Support NeoGAF

[proposition]

So would you say serial rapist and serial killers are not killers or rapist by choice?

So you're saying gay people are equivalent to serial rapists and serial killers.

Smooth.

I repeat: the only way that you could know that being gay is a choice is if you had, yourself, chosen to be gay.

Being a gay man, I can in fact tell you that being gay was not something that I chose, and that I spent most of my teenage life in fact wishing (I even tried praying, and I do not believe in God) was just a phase that would pass.

 

[StuBurns]

So would you say serial rapist and serial killers are not killers or rapist by choice?

Wanting to kill someone, and killing them is totally different. You are gay if you have sex with someone of the sex or not. You are not a killer if you don't kill people.

 

[Shambles]

I think what we're all missing is the fact that trying to tell us we have more video games than friends doesn't hurt our feelings at all, we don't care, and it makes us more apathetic to their cause. I can probably count the number of people I go out with on a weekly basis on my two hands and that takes up enough of my spare time. God knows I hate all those posers on facebook who think that by racking up people who click on your name equates to friends who will be there when you need them.

What a failAD.

Edit: And what's with the emo picture hella zoomed in?

 

[me Jojo]

So would you say serial rapist and serial killers are not killers or rapist by choice?

What kind of comparison is that? :| Regardless, in most cases said murderers and rapists were born with an unstable mind, or were heavily abused during their childhood by their parents.

 

[Phoenix Fang]

So you're saying gay people are equivalent to serial rapists and serial killers.

Smooth.

I repeat: the only way that you could know that being gay is a choice is if you had, yourself, chosen to be gay.

Being a gay man, I can in fact tell you that being gay was not something that I chose, and that I spent most of my teenage life in fact wishing (I even tried praying, and I do not believe in God) was just a phase that would pass.

I dont think I ever said they were equivalent. My point is people are throwing scientific studies around when there are scientific studies that shows that killers and rapist don't choose to kill people which I find to be bullshit.

 

[Rocket Punch]

I was born a man, why would I want to sleep with another man?

Out of curiosity, why do you think someone who is born a man would want to sleep with another man?

 

[kai3345]

This just shows me how arrogant you are. I don't have a choice. I fancy men and not woman and theres not a damn thing I can do about it. If god didn't want this to happen they why does he make people have these feelings?

I find it hard to believe that someone is born gay. Like with an actual "gay gene".

But perhaps some incident in one's childhood or something that set off like a psychological trigger that made them attracted to the same sex or something.

I don't know, I'm no expert. And quite frankly I could care less what makes gays gay, all I know is that they're very much a part of society today and I treat them just as i would treat anyone else.

 

[udivision]

I think he's going for the "If your born with the desire, dose it make it justifiable no matter what it is?" angle. I guess the rebuttal is that some natural desires end up hurting other people, and other desires don't.

 

[SovanJedi]

I agree with that Penny-Arcade strip 1000% - it's a noble cause, but trying to enforce a sense of justice and equality on a group of people who act anonymously is going to take a lot more than an advert, if it is at all possible.

 

[freddy]

Eh? Whatever happened to the old "sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me"?

Do people really give a fuck what some random stranger calls them? If I was gay and someone called me gay I'd nod my head and say "correct sir".

 

[StuBurns]

I find it hard to believe that someone is born gay. Like with an actual "gay gene".

Do you find it hard to believe people are born straight?

Instinct isn't some abstract concept, it's fact.

 

[Cartman86]

Should saying "That's gay" be protected under free speach?

YES, of course everything excluding death threats

Should people get highly offended over it?

NO. Don't take it too seriously when someone says it. They might not mean what it literally implies

Should people stop saying it?

YES, because it's not that hard. There are so many things we don't say anymore because we are sensitive and intelligent. There are so many other words in our vocabulary that people have found offensive in the past and we slowly stop using them. It's called Raising Consciousness. The feminists did it too. This isn't "censoring" yourself either. At first it may seem like it, but after a little while you will simply stop even thinking of saying it.

We are talking within reason too. Saying something is retarded, or gay isn't really saying anything, except hate toward gay or retarded people. You probably don't actually mean it (I still accidentally say "that's retarded"), but the words mean what they mean. I am not talking about censoring yourself from offending people entirely. People get offended at all sorts of things. The very fact that people are gay offends people. The difference there for any rational person is fundamental human rights. And the emotional feelings of the majority cannot decide who a minority can have sex with.

Criticizing is also a form of speech that I find perfectly acceptable, but others sometimes feel is "offensive". One you see all the time in the US is saying that there is no evidence for the existence of god. This offends some people. But In that case you forming a dialog. I would hope you are speaking from a rational position. Not a position of simply "hating god". You base your critical thoughts on evidence or rational thought. I hope people would realize the different between that and Saying "That game was gay". One adds nothing to a conversation and is based on a purely emotional response.

 

[Malfunky]

So would you say serial rapist and serial killers are not killers or rapist by choice?

Giving them the benefit of the doubt. No, I don't believe sociopaths choose their particular pathologies.

If you're going down the "urge" and "act" route, I think there's a key difference to make here.

Besides a massive and glaring difference in degree and consequence, killing and raping are acts while attraction is a passive state.

A homosexual has a natural attraction to their gender. Sure, you can choose to not act on your feelings, just as heterosexuals can choose to abstinent. But just because we don't act on it, doesn't mean we don't have that trait.

A sociopath may have an urge to kill. But they aren't killers unless they kill.

 

[McBacon]

And quite frankly I could care less

You shouldn't say this. It makes me ignore anything and everything you have to say. As soon as you make this ridiculous mistake, I could care less about your opinions or ideas.

 

[diddlyD]

it would be easier to teach gay people not to be offended by this than it would be to teach the much larger amount of people who like to call things gay as an insult to stop. path of least resistance...

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Because straight white males really know a thing or two about what it's like to be discriminated against.

Oh, it's the "I belong to a group that's been discriminated agains, henceforth I am bestowed with the power to decide what's correct and incorrect to say".

Here's news for you: a good chunk of such minority collectives hate their peers who use the legacy of discrimination to use it as leverage to do things like these. Of course they do hate people using expression like that one, but they hate even more for their peers to use the suffering of the collective as a tool to further personal agendas.

Gay-haters will continue to be so even if they aren't allowed to say "that's gay" without people frowning at them. But hey, there's money to be made, careers to advance and greasy poles to climb belonging to minority lobbies.

 

[Suairyu]

I like it when people belonging to the norm say that minority groups aren't offended by words they use. I find they're the best ones to go to about these types of things because they obviously know the most about it.

As stuburns has pointed out, words change meaning so often and lose their venom quickly. The term 'gay' is shifting in meaning. I call things 'gay' sometimes when they aren't working how I'd like. If describing someone as flamboyant, I might call them 'very gay', when they might be perfectly heterosexual. It's such a powerless word that it fails as an insult if the actual intent is to discriminate maliciously against an individual's sexuality. 'Fag' would be a word that still has venom to it, but I doubt that'll remain so for long either.

I don't require someone to find their own gender physically attractive in order to make observations about the gradual change of language due to common social use. It just happens.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

So would you say serial rapist and serial killers are not killers or rapist by choice?

I was born a man, why would I want to sleep with another man?

Oh wow. Stupidity overload. Um. Ah. Nope, there's no reply that'll cut to the core of this sort of "logic".

 

[hypostatic]

That' so Gabe.

:lol

 

[me Jojo]

it would be easier to teach gay people not to be offended by this than it would be to teach the much larger amount of people who like to call things gay as an insult to stop. path of least resistance...

Might as well allow discrimination altogether then, huh? :/

 

[Masked Man]

But it was only in the 90's that the whole "thats so gay" kind of phrasing was really used, 30 or so years after the adoption of the word to mean homosexual. In fact it is only as being gay has become something more accepted that the pejorative sense of the word has become popular.

And you don't see a correlation between the coming of homosexuality to the "mainstream" and the rise of people using "gay" in a derogatory sense?

 

[proposition]

I dont think I ever said they were equivalent. My point is people are throwing scientific studies around when there are scientific studies that shows that killers and rapist don't choose to kill people which I find to be bullshit.

Oh, well, I'm sorry that science tried to overturn your preconceptions. How rude of scientists to find empirical evidence that contradicts something you believe!

Alternatively, learn what an argument from incredulity is, and then come back, and maybe you can talk to the adults.

 

[AlexM]

lmao, op image is hilarious, making that my bg

 

[McBacon]

I'm so glad I was born a Gamer rather than a Gaybo

haha this is pathetic

and yeah, what's so bad about being called a 'guy who has more video games than friends'? You've still got friends, and now you've got a heap of games to enjoy with them!

man this fails on so many levels it's quite fucken gay.

How are you still alive?!

 

[WEGGLES]

inb4 a big debacle.,

Called it.

 

[Malfunky]

Oh, well, I'm sorry that science tried to overturn your preconceptions. How rude of scientists to find empirical evidence that contradicts something you believe!

Let's not pretend to know anyone's intentions before we've dissected their arguments. I do believe he has points that should be considered and should not be bullied into submission, which I think some in our camp tend to do to those who dare disagree. Or even dare question.

 

[Suairyu]

And you don't see a correlation between the coming of homosexuality to the "mainstream" and the rise of people using "gay" in a derogatory sense?

Oh please, homosexuality was mainstream long before the 90s. And that's half the problem. "That's so gay" is a phrase that would eventually disappear if the LGBT communities shut up for once and tried not to think of homosexuality as a culture anymore and let it just become a fact of life.

 

[soco]

I dont think I ever said they were equivalent. My point is people are throwing scientific studies around when there are scientific studies that shows that killers and rapist don't choose to kill people which I find to be bullshit.

that's a complete mischaracterization of those studies. the studies don't say they 'don't choose to kill people'. you should stop throwing that one out unless you really understand it.

 

[StuBurns]

How are you still alive?!

I thought he was joking, but I just read some complaints about him. If he's serious, I'm stunned.

 

[MIMIC]

gay = homosexual
gay = happy
gay = stupid

Just because I call something gay doesn't mean I'm implying that homosexuality is stupid. "Gay" is like a new homonym or something.

 

[mikeGFG]

And you don't see a correlation between the coming of homosexuality to the "mainstream" and the rise of people using "gay" in a derogatory sense?

No. As he pointed out, no one is using gay in a derogatory sense.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

Oh, well, I'm sorry that science tried to overturn your preconceptions. How rude of scientists to find empirical evidence that contradicts something you believe!

Oh my. There is no scientific study that shows in any cogent way that homicidal, rapist or any other supposedly deviant behaviour is in some way gentically predisposed.

Edit: lol. Well I should've read soc's post but the essence of my post stands.

 

[Firestorm]

As stuburns has pointed out, words change meaning so often and lose their venom quickly. The term 'gay' is shifting in meaning. I call things 'gay' sometimes when they aren't working how I'd like. If describing someone as flamboyant, I might call them 'very gay', when they might be perfectly heterosexual. It's such a powerless word that it fails as an insult if the actual intent is to discriminate maliciously against an individual's sexuality. 'Fag' would be a word that still has venom to it, but I doubt that'll remain so for long either.

I don't require someone to find their own gender physically attractive in order to make observations about the gradual change of language due to common social use. It just happens.

So it doesn't matter if people feel hurt as long as everyone not affected by the word's usage is cool with it? Alright.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/2009/8/17/

 

[ghst]

This print ad is much worse than the tv ones. Not that either is going to change people's mind on using it, however this one attacks an entire group of people based on a old stereotype. As infective as the tv ads are, at least their 'witty' comebacks are directed solely at the person saying 'that's teh gay'.

can't wait till they start targeting ethnic groups.

 

[StuBurns]

So it doesn't matter if people feel hurt as long as everyone not affected by the word's usage is cool with it? Alright.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/uploads/2009/08/17/fag.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]
So at what point do we 'ban' words? Exactly how many people have to be offended before it can't be used?

 

[proposition]

Let's not pretend to know anyone's intentions before we've dissected their arguments. I do believe he has points that should be considered and should not be bullied into submission, which I think some in our camp tend to do to those who dare disagree.

The person has ignored the personal experience of gay people about something that only gay people could possibly know from experience, choosing instead to follow their own vague intuition or belief about how things actually are about being gay.

They then proceeded to use the argument 'scientists are sometimes wrong, so I choose not to believe the evidence', rather than actually look at the papers indicating that homosexuality is not a life choice and suggest reasons why they might be flawed studies. Or listen to the personal accounts of the only people who could possibly know whether homosexuality is a life choice. But by analogy, 'scientists are sometimes wrong, so I chose not to believe them when they say the Earth is round'.

There are no points to consider here, only fallacy and ignorance.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I imagine the same folks who disagree with this campaign would also disagree with a campaign to prevent people from using the word "n****r"

I mean, are you fucking serious? You really don't understand the implications to a gay person of someone saying "That's so gay"?

Oh, and here's a challenge to anyone who thinks being gay is a choice - stop being attracted to the opposite sex, right now. You can't do it, can you?

 

[Snowden]

But I don't want 447 friends!

 

[Masked Man]

Oh, it's the "I belong to a group that's been discriminated agains, henceforth I am bestowed with the power to decide what's correct and incorrect to say".

Here's news for you: a good chunk of such minority collectives hate their peers who use the legacy of discrimination to use it as leverage to do things like these. Of course they do hate people using expression like that one, but they hate even more for their peers to use the suffering of the collective as a tool to further personal agendas.

Gay-haters will continue to be so even if they aren't allowed to say "that's gay" without people frowning at them. But hey, there's money to be made, careers to advance and greasy poles to climb belonging to minority lobbies.

I never claimed the power to say what's correct or incorrect--but I think I'm adequately equipped with the ability to tell someone that what they say offends me personally.

Of course dissent occurs within a minority: though they may be linked by one trait, a myriad of differences can likewise exist among them. I find it rather presumptuous on your part to assume that I made the comment out of a desire to, as you put it, "further [my] personal agenda." As much as I enjoy GAF (for the most part), my telling someone that I find "that's so gay" to be personally offensive could not even remotely serve as a means to improve my social standing or further my career.

Quit acting so self-important and open your eyes to the fact that people taking umbrage with latent or implicit discrimination has nothing to do with gaining political clout or personal profit.

 

[proposition]

Oh my. There is no scientific study that shows in any cogent way that homicidal, rapist or any other supposedly deviant behaviour is in some way gentically predisposed.

Edit: lol. Well I should've read soc's post but the essence of my post stands.

Irrelevant. Even if there wasn't, 'scientist are sometimes wrong so I chose not to believe their results this time' would still be a shitty, shitty argument.

 

[EternalGamer]

Here is an article that compiles a lot of the extensive research that shows that homosexuality has a genetic link. They have studied everything from rams to fruit flies and found conclusive genetic differentiation in those animals that prefer the same sex.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002340883_gayscience19m.html

Another article specifically about rams:

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/2421

Homosexuality has been continuously observed and studied in the animal kingdom. In Amsterdam, there is even a zoo that contains only gay animals:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_43383.html


Part 2
-----------------------------------------

Even if you consider yourself a devout Christian, that is no reason to deny evidence that exists in the world around you. The Bible is not an "all or nothing thing" it is a complex compilation of moral parables and cultural histories that were written over the span of thousands of years by many different authors. There isn't a single person that believes/practices every single thing promoted in it in a literal fashion. For example, if you took everything it said literally, you would be required to believe that:

1) The sun revolved around the earth - Joshua 10:12 (among many others)

2) The earth was flat and had corners. - Isaiah 11 & Revalation 7 (among many others)

3) differing accounts of who was there when Jesus rose from the dead:

Mathew 28 1-10 (the two different Marys are present")
John Chapter 20 (Only Jesus' Mother Mary by herself)
Mark 16 (only Mary Magdalene)

4) differing accounts of Jesus' last words - Mathew 27, Luke 23, and John 19

5) that woman must keep their heads covered in church, must remain quite, and subservient to men - 1 Corinthians 11

6) that the moon is its own source of light - Isaiah 13:10

7) that slavery is moral and slaves must obey their earthly masters - Ephesians 6-5

8) that it is sinful to eat corn that hasn't had the corners rounded off and destroyed first.

Of course nobody believes all of these things because we generally realize, even if we take the overall message of the Bible as containing moral truths, that the Bible itself is not an infallible book and that it contains a lot of passages that are specific to a particular cultural context, others that are allegorical, and others that have conflicting accounts of events. It doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" thing, and, if you want to maintain an intellectually honest faith, it obviously can't be. So there is no real point justifying bigotry because "the Bible says" because the "the bible says" alot of things which you don't practice or believe.

 

[Suairyu]

So it doesn't matter if people feel hurt as long as everyone not affected by the word's usage is cool with it? Alright.

Of course it matters. There just isn't anything that can be done (or should be done) about it except on a case-by-case basis.

And that is a real poor example pic. I hate to act like a school teacher, but that is the kind of thing you ignore and it goes away. There are no measures that can be put in place to stop passive homophobia (and this example is passive), it's just something that gradually reduces over time as society changes and moves on. The only LGBT campaigning left to do is making sure the law protects homosexuals as much as heterosexuals. Trying to change society overnight with posters, campaigns is counter-productive and annoying.

 

[mik]

Outside of the argument for or against homosexuality being genetic, using "that's so gay" and all its permutations just makes you sound like an ignorant, uneducated imbecile. Reading some of these posts is beginning to make me think that isn't a choice, either.

 

[btkadams]

I imagine the same folks who disagree with this campaign would also disagree with a campaign to prevent people from using the word "n****r"

I mean, are you fucking serious? You really don't understand the implications to a gay person of someone saying "That's so gay"?

Oh, and here's a challenge to anyone who thinks being gay is a choice - stop being attracted to the opposite sex, right now. You can't do it, can you?

this. i don't get what's so fucking hard to understand for some people.

 

[Firestorm]

So at what point do we 'ban' words? Exactly how many people have to be offended before it can't be used?

I didn't see anyone try to ban a word. I see people trying to discourage the use of a word that increasingly puts negative connotations on 10% of the population. A lot of people use the word "gay" to describe negative situations without really realizing that many people feel a little hurt when they hear it.

Of course you have the assholes who won't change, but I'd like to think that some people who thought it was socially acceptable when it shouldn't be, will stop using it.

 

[StuBurns]

I didn't see anyone try to ban a word. I see people trying to discourage the use of a word that increasingly puts negative connotations on 10% of the population. A lot of people use the word "gay" to describe negative situations without really realizing that many people feel a little hurt when they hear it.

Of course you have the assholes who won't change, but I'd like to think that some people who thought it was socially acceptable when it shouldn't be, will stop using it.

Okay, let me rephrase. At what point do we discourage the use of a word?

 

[proposition]

I didn't see anyone try to ban a word. I see people trying to discourage the use of a word that increasingly puts negative connotations on 10% of the population. A lot of people use the word "gay" to describe negative situations without really realizing that many people feel a little hurt when they hear it.

Of course you have the assholes who won't change, but I'd like to think that some people who thought it was socially acceptable when it shouldn't be, will stop using it.

10%? Try 2.

 

[MIMIC]

I imagine the same folks who disagree with this campaign would also disagree with a campaign to prevent people from using the word "n****r"

Who uses the N-word other than to be explicitly racist? :lol

AD: "When you say 'nigger', do you realize what you say? KNOCK IT OFF!" lolz for reals?

 

[Spirit of Jazz]

I never claimed it wasn't offensive, nor did I say I agree with people using it. I don't agree with people being 'banned' from saying it because it's moronic to think a words use should be controlled. It's against what created the most enriched and expressive language on this planet. English might be our greatest achievement. And it's not through big brother dictating.

If you're saying it's offensive now then you're acknowledging it will always has homophobic connotations even if indirectly/unknowingly/ignorantly, my message was a response to you denying that.

But I am pretty confused about people here attempting to censor the word in general? Is there one poster who's directly stated that? Also I don't think our language has ever been further enriched by creating new derogatory words or adding derogatory elements to existing ones.

 

[Malfunky]

The person has ignored the personal experience of gay people about something that only gay people could possibly know from experience, choosing instead to follow their own vague intuition or belief about how things actually are about being gay.

He then proceeded to use the argument 'scientists are sometimes wrong, so I choose not to believe the evidence', rather than actually look at the papers indicating that homosexuality is not a life choice and suggest reasons why they might be flawed studies. Or listen to the personal accounts of the only people who could possibly know whether homosexuality is a life choice. But by reductio ad absurdum, 'scientists are sometimes wrong, so I chose not to believe them when they say the Earth is round'.

There are no points to consider here, only fallacy and ignorance.

The way I see it is that those very fallacies and ignorance are the most important thing to engage. Some people may innocently believe this stuff.

Even if he is, say, a bigot or if he's trolling or whatever, I don't think his points should be dismissed and his intellect insulted. That's not how you persuade people. That's how you alienate. By clearing away the misconceptions of one person, you may convince any others reading. But if you attack him, they'll most likely be defensive. They'll see us as the aggressors. Much harder to persuade.