Anti-homossexual parade in Warsaw - June.

Remove all ads!

Actually, Morgoroth, I really don't care how they live their lives -- if they want sodomize each other, more power to them -- there's a sale on K-Y at the Wal-Mart this week. My problem comes when they want to change the rules and laws by which the society I live in is run. This includes having parades that are disgusting and vulgar by the standards of the vast majority of the society. I feel this way about every group that does this sort of explicit stuff, not just homosexuals (Mardi Gras comes to mind). If a group wants to rent a hall or auditorium and be graphic, more power to them, but not on a public street.

In other words, if they keep their private lives private, I've got better things to do than hassle them. But if they bring this stuff out into the public eye, then I have every right as a citizen to speak out against their public actions.

 

@ LKD - My comments were more directed towards Svy and Gnarff, not you in particular, but the same reasoning holds for your opinion as well. I will add two words from my previous quote to include your outlook as well:

(new words bolded)

The point is that if you come to the arguement with your mind already made up, there's really nothing anyone can do to change it. I'm certainly not condemning anyone for making a decision about the relative rightness/wrongness of homosexuality at the time they enter into the discussion.

 

Thanks Aldeth. To make my position a little more clear, I have a problem with a parade on a public street wherein two gay men dry-hump each other on a float as it goes down the street (as has been done during some Gay Pride parades.) I also have the same problem with a hetero man and hetero woman dry-humping each other on a float going down that same public street during some other parade. Either way, it's a public display that would offend the sensibilities of the vast majority of the population. Private wise, have all the consensual fun you want, folks!

 

Sorry if this enters into the "too much information" category, but are you saying you are opposed to any expression of public lewdness or the performance of sexual acts in public? Because while that seems reasonable, it has nothing to do with being anti-gay or anti-homosexuality, because you're opposed to it regardless of gender.

And I am asking that as a serious question. I do not feel that you have made your position more clear. It started out as being anti-gay, and turned into anti-sex in public, which I think the vast majority of people would openly agree with, regradless of their sexual orientation.

 

Fair question -- it seems to me that a lot of gays engage in public lewdness, and when they are told that their behaviour is disgusting and inappropriate, they say "if it were two heteros you wouldn't have a problem with it, so you're a bigot and an evil person . . ." you get the idea. I'm launching a pre-emptive strike against that argument by pointing out that the behaviour they are engaging in would be subject to my censure regardless of who is performing it.

That said, while there are some notable examples, heteros do not launch these kinds of parades as often as gays do.

As for being anti-gay, you're right in that I do proceed from the baseline belief that the behaviour is inherently wrong and contrary to God's will. That said, there are literally 1000s of other behaviours that also are inherently wrong and against God's will, and I don't spend time wandering into people's homes uninvited and telling them to smarten up -- I've got my own flaws to fix and my own life to live. It's when they bring their behaviours into the public eye that I get bent out of shape and might go participate in a peaceful, law-abiding anti-gay parade.

 

I can't speak for everyone, obviously, but if Svy or Gnarff could produce credible scientific evidence that homosexuality is harmful, I'd certainly be open to changing my mind.

 

It is not me who says that, it is psychology. People who have a problem with themselves - bad looks, unpopularity, etc - are prone to act out of frustration, and acting so usually ensues some bad results. These people certainly fit the criterion of someone who would have many reasons to be frustrated.
I mean, if one of those ugly fat sissie looking parading "guys" could get a half decent looking chick, I am sure they would not have all that much reason to be frustrated and a rebellious leftist activist.
The same for those fat chicks. Looks can certainly indicate many things.
Compare them with that gorgeous and decent looking blondie marching with her small child. That is a whole new business.

Let me make this straight. I wont beat the crap out of someone who likes a football team opposed to mine, or who likes X band better than my favourite one, or even someone who preffers Harry Potter to Silmarillion, but then there are some points of view which I simply can not accept, and I do not befriend people who think nothing like me. My friends are all somewhat simillar to me. I think it is weak and nonsensical to get along with those people who share no values with me whatsoever.

All this forced education on tolerance, "equality", gay rights is propaganda to me, yes. When you hammer those very same concepts in the minds of small children, that is brainwashing.
There is this myth that before these leftist considerations became fashion and mandatory, everyone was upraised taught to hate everything which is not White, Christian and straight, which is simply not true.
With this is mind, people think it is the "right thing to do" to force some artificial and extremist idea of tolerance, which is almost a synonym to PC.

What propaganda? Before this PC leftist hysteria schools were never a place for rightist brainwashing. If the schools were to be as they were before - a place for proper education, instead of ideological indoctrination - it would be perfectly fine to me.

What is the point? Give examples to people and they will always say you are generalising. Stereotypes and generalisation don't sprout from the minds of some hateful people with too time on their hands. They always - or mostly - have some true to them.
In this case it is quite clear, and I wish you address it directly. Straight olympic games are sport competitions to show physical prowess; homo olympic games are a poor excuse for degeneration and lewdness. The same is true for gay parades. The same can also be said about homo night clubs - no, I have never been there, but it is quite a common sense amongst people who have been there. If you want to discredit the night club part, because I dont have evidence to support it right now, the gay parades and "olympic games" can not be refuted though.
You can make up whatever excuses you want to, but the fact is one: These games and parades are a poor pretext for lewdness, depravation and degeneration. The same does not happen in the hetero counterparts, thus, it can not be denied homosexual behaviour is far more "agressive" - to put it mildly - than our own.
If you want to further debate this, please provide me some argument as to why this is, instead of accusing me of making "generalizations".

Read above.

Feel free to search my past posts, and this has been extensively debated.

I would guess they did not have the physical courage to confront him, or maybe they are just not prone to violence.
However, you wont be honest denying nazis are not looked down with much more despise and contempt than a commies is, at least in our day and age - a hint, being a nazi can get you jailed in many places, being a commie wont get you jailed anywhere.
---------------------------------------------------

Aldeth,

Ok, fair enough, but let me repeat what I have said about FOX and Bush previously.
Sure, FOX and Bush are not leftist, and are regarded as rightist, which I wont address - after all, Bush economical policy is indeed rightist - but then their kind of "rightism" has nothing to do with my ideological world view, and in some way, not even with the more traditional rightist stance.
Before you say I am talking out of my ass, let me fundament my claim. For starters, despite all that Bush has said and promised, the fact is he did not move out against illegal immigrants, and even proposed to regulate their situation. Another example, although the Republicans "own" both the parliament and the White House, what has Bush done against abortion, which is an important issue to the traditional right? Nothing. Isn't it true a good part of the right winged Americans are dissatisfied with Bush dealing in these issues? Furthermore, what is the relation between making wars for israel and rightism?
I just want to repeat I am not calling both Fox and Bush leftist, but I do think their extreme "rightism" is greatly overblowed, and in many times are contrary to the demands of the traditional right.
Well, basically that is it.

As for the moral high ground, my opposers believe the same stuff, if that can be applied to me. Discussing anything with a leftist activist is as much of a waste of time as it is to you debating me.
--------------------------------------------------

I mean that Houstoun being a hotbed of the right, does not mean there are not leftist activists out there.
As I said in the same post, I don't know which were the contents of your course, or the motivations behind it, because, although that is a rare sight, these tolerance classes can be something other than typical the leftist idea of what is being tolerant, and can have a neutral ground.
I don't know if the company - the owners, directors whoever - you work in are left leaning. They can be, or they might not be.
It is also a possibility they thought this course was something necessary to do, because of external pressure or whatever. I dont know, I am just assuming.

People dont kill deliberately babies in Wars - the ones who do are criminals and should be tried. Death penalty is given to people who have no regards for the lives of others. That is like finding hypocrisy in the reasoning of someone who is pro freedom but also pro jailing - read, taking people's freedom from them - criminals.

 

Okay, I couldn't sit by and watch any longer. Starting from the end and working my way up!

Does this reek of hypocrisy to you, or is it just me? Realising of course that I'm from a country where Death penalties haven't been used in centuries. Doesn't by killing someone, even if they have no regards for other lives, show that you are of similar thought as they are? Chandos is completely right there, as you have just proven; people only see it when they want to. Selective vision.


Regarding the entire left/right propaganda. Atleast here in New Zealand, right propaganda shines through much more than left. Yes, there are more left extremists. But in saying that, there are a few things that must also be pointed out. First of all, these extremists usually only make a show of themselves during elections - other than that, you never hear of them. Even they are in the extreme minority.

Right propaganda though, even under a centre-left government, is everywhere. Yes, even at schools. Any had to do religous studies at primary school before? Nothing annoyed me more than people trying to force views like that on children. But preeching acceptance and tolerance... you might have mentioned it before, but I can't remember it, but what is wrong with tolerance? Wouldn't the world be a better place if we all accepted each other for what we are?


Well done, Svyatoslav, you managed to not answer the question again.
Let me repeat it for you:

Straight olympic games? As far as I am aware, there is no such thing as straight olympic games. The olypic games currently have no sexual restrictions placed on them. Unless things have changed since the Greek Olympics two years back?

Well, I guess I can understand where you're coming from. I mean, been forced to sit infront of the TV (or did they make you go to the stadium where these games were been held?) and watch this gay olympics isn't right. And I'm sure who ever forced you to go and watch that gay parade you're complaining about must have done so at gun point. Prehaps you should report them to the police?

Sarcasim done with - in the end of the day, nothing is forcing any of us to attend those things. If the government were to require every citizen to spend 2 hours a year attending a gay event then prehaps it might be a different matter - but they don't, nor will they ever. Until then, it is perfectly possible to avoid such things if you wish.

Going slightly off the subject, do you consider Animal Rights laws to be 'leftist'?

No, you are correct there. It is not you who says that. But it IS you who say that they look bad. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - ever heard that saying before?


And last but not least, my favourite part of all!

Let me throw some examples at you of where people have had similar views. Starting with the extreme:

• Nazism
• The apartite system (sorry about the spelling)
• North vs South Ireland conflict.
• Paliestin vs Isreal conflict.

I could go on, but I think you... let me rephrases that, I HOPE you get the point. Having an inflexable, non-tolerant attitude can only, in the grand scale of things, lead to destruction, violence, etc etc.

 

Sure.

Err...Are you looking at the same pictures I am? The only 'negative' things about how those leftist look are the punkish hairdos and the non-photogenic facial expressions. Why would they first get mohawks and then get all frustrated about how bad it looks? I hardly think they themselves feel they look like you say, so I don't think they're frustrated with how 'bad' they look.

By 'getting along' I don't mean befriending. But for example, if you have a business and are deciding which of two applicants you might hire, would you take an unexperienced and uneducated straight guy or an experienced and educated guy who happens to be gay? Or in an important business meeting, would you shun a wealthy client if you found out he was gay? Or if you found out there's a gay teacher in the school your kids go to, would you raise a ruckus or just try to get along? This is the type of thing I'm talking about.

I didn't suggest schools were a place of rightwing propaganda before, you know. And you still didn't answer the question, you just said there's no such thing and never were. Fine, maybe not. But what if someone started such just now, how would you feel about it? If schools started to, say, teach kids to avoid homosexuals at all costs because they're sick, dangerous perverts? What would be the results from that?

For example, scientific studies, statistics and surveys would be a whole lot more convincing than isolated events.

On the 'gay olympics' I agree. Such an event is in quite bad taste and while I myself can't be bothered to get all outraged, I fully understand why such displays are offensive to many people. Such an event would be offensive and in bad taste also if the people involved were heterosexual.

As for homo night clubs...well, I don't think regular straight nightclubs are exactly temples of chastity either. Of course straight clubs come in both classy and smutty varieties, but the principal is the same. I would imagine there are reasonably classy gay clubs too, but I don't really know.

Gay parades probably are intentionally provokative, they wish to shake things up a bit and raise attention and thus awareness. It often works in their disadvantage. I don't like watching dry humps either, but it doesn't shock me. I can go about my business and stay away, like I would stay away from any other demonstration or parade.

On the 'secret sinister aggenda' as I called it:

Would it be this:

In this is the case, I understand the concern but I think it is misdirected. Much more severe examples of such a direction can be seen for example with the US restricting people's rights to put on anti-Bush demonstrations (or so I've heard). Or something similar to that. Surely political correctness has been taken to ridicilous proportions, but I really don't think teaching kids not to hate gays is a step towards a totalitarian rule.

Maybe nazis are more despised. One reason for this is probably that many people associate commies with hippies and leftists instead of Stalin's forces. Neo-nazis and racist skinhead groups with similar goals have a reputation of being violent, commies I suppose don't.

As for that guy I mentioned not getting any trouble, it was mainly because nobody cared. People just thought he was a dumbass. I don't think he has to fear of a beating unless he runs into a group of seriously frustrated immigrants.

But the word commie still has a very, *very* negative ring to it especially in America. In Finland too, because of the conflicts with the Soviet Union. The actual point was that just as rightist sometimes get labeled nazi types, leftists get tagged much the same way. The difference in severity is really not *that* large.

 

and

Hmmm... This is something that I had not really considered, and I have to admit, my knowledge of European politics is pretty much limited to western Europe. It is entirely possible that the definition of "leftist" and "rightist" differ significantly when speaking to an American, compared to someone from Eastern Europe. Let me assure you though, that to an American, Bush embodies all of the typical "rightist" agenda points. It seems that one of the few things we can agree on when it comes to these definitions is Communism is an example extreme "leftism" while Nazism is an example of extreme "rightism". If we don't at least agree on that, then our definitions aren't similar at all.

As an American, I would have to agree that commie still is considered much more negative in the U.S. than nazi. No doubt this has to do with the fact that no Americans were sent to concentration camps by Nazis, or had their houses bombed by Nazis, etc. Pretty much the only American killed by Nazis were American soldiers, which makes it "OK" in the sense that in a war situation, you have to expect your adversaries to shoot back.

That having been said, no Eastern European country was involved in two major military conflicts over the past 50 years or so, that were largely concerned with preventing the spread of communism. When you consider Korea and Vietnam, there have been more Americans killed by commies than nazis, so maybe that's where the difference lies. Of course, another major difference is that there are a hell of lot more Americans still alive that fought in Korea and Vietnam compared to WWII.

The more I think about it Svy, I am rather surprised that you view commies as more palatable than nazis. I've already intimated that my knowledge of Eastern European politics and history is limited, but from my limited perspective, I seem to remember that Czekoslovakia was annexed by the Germans prior to the beginning of hostilities in WWII, meaning that it was essentially taken without a fight. Now, no doubt, there were many deaths in Czekoslovakia over the next 6 or so years of Nazi occupation.

Again, from my limited perspective, I seem to remember that Czekoslovakia was part of the Iron Curtain, and under Soviet rule for over 40 years following WWII. One would tend to assume (and be wrong evidently) that this would piss people off after a while. Essentially, unless you come from a family that was in tight with the Communist party, that you would have a much more negative view of communists as compared to nazis.

 

Rotku,

Most of what you say is recicled stuff I wont bother re answering, so I will just focus on a few points.

Selective vision? What about selective reading? Really, I dont know why I bother... Do you think someone who is pro-freedom and condones the jailing of criminals is also being hipocrital?

Skipping the leftist/rightist stuff which you bring nothing new to...

I pretty much implied schools should be a neutral ground.

Straight as in opposed to the specific homosexual one... I will try to be clearer when answering you.

Yes, maybe if they didn't do these kind of things in the middle of the street no one would be forced to watch.

I think animal rights activists are 99% left leaning, but animal rights are not leftist per see, only a bit too nonsensical most of the times.

Sure. Relativism is the pinnacle of civilization. Deceive yourself all you want, but the way these people are dressing and behaving they certainly don't have a very positive image of themselves. I just checked with a few people to see if I was hallucinating things myself, but their opinions was unanimous. Of course you can say they look perfectly normal, for the sake of disagreing with me. Whatever fits you. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.

Yes, because if I like to get along with like minded people I must be a nazi. You are butchering logics.
-------------------------------------------------

Because screwing deliberately your looks like that certainly indicates a very low self steem and self image.

Why can't I chose an educated and experienced straight guy? The question is ill intentioned to begin with.

Yes I did. I implied the schools should be a neutral ground, as they have been before.

Not isolated. Behaviours which keep repeating themselves in all these events.

It is a pity a great deal of these homosexuals don't have a problem with being offensive to "many" people.

I dont know out of experience myself. Just basing my opinions from word-of-mouth honestly.

Yes, the intentionally provokative stance is the problem, which they simply ignore.

I think this anti-Bush prohibition is BS, although I could be wrong.
Parents teaching their children not to hate gays is not totalitarian rule. The state taking away from parents the right to upbring their children as they want, it is pure totalitarism.

If people wrongly associate commies with idealistic and naive people, it just shows someone out there is purposedly giving the wrong message on what commies really are.
Regardless, you just admited my point, which was nazis have a much worse image than commies do, which is totally nonsencial and suspicious.

 

Or, much more likely, a different idea of beauty than you.

You never had contact with one of them, do you?

 

This argument seems strange to me. It's basically saying that either everyone is a hypocrite or no one is. There probably aren't many people here who wouldn't be 'pro-freedom.' But the definition you seem to have placed on being pro-freedom seems to be that pro-freedom people couldn't support any law enforcement at all. Aside from imprisonment and death/violence, the only punishment left would be monetary fines, and they restrict freedom as well. The argument is absurd.

Thinking that killing is wrong, but accepting the use of capitol punishment - it means that the rule that killing is wrong is not absolute and should be applied only when it fits one's interests. With imprisonment the idea is not so much to take away the freedom, but to protect the rest of the society from the criminal in question; to protect the freedom and rights of others. To the society it has the same effect as a death penalty in this sense, but without the killing and with less of a vengeful eye for an eye spirit.

Okay, so finally an answer: rightist propaganda would not be okay either, schools should be neutral grounds. I just don't understand why it's so damn difficult to say "no, rightist propaganda is not okay either."

Compared to organized studies, surveys and statistics they are isolated. You could just as easily say that black people are thieves and drug dealers, because there have been several cases where they have been just that. But it is not the whole truth or even striving to get as close to the whole truth as possible.

And this is the problem. I don't know any gay people, so I haven't been able to talk to them to find out what kind of club culture they actually do have. Therefore I don't fling out accusations that their clubs are dens of deprivation.

But what if some parent out there brings up their children not to follow the rules of the society? Teaches them it's perfectly fine to beat up people who are weak and take what they have? If the state steps in and tries to teach the opposite, is it totalitarian thinking? After all, they're restricting the parents' right to bring up their children as murdering animals if they so please.

It is a *hypothetical* question, but it could happen. But let's make the setting a little less extreme. Let's say the position you're looking to fill is very specialized and competent people in the particular area are very rare and hard to find, and only those two people show up. Let's say that they're both competent, but the gay one is slightly more experienced. Which would you hire?

Again you're assuming they too think they're 'screwing their looks' doing that. Yes, I'm playing with relativism here, but that's what looks are all about. Fashions come and go, and now there are more subcultures and different styles than ever. A few decades ago decent people would have been outraged by the kind of clothing people who you consider proper-looking wear. I myself strongly dislike business suits, but I don't go about assuming that people wearing them are desperately trying to prove they're important or something.

Chances are, those punks *like* their punky mohawks and whatnots.

I think they'd get acceptance and their message across better if they were less provokative about it. But also I can understand the mentality: they're sick of being outcasts and treated by the rest of the world as inferiors or perverted monsters. They wish to say they're here and they're not going away so deal with it. They wish to be seen as equals to others, to hold their heads up high even though there are christians proclaiming they'll go to hell. But their methods have conflicting results. Some are shaken up to realize they're just people like the rest of us, others get outraged by the public displays.

It's also hard to see whether the outrage comes from the sexually oriented methods or the message itself. Probably both. They go hand in hand and feed each other. It goes in a circle. Person X thinks gays are sick and twisted, then sees a gay parade and gets angry because he thinks gays should just stay out of sight and live in the closet. And why should they stay in the closet? Because they're putting on public displays and refuse to stay in the closet where they belong! Because the displays are obscene! But the displays are so obscene because people like person X wish to shove the gay people back in the closet, and gay people don't like that. They react by making their displays more obscene and shocking to person X, and person X starts to hate gays even more because of it: Look at that display of obscenity, that's just what those gays are like, that's why they should all be... And so on.

I think I only admitted it partially, that it's true in some places and among some people. You might also want to look at Aldeth's post just above yours.

 

I don't know how many of you play D&D games, but it is weird to see such... intolerance in this forums. I mean, can't you see some are "good-neutral", some "lawful good" and others (these gay dudes) "chaotic good"? Of course it's simplified, but the idea is the same... They have different sexual orientations, and that's about it. They're normal, fun and smart, at least the ones I've met. And the fact they're demonstrating is because the State in each country generally doesn't recognise them. They have to fight to adopt a child, same if they want to marry like every heterosexual person. Only because of being homosexual (or bi or whatever).

 

That's fine - I was just giving my perspective on it! Thanks for what answers you have given! I believe that Susipaisti has neatly summed up a lot of what I would have said (although he's done it much better than I could have!), but there's just a few things I'll add.

I'm butchering logic, and you're butchering my words. Please go and read what I said again. I was obviously wishful thinking when I said I hope that you got my point there.

Yeah, I could say that. But I'm with you in agreeing that they don't look perfectly normal. But once again, I repeat myself. It is just us who think they look bad. I'm sure to them we look bad. And what makes our opinion any more right than theirs?

Hmm... what about Christmas paradaes?

[Edited]
Could I ask another question? If, another hypothetical situation, someone was to give you scientific proof, confirmed by all the leading sceintists in that field, that homosexuality was infact good for a person, would you be willing to accept them in society?

 

Most corporations are not in the business of political ideology - they are in business to make one thing: money - and lots of it. Thus, if a portion of their customer base is gay or, whatever else, they will take their money as they will anyone else's. They may donate money to politicians, but again that is only because certain politicians are better for business than others - at least they think. Again, it's not a matter of "rigtht" or "left" as I continue to try and explain to you, but a matter of business practice. I don't get why you continue to think it has anything to do with "leftist groups." It's really about money.

 

Some parties are pragmatic enough to donate to both left and right major parties, sometimes the exact same amount of money.

 

My fists had, often times.
-------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, but that is BS. The idea is the same: sometimes you have to go against what you hold dear to protect the society, or to simply punish the criminal.
I am not making any greater exception by executing a criminal - if I am against killing - than you are, jailing another criminal - and if you are pro freedom.
And if you might claim to be protecting the society, so can I. That is all there is to it.

Sorry, I thought I had implied this sufficiently. I will keep that in mind when discussing with you from now on.

No, something which repeats itself is not isolated. There is no defition of isolation that has anything to do with comparison to "organized studies".
Regardless, noting the constant repetition of events is half a step to giving statistics.
As for the black issue, the statistics say 1/3 of the african population of the US is udergoing one of the phases of the juridical system - imprisonment, warrant, parole or on trial. This is a statistic, thus, not an isolated case, so it must be a true claim to make? All by your logic of course.

From the beggining I have said this was an assumption, although I believe it to be a true one, considering all the reports I have heard. It might not be an evidence to preach on others - even because people see what they want to see - but it is good enough to confirm my stance - not itself taken alone, but added to the other evidences that I have.

What if, what if, what if? Don't you ever get tired of hypothesis? Parents may always err - at least in the view of others - when educating their children, but that is no excuse for the state to upbring the children in their instead. Most likely, the state has a much bigger chance to err then the parents do - and a much lesser reason to care for the children then the parents do.
The idea of a totalitarian state is exactly that one: if the civil society can not do properly on their own, we shall make it for them.

Again, I can not answer. If I know he is gay, most likely he is one of those "cheerful gays" - I don't know how to call it, but I guess you get the idea, those who behave like women - because if he kept that to himself, I would not know he is gay.
If that was the case, I would not hire him, because those type of gays are harmful to any professional/serious ambient. If he acted properly, I would never know and it would make no difference.

I am sure they like their looks. Normal people don't. Keep playing with relativism all the more you want, but people who dress, change their looks and behave in a shock manner like that, to "oppose" the mainstream, have serious self identity and self steem problems, which is not something I came up with.

Yes, except that I can't understand that logic. They are sick and tired of being seen as outcasts, so they make sure they give even more reasons for people to look down on them. Sure.

They are the only ones to be blamed. If they can only feed the "hate", what can I do?
The best strategy for any group of people who want to improve their image upon society was always to "play along with the societal rules". If you belong to a group of people you know people look down on, make sure you prove your worthy and capacity before you confront people.

I opened a new thread about it and answered him. Furthermore, don't you think it is suspicious that commies are usually viewed as naive and idealistic, rather than the genocidal butchers they are? Misinformation all the way up.
-----------------------------------------------------

You are right, there is a good chance that I might also partake in the israelin/palestinian conflict; the Irish issue, or condone the apartheid system.
The idea is the same, if I stick to like minded people, chances are my behaviour will ensue a conflict such as any of the above mentioned.

Serial murders also think think their murderers are perfectly fine. NO, I AM NOT comparing both things, but my point is that we can objectively claim someone's else "opinion" is wrong. In this case, Psychology might say a few things about them.

Yes, they are nasty ad agressive as hell!

Sorry, but these hypothesis are getting out of control. How could science prove that homosexualism is good for a person? Good in what regard? Good for him, but not at the expanse of someone else? Be more precise.
---------------------------------------------------

You are totally right, but then either you did not get my point or I failed to present it in a clear light.
That is exactly the problem. Capitalists, companies, big business people don't care for anything other than money. They are not concerned with ideology and whoever is in power, as long as they can make lots of money. This ensues that a leftist goverment - not the case of the US of course - can have the full support of the ones supposed to be rightists - read, business and bank people in general. Let me give you the example of Brazil. Their current president is a commie, from a total leftist party, and yet he has the full support of the banks, the big companies etc. Why is that? Because as long as they are allowed to make money, they simply don't care. In this specific case, the president's policies greatly benefit them, because these policies are greatly anti-liberal - economically speaking - and as such, it enables the big corporations to control the market, since small entrepreneur can not compete with them them on these terms, and can hardly enter or sustain themselves in the market. The highest interest rate of the world - 19.50% - greatly benefits the banks as well. So you see, a total lefty goverment can be greatly supported by the people who control the money, as long as these policies make sure they will make even more money. Of course these things don't come without a payback. Brazil also has one of the biggest tax rates of the whole world, which ensues the goverment takes a fair share of the whole - which is a typical leftist tributary policy - bunch. These business men are like turkeys slowly baked for the Christmans, but since they are either too stupid, or too short sighted - as long as they make money - they simply ignore or don't care.
So, although corporations are neither left or right, people, NGOs who have a clear position ideologically speaking, can take a good advantage of this situation, exploiting the infinite greedy of the big corporations.
That is my point, it is not your corporation which is either rightist or leftist, but there are people who will exploit the will of the owners for money to push their agendas.
I hope that clears any misundertanding.

 

If you turn this around it means that everyone who does not like to behave like the majority has problems with self esteem? Or with identity?

And I thought, communitarism was outdated.
It did never occur to you that the majority is not always right? There were so many dictatorships were the majority thought it was right to go along and people who didn't agree with them were killed.
You oppose nazism and leninist socialism. Those were systems that had strong communitaristic traits.

And you want this kind of society again? Where people may not even think what they want?

Do they force people to hate them? Or do they just want to be acknowledged and accepted how they are?

This is ridiculous. No one forces you to hate someone. This is like saying a woman is responisible for being raped if she wears provocative clothing.

 

Re read what I have said. It has nothing to do with what the majority thinks.
There are many minority groups who are perfectly fine in my book. This one does not, for the reasons I have said before.

... It is not very hard to understand. They know people loath this kind of behaviour, and they agressively advertise this type of behaviour. Not a good idea if you want to be acknowledged.
Of course someone who rapes a woman is responsable and should be punished, but some women seem to ask that themselves...