judging them for it.

Whether you like the books or not, they are popular and i think their popularity stems from the belief she has in her characters and story. Sure, she could have replaced Ron with an albino lesbian transgendered midget who would have lived happily ever after with Hermione, but would the books have been as good with a character that didn't come from Rowling's heart, someone that Rowling felt like she understood? What if she wrote a gay part for someone and got it wrong, is she then liable to take an ear bashing from the gay community for misrepresenting gay people? Where do you draw the line? Do we - at the expense of the story - put one gay person in and then suddenly we're taking abuse for including a "token" gay person?

It should not be the responsibility of anyone to compromise their art to appease someone else's sense of right or wrong, especially when it seems that their right or wrong is balanced on "is there someone like me in there?" In my opinion, if you come away from a story like Harry Potter with the burning question "Where were all the gay/whatever people?" then it's probably you that has the problem with diversity.

I say this - homophobia and racism are dead when no one even considers the issue any more. Now you can't do that in the workplace and stuff, because there are genuinely racist people out there who we try and keep in check. But this is the absolute worst place to direct your anger - no one was hired or fired based on their creed, no one did anything wrong here, all this woman has done is draw attention to what i consider to be her own contradiction. We want to encourage the idea that "Everyone is equal; there is no black or white, straight or gay, everyone is simply the same - we're just people!" And quickly follow that up with "Hey, where are all the GAY people in this fictional story?"

And finally, how the fuck does she know that every character in the book was straight? Isn't it a bit strange (i want to say homophobic) for her to expect gay people to act differently to the degree that she can spot them in a crowd? 95% of the people in Huffelpuff could be single and gay for all anyone knows. The main 3 characters are straight, all of their parents had to be straight for them to be their parents, but all the rest of them we never need to know about their sexuality, so why should they stand out, why should we even discuss it in a kids book anyway? There's only about 4 relationships in 7 books and some of them happen to the same characters.

These are just some of the problems i have with this nonsense and i've written an entire page.

Wow...calling Dr. Freud. You just keep digging yourself into a deeper hole.

first you're obsessed with your lesbian friend, now you're fantasizing about being raped in prison. I can't believe you went there. I mean the whole being raped is one thing...but is going to prison a real possibility for you to think about yourself in that scenario???

nevermind the whole hyper-inflated ego that seems to make insecure people such as yourself think that gay people just won't be able to resist themselves and rape you the first chance they get.

You just seem to be thinking about the activities of homosexuals...

...a lot.

I think you've got some serious soul searching to do.

I knew a guy like you. constantly defensive. most often heard words out of his mouth were gay jokes, Constantly bringing up what the gay people at work were doing even though no one cared. constantly accusing them of being attention whores..yet he was the one who made the biggest fuss about it...He was constantly talking about this other guy who had quit years ago as someone found out that he had a sex change. No one cared. Or if they did, they kept it to themselves for the most part. Except for this guy...

All I can say is that you have to be honest with yourself dude.

For someone who doesn't care, you're having a real hard time walking away.

Homophobia exists in one species.

Ok, so does classical music.

Why do people dislike homosexuals?

Let's have an honest conversation about homosexuality.

One: it's a repellent thought for most men to think of one man fucking another man or sucking his dick.

Two: Priests

Three: homosexual child predators (I know there are hetero predators too...they are also disliked)

Four: Images of gay men parading down the street with red codpieces, dog collars, etc

Five: gay men flinging semen out of 2nd story windows (you can google for the pics if you have the stomach for it)

Six: gay men act strange, limp wristed etc

Now, I'm not even going to cover gay women. I don't think most men care much about gay women except the butch ones. The lipstick lesbians are a big part of straight porn, so...

Also I realize that there are many gay men who are responsible and don't engage in obnoxious gay behavior, and I know there are hetero men who engage in obnoxious behavior.

But the bottom line is, to most straight men, gay behavior is offensive. Keep it in your bedroom and to yourself.

You're kidding, right? Gays should "respect" that religions think they're perverts? Or that they are responsible for everything from pedophilia to earthquakes and hurricanes? I'm not even being funny, those are all things the religious right have accused gay people of. Even on this site, we frequently see opponents of gay marriage trot out the tired "if gay marriage, then incest and bestiality" argument as if they were equivalent.

So let me be absolutely unambiguous: FUCK.... THAT.....SHIT.

People absolutely have the right to say they don't want to serve gay people, or blacks, or irish or jews or whoever, and then everyone else has the right to boycott their business and call them out as bigoted assholes on the wrong side of history.

But unless they're in Kansas, they have no right to actually refuse service.

well we know why the media cares...because their motivations are based on ratings. All they care about is controversy. They probably don't give a shit that Ellen is gay or not, but they know that a lot of people do care (looking at you lantern) Acceptance of homosexuality is over 50 percent, but it's far from universal.

I agree, my very first reaction to hearing about this was "don't care" But there is a significant difference between our "don't care" and lantern's "don't care" one is a supportive indifference, the other is obviously derogatory.

basically, Lantern is lying...he does care. He obviously cares about the lesbian posts on his facebook that he can't be bothered to hide if it upsets him so. He cares so much as to repeatedly register his not caring on the sift.

I think you and I yogi, look forward to a day when this isn't news because it isn't controversial.

By his own admission, he doesn't view gays as legitimate...but if he didn't care...

...he wouldn't care.