In partnership with CBSSports.com
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
the recent discussion on andy polley and czabe getting suspended for their comments about the transgender athlete got me thinking about the whole sexual orientation issue.
I remembered what the late great patrice o'neal once said (paraphrasing):
if I have to accept the lesbian/bisexual/gay/transgender (LBGT) community's right to walk around doing PDAs, why isn't well within my right to walk down the streets wearing an assless chap with a woman on a leash, full bondage gear? if that is my thing, leather, whips, domination, I should be able to be myself in public. isn't that only logical?
end of paraphrase.
what patrice was saying is that the LBGT wants everyone to accept them. to accept that they are indeed what was meant to be. to accommodate their way of thinking within our own.
now I'm not saying that I don't like homosexuals. that's silly. we are well beyond that point. if you harbor any hatred towards a group of people doing you no harm, you are wrong in doing so. BUT that is also your right as a human being, so long as you don't act on you hatred with physical violence.
so this argument goes beyond sexuality. it could be any group of people. everyone wants to change other people's way of thinking in our politically correct world.
I should mention that I am Indian and patrice oneal was a fat black genius of a comedian. if you for whatever reason dislike Indians, that should be your prerogative. the way to change that way of thinking is through experience...not to be chastised for your disliking of Indians. that only fosters more antagonism towards each other makes people defensive.
I am not 100% sold on this way of thinking. as of right now, it feels right. though I'm sure many people have different perspectives on the matter. so long as it doesn't completely rely on an agenda to make everyone feel good about themselves, I'm open to the argument.
apologies in advance if this is not an appropriate topic for here. I'm relatively new.
This thread has potential. :eyeroll
What are you even arguing? Sure, it's your "right" to feel however you want towards a group of people. It just makes you a horrible person.
Way to end the thread!
Is there a law against assless chaps? WTF
Dot or feather?
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
I'm arguing that the LBGT community forces the public to change how they think via political correctness. to accept that being gay is how they are born. while I do believe it's not a choice, I think the assertion that it's NOT a choice shouldn't be off the table. and that people who say being gay can be changed shouldn't be immediately banished. my argument is aimed more at the public sphere here. when you automatically wish to take an entire view point out of a discourse, that I have an issue with.
I am faaaaaaaaaar from being a right wing conservative. FAR FAR from it. but to me, the way their view point is treated by others is unfair. are religious folk that believe being gay is a sin/choice going around advocating violence against them? not to my knowledge.
I am also arguing that if the majority of Americans are going to buy into the LBGT lifestyle as being a matter of being born as such, than other stigmatized things should be 'accepted.' the bondage theme I mentioned in OP being an example.
and here's a touchy, no pun intended, subject: pedophiles. are they choosing to be attracted to children?
This post was edited by grapplerTerp 16 months ago
how long would it take for MoCo police to roll up on me decked out in bondage gear and a leashed girl?
These are terrible arguments for any point you are making, and I'm not even sure what point that is.
Is there a law against walking down the street with an exposed ass (GrapplerTerp)?
I think he is trying to say:
No we should not force our morality on them by outlawing their relationships/marriage/whatever.
BUT they should also not force their morality on others, but telling us it is wrong to not approve of their ways. The pendulum should swing both ways.
And I actually agree with that.I don't want people telling me what moral outlook should be, or trying to shame me for what my moral beliefs are. It is wrong when radical religious zealots persecute LBGT community, and it is wrong when the LGBT persecute religious zealots for their opinions. Now one group may be more more hateful, violent, and just reprehensibly oppressive than the other, but that doesn't excuse the other from being hypocrites.
Live and let live.
v. good thread
This like a great thread...
OH, and lol at the use of the word "argument" in the title.
FIFY. Who cares about the "born" part? That's a complete red herring, it has no bearing on how we should treat/accept gay people.
I actually wrote out a response to this and decided that there was no point. If you can't see the difference between equating someone's personal sexuality and simply being asked to have the same rights afforded to them as heterosexuals, and wearing assless chaps and a leash in public, then there is no point, really.
HoopheadVII: "Guess you won't say, "Sorry I'm a little off today" anytime again soon; Eaglesception is a bitch"
the fiscal cliff is wearing assless chaps.
we're so fucked.
literally AND figuratively.
Terrible thread. Great responses.
I read this in bed right now and just burst out laughing out loud, waking up my girlfriend.
Yeah, not going to bother explaining that I was laughing about a thread on transgendered people/assless chaps.
I need an answer to this. I need to know which stereotype to hold against you.
No. This is jtp's doing. He's kept me around for his bizarre HOF resume.
They'd roll up on you for the assless chaps, because showing your ass in public is illegal; chances are the wouldn't do anything to you for being in bondage gear or having your partner leashed, those are not illegal. They may ask your partner is she's ok and/or consenting to said activity, but if they're there via free will, there's nothing the cops would or could do. Terrible analogy/thread.
Other than that, cool story bro.
you should see if you can enroll in BSCV 301 Leadership in a Multicultural Society (3 credits) at umd, the class explains all this and did wonders for my understanding of issues in a multicultural society.
Aren't all chaps, by definition, assless?
This can only end well.
so how about that rusty kuntz
The chaps themselves are all assless, but I believe that the term "assless chaps" is used to mean the practice of wearing the chaps with nothing else underneath to cover your ass (i.e. trousers), although typically one would still wear a codpiece (usually studded and stuffed).
This post was edited by MisterSmiley 16 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports