Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[Walker]

Like Obama said - yes you can, judge people equally, you choose not to..

many things are not black and white but sometimes things are just that - black and white.

 

And if you choose not to judge certain color or sexuality in an equal manner, you're being hypocritical, its not as mindblowing as you would like to think of it really...

 

You see in my world Kage, I meet Mark, I see Mark as a person, I treat him as I would want Mark to treat me, I discover Mark is an ass, its just what it is, Mark is an ass, he's an ass coz of his personality, behavior, virtues or lack of (sexuality/color irrelevant to me)...

 

You in your world, in a similar situation find Mark to be an ass but you think he's less of an ass coz he's homosexual or black hence oppressed (which gives him a slight excuse to be an ass), it is your right to do so, just as it is mine to find it hypocritical... I judge people based on their personality, you judge them based on their personality but also based on their color/sexuality ...

Im cool with the way I am....

How does acknowledging how culture effects a person's point of view... wrong? A person who was raised in China will have a different perspective from someone raised in Africa. Same with lower class, upper class, ect.

 

You can't take a person out of their cultural context? It's just as weird to assume that you should judge someone from a different culture without making room for their differences. After all, they got taught different manners and modes of thinking.

 

It's not so much different.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Walker

[The Evil Doer]

How does acknowledging how culture effects a person's point of view... wrong? A person who was raised in China will have a different perspective from someone raised in Africa. Same with lower class, upper class, ect.

 

You can't take a person out of their cultural context?  It's just as weird to assume that you should judge someone from a different culture without making room for their differences. After all, they got taught different manners and modes of thinking.

 

It's not so much different.

Walker, what is cultural difference if not other persons culture as perceived by you ?

 

Let's say I meet an Asian person, I know their culture puts more emphasis on collective as opposed to individual, I know that they put more emphasis on being respectable, however I also know some asians are pushy loud and rude while others are quiet, polite etc so when I meet a certain asian person I have two options

 

I - Treat him with respect as I would want him to treat me, and hope that any mistreatment from my side will be seen for what it is - something that derives from ignorance

 

II - Treat him in a manner which will suit my perception of his culture, which means treat him as if he were an asian and as I think asians want to be treated based on the stereotypes I have towards them

 

Options I or II can either work or not work coz I have no idea who this asian is. Even though he's an asian, he is also an individual, individual that might get offended if I were to treat him based on my stereotypes towards asians (which might be false simply coz he was from a different region in China or from Taiwan or whatever)... so when I meet a black person a homosexual person or anyone else for that matter I can go and make crazy assumptions about who they are and what they've been through based exclusively on their color/race/sexuality or I can simply treat them with respect like they were my equals and let them show me their real colors with their behavior instead of with their culture/color/sexuality and only then judge them... To me it makes perfect sense.

I dont know what your color is or your sexual orientation and frankly I dont really care, but Walker, do you want people to judge you based on those or based on your personality/virtues/behavior ?

Edited April 13, 2013 by The Evil Doer

[High Lord November]

Evil Doer, I am so confused on your stance on this. I read through your posts but you keep on jumping everywhere at once. Can you state your position on this, like, really clearly and concisely? Maybe limit yourself to two-three sentences maximum?

 

 

Sometimes wrong is wrong and right is right, and shades of gray are just people making excuses coz the truth doesnt sit well with them...

 

And other times wrong can be right and right can be wrong and wrongs can so halfright and rights can be semi-wrong... It all depends on , well, everything, really.

 

Classifying the whole world and everything that goes in it as strictly black and white is wrong, however. Not everything is a computer program with only an on-and-off command. Things can be right in some aspects and wrong in others, which make it grey if you know your colour mixing.

 

 

Also, you cannot treat everyone the same if everyone is not the same. Just like KS's post up there. I'd be interested in seeing your response to that, by the way.

[hazeh]

The picture of Lady Justice and Lady Liberty is a spin off of the saying "Liberty and Justice for all".

 

There is no implication that Liberty is "forcing" herself on Justice, nor is there any rule that Justice has to be an asexual, unloving, unemotional living being.

 

The picture is only tasteless to those who can't stand to see two women kissing :/

[The Evil Doer]

Evil Doer, I am so confused on your stance on this. I read through your posts but you keep on jumping everywhere at once. Can you state your position on this, like, really clearly and concisely?  Maybe limit yourself to two-three sentences maximum?

 

In a few short sentences

 

1 - picture is tasteless imo coz using lady justice is meant to stir controversy hence to further agenda in a sleazy manner

 

2 - homosexuals deserve equal rights just like everyone else, they should be treated like everyone else (this includes no special treatment) coz IMO homosexuals are not different, who you choose to sleep with doesnt make you into another specie nor does it make you lesser or better than anyone else

 

3 - Judge people based on their virtues and not on their sexuality/color nor on your perception of who they are supposed to be, everyone is an individual so let him show you who he is and then judge him based on that.. If a person is an ass, then he's an ass, whether he's a homosexual, white hetrosexual or an asian dude is irrelevant to him being an ass (thats the concept of black or white - if he's an ass thats the end of it, there is no need for shades of gray)....

 

@ Shiny, two girls kissing is hot to most of us straight males so, no problem there, to me at least...

 

Like I said before that picture is tasteless to me (even though you believe our justice system is an emotional being and not an objective, free of emotions one as I see it)

If I were to see a picture showing a dude tounging blindfolded lady justice I would find the picture to be tasteless, sexist and degrading towards women (lesbian couple or a hetrosexual couple, to me there is no difference between the two hence I judge them by the same set of rules)/

If you shiny have no problems with such picture (dude and blindfolded lady Justice) but instead find it to be amusing then my comment regarding hypocrisy has nothing to do with you, coz you just like me view homosexuals in a same light you view hetrosexuals, in which case, we're in agreement its just that we have slightly different views regarding whats tasteless and whats not (which is cool, different people, different povs and all that)

Edited April 13, 2013 by The Evil Doer

[Spelunker]

In a few short sentences

 

1 - picture is tasteless imo coz using lady justice is meant to stir controversy hence to further agenda in a sleazy manner

 

2 - homosexuals deserve equal rights just like everyone else, they should be treated like everyone else (this includes no special treatment) coz IMO homosexuals are not different, who you choose to sleep with doesnt make you into another specie nor does it make you lesser or better than anyone else

 

3 - Judge people based on their virtues and not on their sexuality/color nor on your perception of who they are supposed to be, everyone is an individual so let him show you who he is and then judge him based on that.. If a person is an ass, then he's an ass, whether he's a homosexual, white hetrosexual or an asian dude is irrelevant to him being an ass (thats the concept of black or white - if he's an ass thats the end of it, there is no need for shades of gray)....

 

@ Shiny, two girls kissing is hot to most of us straight males so, no problem there, to me at least...

 

Like I said before that picture is tasteless to me (even though you believe our justice system is an emotional being and not an objective, free of emotions one as I see it)

If I were to see a picture showing a dude tounging blindfolded lady justice I would find the picture to be tasteless, sexist and degrading towards women (lesbian couple or a hetrosexual couple, to me there is no difference between the two hence I judge them by the same set of rules)/

If you shiny have no problems with such picture (dude and blindfolded lady Justice) but instead find it to be amusing then my comment regarding hypocrisy has nothing to do with you, coz you just like me view homosexuals in a same light you view hetrosexuals, in which case, we're in agreement its just that we have slightly different views regarding whats tasteless and whats not (which is cool, different people, different povs and all that)

1. Whose agenda is it furthering in a "sleazy manner"?

2. Agreed.

3. I think culture should be taken into account, and what counts for "being an ass" in America might not get you a second glance elsewhere, and vice versa. (But off topic. )

4. If LJ appeared to be OK with a dude, then I would not find that offensive. I don't think it appears as though Liberty is forcing herself upon her, so that analogy doesn't really make sense.

[KageSora]

Sometimes wrong is wrong and right is right, and shades of gray are just people making excuses coz the truth doesnt sit well with them...

 

Realism in here, thats a good one

Nobody ever said there was no black and white--there are times when it is black and white.

 

But that isn't 100% of the time. There are, more often, shades of gray and many colors.

 

You in your world, in a similar situation find Mark to be an ass but you think he's less of an ass coz he's homosexual or black hence oppressed (which gives him a slight excuse to be an ass), it is your right to do so, just as it is mine to find it hypocritical... I judge people based on their personality, you judge them based on their personality but also based on their color/sexuality ...

Im cool with the way I am....

Again, you're misunderstanding me.

 

Maybe I'm just not communicating what's in my brain right.

 

I'll try again.

 

 

Let's say I meet Mark. I treat mark as a decent person because Mark is human. Mark turns out to be an ass. His race or sexuality has no effect on if he's an ass or not. Nor does it change how much of an ass he is.

 

Now, let's say that Mark is my teacher. I make a sexually inappropriate comment about Mark. This is rude, inappropriate, and not something I should do because it is not okay. I may get a detention, or suspended. Possibly expelled, depending on the severity of the situation. ("You have a nice butt" and "I wanna [insert sexually explicit stuff here]" are both inappropriate but are two very different levels of inappropriate)

 

However, if Mark makes a sexually inappropriate comment about me it's worse--because, as a teacher, he is in a position of power over me and thus his words and actions have more weight than my own. In Mark's case "you have a nice butt" will likely get him in more trouble than my telling him he has a cute butt will.

 

It's not a case of "making somebody less of an ass", it's entirely a case of how much weight and the additional implications of the positions of those involved carry.

 

In the teacher example, Mark's words and actions have more weight because it's implied that he could use his authority to forcibly cause me discomfort or harm. Where I, as a student, am implied to not be able to force a teacher to do something. This may not be the case! But it's the implications society has associated with such a situation.

 

In the instance of race, for example, there may be added implications of believing that we should go back to the times when blacks were slaves and seen as sub-human.

 

With sexuality, it could be the added implication that they're unnatural abominations.

 

Those added implications, associated through years of discrimination and vocal groups insisting things like that over those years, are what make it worse in certain situations.

 

However, they only effect certain types of being an ass. If I'm just an all around ass to Mark and race or sexuality or whatever never comes into play, it's not really different than Mark being an ass to me in the same way.

 

Basically, being a racist ass =/= being a general ass. Being a sexist ass =/= being a general ass. Being a homophobic ass =/= being a general ass.

 

 

...I still feel like I'm not getting what's in my head out properly... Then again, maybe I am and you're just refusing to pay attention.

 

Hey, can somebody else say if they understand what I'm trying to say? If I'm really butchering what I'm trying to say somewhere between my brain and my fingers, I'd like to try and figure out how to say what's in my head.

[Alpha1]

Please, do explain where you're drawing these incredibly baseless assumptions from.

 

I, for one, would actually find it amusing.

 

It's possible.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/offended-obamas-best...--politics.html

[TCA]

KageSora: You make perfect sense to me and I agree with you.

[hazeh]

@ Shiny, two girls kissing is hot to most of us straight males so, no problem there, to me at least...

 

Like I said before that picture is tasteless  to me (even though you believe our justice system is an emotional being and not an objective, free of emotions one as I see it)

If I were to see a picture showing a dude tounging blindfolded lady justice I would find the picture to be tasteless, sexist and degrading towards women (lesbian couple or a hetrosexual couple, to me there is no difference between the two hence I judge them by the same set of rules)/

If you shiny have no problems with such picture (dude and blindfolded lady Justice) but instead find it to be amusing then my comment regarding hypocrisy has nothing to do with you, coz you just like me view homosexuals in a same light you view hetrosexuals, in which case, we're in agreement its just that we have slightly different views regarding whats tasteless and whats not (which is cool, different people, different povs and all that)

I would only find the picture you described to be tasteless, sexist, and degrading towards women if said man was visibly forcing himself on LJ and making her uncomfortable. I would find the mentioned picture of Liberty and LJ tasteless if it was apparent that LJ was uncomfortable or trying to get away or whatnot.

 

LJ is blinded because that is what LJ's personification LOOKS like. It wasn't done that way just so Liberty could land a smooch without LJ's permission. The characters are drawn in a way where neither are a in position that is seen as objectifying or degrading, so I don't see an issue at all. I wouldn't take issue with it if Liberty happened to be male, either, because they're make-believe characters of intangible human CONCEPTS that have no actual sex or personal tastes. People can create and view them in whatever form they wish.

 

So saying the picture is tasteless, to me is the same as saying a drawn picture of two dogs getting married is tasteless because OMG THEY'RE ANIMALS.

 

Btw, as far as I'm aware they aren't "tonguing" or in an intense make-out session. All it looks like is a romantic, passionate kiss, and nothing very sexual whatsoever. It's not like Liberty is groping or touching her inappropriately.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[soupnazi]

Let me try to help you out, KageSora.

 

We live in a world in which people of color, members of the LGBT+ community, and women are systemically oppressed. Note the systemic bit: it is society as a whole that oppresses these people. Members of these minorities are denied jobs, treated poorly, and, you know, oppressed, on a global scale. On the other hand, men, white people, straight folk, and cis people are not.

 

Thus, discriminating against a person because they are gay is more harmful than discriminating against someone because they are straight, because society as a whole will back up the discrimination against the gay person, denying them a job, not treating them with respect, maybe even murdering them. On the other hand, the straight person will not have these issues on a wide scale. 99% of places won't discriminate against the straight person, so those instances of discrimination are isolated incidents. On the other hand, maybe 80-90% of places will discriminate against the gay person, meaning that one instance of discrimination is just one of many.

 

This is why I find it more useful to use -ism words to refer to systemic oppression, rather than just general discrimination. "Racial discrimination" is a lot simpler than "racial discrimination that is backed up by society as a whole", so it seems to make sense to use the latter definition. This is how the word is used by most people dealing with the issues in more serious or academical settings, anyway.

[Starscream]

I don't care what people decide to do when it comes to love (aside of excessive public displays (both hetero and homosexual))

 

In my mind, who am I to deny someone their happiness. They want to get married and love each other as they want, be my guest.

 

I'd rather see love being promoted rather than hate.

 

Love is such a wonderful feeling. To find that special someone who clicks and you just want to spend your life with them.

 

I do not understand what the issue is anyway. So what if people are gay. I mean if they are happy...It can't be bad. Why treat them differently?

 

I have two friends who recently got married, they are women, they had a baby-I won't go into details of that. They actually frown upon some of the activities the gay community get up to such as the excessive displays of gay pride parades (toronto) Which they feel puts homosexual people into a negative frame rather than positive.

 

I have a stepsister who has adopted a child with her girlfriend/wife (not sure if they made it official)

 

I have a number of relatives or my husband relatives who are gay/lesbian.

 

In a nutshell, and my opinion at least,

 

I feel it's no one's business to interfere/dictate who can marry and who cannot marry. On the ground that they themselves do not like it. If they want to marry. Let them.

[catstaff]

I have two friends who recently got married, they are women, they had a baby-I won't go into details of that. They actually frown upon some of the activities the gay community get up to such as the excessive displays of gay pride parades (toronto) Which they feel puts homosexual people into a negative frame rather than positive.

First off, congrats to your friends on their marriage and baby.

 

But with regards to their personal feelings about such things as gay pride parades being "excessive displays" which they feel portray homosexual people in a negative way... sometimes excessive displays are necessary to force the general population to take notice of a minority group's problems.

 

I don't know how familiar you are with the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 60s US, but perhaps you've heard the name Rosa Parks? She was the black woman whose arrest sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, when she refused to give up her seat when more white passengers boarded the bus.

 

From Wikipedia:

Montgomery buses: law and prevailing customs

 

In 1900, Montgomery had passed a city ordinance (essentially only whites could vote) to segregate bus passengers by race. Conductors were empowered to assign seats to achieve that goal. According to the law, no passenger would be required to move or give up his seat and stand if the bus was crowded and no other seats were available. Over time and by custom, however, Montgomery bus drivers adopted the practice of requiring black riders to move when there were no white-only seats left.

 

The first four rows of seats on each Montgomery bus were reserved for whites. Buses had "colored" sections for black people generally in the rear of the bus, although blacks comprised more than 75% of the ridership. The sections were not fixed but were determined by placement of a movable sign. Black people could sit in the middle rows until the white section filled; if more whites needed seats, blacks were to move to seats in the rear, stand, or, if there was no room, leave the bus. Black people could not sit across the aisle in the same row as white people. The driver could move the "colored" section sign, or remove it altogether. If white people were already sitting in the front, black people had to board at the front to pay the fare, then disembark and reenter through the rear door.

 

For years, the black community had complained that the situation was unfair. Parks said, "My resisting being mistreated on the bus did not begin with that particular arrest...I did a lot of walking in Montgomery."[5]

 

One day in 1943, Parks boarded the bus and paid the fare. She then moved to her seat but driver James F. Blake told her to follow city rules and enter the bus again from the back door. Parks exited the bus, but before she could re-board at the rear door, Blake drove off, leaving her to walk home in the rain.[14]

 

On December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks boarded the bus and sat down in behind the sign denoting the colored section. But when the whites-only seats filled up, the driver moved the sign and told her and three others to move back to the already-crowded rear of the bus and stand. She refused and was arrested.

 

Was she making an "excessive display"? Maybe. But her action, followed by the bus boycott... in which the black residents of Montgomery stayed off the buses for 381 days... helped spark real awareness of the problems caused by segregation. Maybe the majority population still needs awareness of the problems caused by discrimination due to sexual orientation, which is what gay pride parades and such are intended to do.

 

And who knows? Maybe in a few years, there will be Gay Pride Day celebrations all over the place, wherein everyone is "gay for a day" the way everyone seems to be "Irish for a day" at St. Patrick's Day parades and other celebrations... despite the fact that at one time, Irish immigrants were commonly victims of discrimination as well.

[Starscream]

by excessive, I think they mean the half nakedness that goes on. I think they found it somewhat embarrassing. I never did get the details out of them regarding that. But its not me saying its excessive, it was them. It is possible they felt that was too much. Then again these two were fairly private about their interactions.

 

But then again, there was the topless raley's back in the 90's after a topless woman was arrested and two topless men walked by. I know one of my more hippy-like classmates went to the rallies. It's legal now in ontario for women to go topless, not that I have ever seen a woman do that.

 

As for the lady who refused to give up her seat, I don't blame her. I would not consider that excessive at all. But that is a poor comparison to people in a parade wearing chaps with their backsides hanging out.

 

Mind you, now I think about it, that naked bike ride in toronto.... Yeah canadians do weird things I think..... Not sure what that ride is about, but I sure as the pit would not participate, I'm not exactly the most attractive thing on two wheels.

[KageSora]

@soupnazi--that's exactly what I was trying to say, thank you.

 

Only difference is I use the terms "[whatever]-ism" and "institutionalized [whatever]-ism" to differentiate between individual instances of [insert whatever]-sim and the systematic oppression.

 

But, when it comes down to it, it really just depends on where you go--different circles will have slightly varying terms they use to explain the same concepts. Which, I suppose, is where some communication issues come from.

[soupnazi]

Yeah. The usage of -ism words for systemic or not is pretty trivial, ultimately, though I think the usage of them for non-systemic discrimination is mildly iffy since it kind of cheapens the usage of the word for systemic discrimination. Like, if you use the same word for a lesser thing and a greater thing, it makes the greater thing seem less important. That's probably just me being nitpicky, though.

[KageSora]

Yeah. The usage of -ism words for systemic or not is pretty trivial, ultimately, though I think the usage of them for non-systemic discrimination is mildly iffy since it kind of cheapens the usage of the word for systemic discrimination. Like, if you use the same word for a lesser thing and a greater thing, it makes the greater thing seem less important. That's probably just me being nitpicky, though.

True, but a lot of people won't always get what you mean if you don't use words they're used to hearing associated with certain things. ESPECIALLY if they're new to the movement they're being introduced to, or they're just starting to learn more about things like the discrimination that still goes on. A LOT of people don't realize how big an issue it still is, because they don't see it in their everyday lives--and what they do see they've been conditioned by society to view as normal and don't realize the extent of how bad it is.

 

And different groups use the same words differently. The common usage of a term is often different from how the term is used by other groups. Like medical terms, or when talking about social justice. Or when, hell, even in fandoms! We have our own examples here in DC where newbies get a little confused when we use words in ways they're unfamiliar with from time to time.

 

That's why I use "institutionalized [whatever]-ism" when specifically referring to the systematic issues so it's (hopefully) clear I don't mean [whatever]-ism in the "lesser" way.

 

But, of course, as with any kind of communication it doesn't always get across to the person I'm talking to. And then we have confusion.

[JellyBall]

I think it's wrong, God make Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

Edited April 15, 2013 by JellyBall

[KageSora]

I think it's wrong, God make AAdam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

And why should that dictate the legal rights of people who don't share your religion?

[Spelunker]

Why, then, did God also make all of the peopel the ARE homosexual, jelly? (I'm assuming you're Christian here) Since God makes all people, if it was not meant to be, then why did he allow it?

 

(Just a note- I don't think it happens this way, but that's the religions reason.)

[brairtrainer]

I think it's wrong, God make AAdam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

Yes but not all nations are theocracies, and even here in the United States we have freedom of religion and we should have a seperation of church and state.

 

Meaning I believe it is unconstitutional to not give the same rights to gays as we give to everyone else, not everyone is Chirstian/Jewish/Muslim (from what I understand all three of those religions share that creation story. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, though I'm 99% sure it is definitley shared between Christians and Jews.)

[KageSora]

Speaking of religion, here's a great post i saw on Tumblr:

 

Pastor: Now, according to a few passages in the bible, homosexuality is a sin.

Couple of older males in the audience: Amen!

Pastor: Now, wait, I'm not finished.

Pastor: You know what else the bible defines as a sin? Divorce.

-uncomfortable silence-

Pastor: There are countless passages that talk about how divorce is wrong, and that there are consequences to getting a divorce, such as the wife should be stoned.

Pastor: Yet, I witnessed a divorce just this morning. And I gotta tell you, it was heartbreaking, but I definitely didn't attempt to throw rocks at the wife, even though she was the one who filed for divorce.

Pastor: We choose to overlook the consequences of divorce because time has proven that they're inhumane and cruel.

Pastor: The bible doesn't say anything about the consequences of a homosexual lifestyle. Yet, we seem to be spearheading a campaign to ruin the lives of people we don't even know.

-the pastor shifts a few notes around-

Pastor: The bible states to love thy neighbor. That's it. There are no other rules or restrictions to that passage.

Pastor: So, we as a church family have to support equality with a smile on our face. THAT is the true Christian way.

[Obscure_Trash]

Yeah. The usage of -ism words for systemic or not is pretty trivial, ultimately, though I think the usage of them for non-systemic discrimination is mildly iffy since it kind of cheapens the usage of the word for systemic discrimination. Like, if you use the same word for a lesser thing and a greater thing, it makes the greater thing seem less important. That's probably just me being nitpicky, though.

I tend to agree with this. Why should the power structures that are behind racism, sexism, heterosexism, cisexism, etc. be erased from those terms and instead moved to another term? There is a movement, and I don't know how big, but I agree with it, pleading for us not to use the dictionary definitions. Heterosexism is the blend of power of heteronormativity and the prejudice towards non-heterosexuals. Racism is the blend of power supporting white people and the prejudice towards POC. In other words, you can't be racist against white people. You can bully them and discriminate against them, certainly, but it can't be called racism. But even if you go by the dictionary definition, squeezing what constitutes the majority of the -isms (ie people without privilege) into a term that's "nicer" or "easier" for people to understand...kind of bothers me. >_e

 

I think it's wrong, God make Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

 

Those are just the first two people he ever created. I don't see why the creation of two people should dictate all morals. D:

[KageSora]

Would you have any one-word suggestions for discrimination against a white person based solely on the fact that they're white? Or a heteroseuxal solely because of them being heterosexual? Or a cis person solely because they're cis? It's a bit of a mouthful to say "[whatever] discrimination against those supported by the system".

 

For sexism, we have misandry, I guess.

 

You could just say prejudice, but there are different kinds of prejudice. And in the minds of many people if you say racial prejudice that just equals racism. A lot of people aren't going to understand--or care--about there being a difference between "generic racism" and "institutionalized" racism, really. That's the problem no matter WHAT terms you use.

 

And the thing is... If you WANT people to listen to you, then you're going to have to NOT make them go "...sounds like too much work to listen screw that".

 

And forcing them to relearn terms they're familiar with right from the start to get involved is going to turn a lot of people off. Forcing them to use longer words when people these days seem to be tending towards shorter and shorter ways to express things is going to turn people off, too, I think.

 

I'm all for explaining it to them once they start getting involved--but to get the masses involved initially you have to keep them from thinking it's too confusing to bother with--ESPECIALLY when it doesn't obviously directly affect them. Like if they're white, and you want to make them more aware of the systematic racism that occurs. Or if they're male, or heterosexual, or cis.

 

 

I'm all for new terms--but I'm also for trying to keep it as simple as possible, because I think that makes the concepts more accessible to the masses. And if you want ANYTHING to change, you have to get the masses to realize there's a problem and to want to change it.

[JellyBall]

God doesn't make who you are, he gives you choice, to what you want to be. I have nothing against homesexualty, I just think its wrong + part of the reason we were put here was to reproduce. (this is just my belief)