The Rainbow Connection [LGBTS Club]

): I don't see how you can hate kids. Well, I mean I can but yeah.

If you support gay rights (and I'm assuming you do) do you also consider yourself a feminist?

Erm. tbh I think I am. I'm not like some radical feminist though but I won't let stupid comments that downgrade people slide by. I love my women!

If you support gay rights (and I'm assuming you do) do you also consider yourself a feminist?

Well, my friends always call me the Male Feminist.

So yes. Although I prefer the title of "Not sexist" instead of feminist.

Shining Raichu said:

I'm sort of not understanding how one has that much to do with the other, but yeah I'm absolutely a feminist. Everybody should be equal. Everybody.[/s]

Click to expand...

Gay rights and feminism are both movements that revolve around gender issues and aim for equality. In reality they're quite nearly the same thing, simply having slightly different approaches and focuses. But they have a much greater difference in their public images and that's what I was wondering when I asked.

So of course I'm a feminist. I believe in equality. But I'm also not afraid of the image that people have of what a feminist is and so I'm not afraid to say I'm a feminist.

The one thing I don't like about hypocrite feminists are the ones that say they want equal rights but don't want the bad sides of equality. I agree to equal rights for everybody. Both the good side and the bad side.

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying.

I am for equal rights of all people. I do not think that any groups deserves more or less than the other. I do think that women are close to equal to men as far as legislation. In some cases women do get preferential treatment when it comes to state laws pertaining to families, and men tend to get paid more than women. Neither of those are equitable, so I cannot endorse either gender for more right than the other.

But for GLBT people and straight people, there is a very substantial gap between rights; even though I support gender equality, there is much more blatant inequities that are felt by the sexual minorities. With that being said, not from a legal standpoint, but a philosophical, I believe that gender roles are rubbish, and it's my personal belief that a man or woman can have a job, nurture children, or anything that the other gender can do, except for some of the biological impossibilities of course (bearing children, urinating standing up) lol

If you support gay rights (and I'm assuming you do) do you also consider yourself a feminist?

Yes, but it doesn't have anything to do with GLBT issues. I respect everybody's right to equality. I'd protect anybody being mistreated (which includes, sexism, racism, rich-poor (?) etc.)
I don't see myself as an activist, or a public supporter for any groups. Not even GLBT issues. I deal with hatred and hypocrisy in daily life, that's it :)

Oh btw, I'm back. Missed this place. =P
Just that I don't have interest in Pokemon anymore

I'm not a feminist. I'm an imdividualist. I don't believe that anybody's rights should be because they ar of a certain group, but they should be because they're individuals. Group membership shouldn't be taken into account.

I think it's time for some gay news!

• Gay student Larry King's murder was a conscious plan.
• Michelle Bachmann praised for her comments on the gay community - wtf?

Both of these stories sicken me. The first one fills me with renewed rage at Brandon McInerny, who I personally believe should be met with no leniency whatsoever in this matter. How dare his lawyers try to plead anything even resembling temporary insanity? It was clearly - clearly a pre-meditated plan, and he will have a whole community to answer to if he is shown any leniency in this matter.

As for the second one, I honestly don't understand it. Michelle Bachmann has said that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that she will try to reinstate the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy - yet she is being praised for saying that she doesn't judge gay people? Well, how kind of her! The woman is clearly a bigot and should be treated as nothing but exactly that. A disgusting bigot trying to recreate a discriminatory America.

What if homosexuality was the "norm", and heterosexuality was considered to be unnatural by societal and religious institutions. How would you treat heterosexuals? How would the world treat them? The same as homosexuals are now?

Although I would say that I would treat them as equals, in different circumstances I would be a completely different person. Although I do not like the fact that my sexuality has changed the environment I live in and thus my personality, I believe it does play a major role in who I am. I think that heterosexual teens would undergo the same struggles with bullying in school, and I think that it is likely that I might tease a person that was heterosexual. I think that if this happened to ever heterosexual person that has displayed prejudice toward GLBT people, then I think that they would not be the way they are. Also, I believe that Bisexual and transgendered people would undergo the same prejudices if the swap in norms occurred. And we would have the term "SBT" or straights, bisexuals, and trangendered people. What are your thoughts?

What if homosexuality was the "norm", and heterosexuality was considered to be unnatural by societal and religious institutions. How would you treat heterosexuals? How would the world treat them? The same as homosexuals are now?

Before I discovered I was gay, Will & Grace was what desensitised me to the idea of homosexuality and normalised it for me. After watching that show I really couldn't understand what the big deal about being gay was, not that I'd had much exposure to it before then. So I imagine this alternate-reality version of Will & Grace in which they were a hilarious straight couple cranking out children would do the same thing for me in this world. I can't imagine treating straight people any differently, just as I didn't treat gay people any differently before I found out I was one of them lol

Larry King case:

I think that boy should not get first degree, and maybe second-degree ONLY because of his abuse as a child from his meth-addict parents. If you do drugs, your kids suffer greatly. I think that the gay flaunting is nonsense. Is it flaunting straightness when a boy and girl hold hands and kiss in the hallways? I think that our government has the right to take children out of these at-risk homes to prevent this type of occurrence. Look at the statistics, most drug-addict parents, had parent whom were drug-addicts. These children are likely to suffer from severe psychological harm, in a never-ending cycle. So I think an asylum would be the most beneficial solution to this problem, not prison. That will just enable him to become more psychologically damaged and more homophobic. All-in-all parents do not have the right to treat their children however they want to.


MICHELE BACHMANN:

Alright, apparently Anne Coulter's Aunt wants to run for president! I have followed the race fairly closely, in hopes that Ron Paul might win. Even though he was less than a percentage point away from Bachmann, the media awarded him very little acknowledgement. The only reason why Bachmann is becoming more and more successful is her relentless efforts to be a part of the media.

The sad thing is that her step sister Helen is a lesbian. Although the two were close, she has estranged her step-sister based off her sexual orientation. Michele Bachmann preaches religious freedom, but does not understand that Christianity, is not the only religion, and in fact the Constitution denies the government the right to establish a religion so that religious freedoms can thrive. She is for forcing "intelligent design" alongside evolution, restricting marriages to only heterosexual couples (states legislation have no say), restricting same-sex unions and even same-sex activities, ostracizing gay people from the military and society as a whole. I do not believe that anyone has the right to let their religious beliefs oppress other people, it is subjective and it has no place in the United States or any country that wants freedom to reign.

*cough*

Let's hope her migraines turn into an aneurysm, lol, jk...kinda

As far as Ron Paul goes, he has expressed that he believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, but he believes that it is the right of the states to be able to allow same-sex marriages. So at least he doesn't let his religious views get in the way of his decision-making. But it is likely that Bachmann or Romney will win the nominations, or even Sarah Palin if she runs, which is quite unfortunate.

-ty- said:

I think that boy should not get first degree, and maybe second-degree ONLY because of his abuse as a child from his meth-addict parents. If you do drugs, your kids suffer greatly.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how the fact that he was abused by meth-addict parents means he should get leniency on the charge of murder. Whether or not he was affected negatively by this notwithstanding, he was in his right mind and he made a plan to kill another person. He planned it and he executed it; it's that simple. I don't take pity on him nor do I feel sorry for him. He took someone else's life, now he has to pay with his.

Shining Raichu said:

I don't understand how the fact that he was abused by meth-addict parents means he should get leniency on the charge of murder. Whether or not he was affected negatively by this notwithstanding, he was in his right mind and he made a plan to kill another person. He planned it and he executed it; it's that simple. I don't take pity on him nor do I feel sorry for him. He took someone else's life, now he has to pay with his.

Click to expand...

I guess I do not know the full extent of the abuse, but I would not give him first degree. I think that by sending him to prison for 20 years will do nothing but continue the cycle, although I want someone to pay for the child's death, I think that punishment aside, the future would be better for society if the child was sentenced to an insane asylum so because he is essentially brainwashed from his parents. But I do not intend to pity killers, I just want to prevent killers from continuing their behavior. I will say that if the evidence is not strong enough to suggest psychological harm that the child should get second-degree murder, or 15 years with psychological treatments. I think that more importantly we need to understand that parents should not be able to indoctrinate their children with discrimination that inhibits their ability to function in society. This should be accomplished through education, and strict parenting laws. Parents should not have to tell their kids that gays are good, but they should not be able to teach hate and discrimination.

Oh, how I love Michele Bachmann (and not in a good way).

I doubt she'll get the nomination. Delegate-rich states like California and New York won't tolerate her nuttery, even amongst Republican primary voters. Another large state, Texas, is also out of reach for her since two native Texans are running. If by some chance she wins one of those states, then she might have a shot.

I've already stated by opposition to hate crimes enhancements in the past. A murder conviction is no joke with or without the enhancemnent.

It scares me to think that there are so many people who want someone like Bachmann to be president of the U.S. I'm also sad that Fred Karger never got any spotlight at all. If anyone hasn't heard of him (and I wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't since his side is keeping him out of the media as best as they can) he's an openly gay man who's running for president on the Republican side as crazy as that sounds to get issues brought up and be a positive role model.