Gay rights from a "conservative" view/a more responsible approach.

Abhaya Budhil wrote: Tolerance might follow, but I don't know about rights. If we all stopped advocating for queer rights and just went about our lives, who would make sure our rights were still being worked on?

I never spoke against advocating for rights, just doing things that alienate unsure people. You can advocate for rights and be civil, while engaging with the community.

You can find radicals in any group of people, though. That doesn't mean you have to completely write off the whole group. And it doesn't mean the rest of us have to apologize for anything that anyone else has done.

Also, I read the article you linked. It was basically just advocating against gay rights. You might not be the only person who feels the way you do, but I can guarantee the majority of the queer community and the majority of people who support queer rights would not agree with that article.

Abhaya Budhil wrote: You can find radicals in any group of people, though. That doesn't mean you have to completely write off the whole group. And it doesn't mean the rest of us have to apologize for anything that anyone else has done.

Also, I read the article you linked. It was basically just advocating against gay rights. You might not be the only person who feels the way you do, but I can guarantee the majority of the queer community and the majority of people who support queer rights would not agree with that article.

Maybe I just got something different from it. For one, I don't see why a gay man wouldn't want to advocate for gay rights. I personally just saw it as him wanting gays to cool it with the showmanship, and warning them not to adopt a victim mentality.

He spoke against same sex marriage and adoption rights, in favor of conversion therapy (though not forced conversion therapy), against teaching kids about alternative lifestyles, and he basically agreed with people who are terrified of queer people having rights when he said they want to get to the children, called AIDS a gay man's disease, and made a comparison between pedophilia and teaching kids about alternative lifestyles. He seems to buy into just about every argument there is against queer rights.

Abhaya Budhil wrote: He spoke against same sex marriage and adoption rights, in favor of conversion therapy (though not forced conversion therapy), against teaching kids about alternative lifestyles, and he basically agreed with people who are terrified of queer people having rights when he said they want to get to the children, called AIDS a gay man's disease, and made a comparison between pedophilia and teaching kids about alternative lifestyles. He seems to buy into just about every argument there is against queer rights.

He didn't speak against them, just said that reality is reality, that what is, is. He takes my stance on conversion therapy, that it should be there for homosexuals who genuinely desire to be heterosexual, without religious guilt or societal pressures involved. It's not a matter of homosexuality being good or bad, it's a matter of choice, and, if for whatever reason somebody wants to turn straight, or vice-versa, I support it, unorthodox as it may be. He did not say that AIDS was exclusive to gays, and personally, I don't want my kid being taught about sex either, it's not a gay-straight thing, it's just an age-appropriate thing.

I can see the point you're trying to make here...
I am a sort of leftist in a sense
but most left groups wouldn't like me because I am labelled a racist. I agree that people should advocate for the stuff their demographic while trying not to alienate a guy like me.
The truth is, we shouldn't be thinking that an entire demographic of people is going to shift for li'l ol me. The world is big enough that I can live my life without being confronted by my issues towards certain people and I think anybody at TOTJO can as well, like Jestor said, don't comment on the thread. Yeah they might be circle jerking and what not and yeah they might alienate people who have issues against what they promote, while I also agree that they can still advocate themselves, but just evaluate it, is my issues against a certain demographic stopping me from doing anything? in general life and here at TOTJO? not at all. So I am going to put it simply: why make a fuss?

Unfortunately we still live in a time when people are attacked and killed for being gay and equal rights on things like inheritance, pensions are still being denied. When these things are no longer a problem, then perhaps we can stop having to be so expressive in pushing for the right to be acknowledged as equal.

In the vast majority of cases, straight couples are not attacked in the street for holding hands so they do not need the kind of Pride event that demonstrates our confidence in who we are. And it's true that some people are more flamboyant than others but that's who they are. Just like some straight people like wearing their wives underwear

Star Forge wrote: I think you partially get what I mean. Maybe I was not clear enough.

What I'm asking for is for the (hopefully) majority of LGBT people, who are normal, everyday people, to openly make it known that the parades, drag shows, and other sorts of vulgar showmanship do not represent them. Like the guy in the article I linked did. I mean, for LGBT people to rise up and say "no, we're not all hyper-promiscuous, we don't all have a victim mentality, we are just the same as the rest of you, and we're misrepresented by the media and our more radical elements." Hope that makes sense.

I am not going to apologise for the actions of a more extreme minority. You should apologise for grouping people with that more extreme minority...

And if you have an issue, speak to them about it, leave me (the uninterested GLBTQ community) out of it... don't drag us into your issue...

You didn't respond to Lila's last post...

Mark Anjuu wrote: Unfortunately we still live in a time when people are attacked and killed for being gay and equal rights on things like inheritance, pensions are still being denied. When these things are no longer a problem, then perhaps we can stop having to be so expressive in pushing for the right to be acknowledged as equal.

In the vast majority of cases, straight couples are not attacked in the street for holding hands so they do not need the kind of Pride event that demonstrates our confidence in who we are. And it's true that some people are more flamboyant than others but that's who they are. Just like some straight people like wearing their wives underwear

(I apologize for that link. While that one article itself made sense, the organization the site represents is suspect. I should have investigated further.)

Mark, I'm not challenging gay pride, or demonstrations, or any such thing. I think what I meant was clear, and I'm sorry if it came across wrong.

Akkarin, I'm not asking anybody to apologize.

Why can't we have laws based on people being people instead of sub groups? Why don't people see a person when they look at others?