LG alphabetic

[Yenn]

I see that the shrine of remembrance has had to cancel a rainbow celebration of homosexual servicemen and women, because of hate messages from homophobes.

What is the reasoning for having all this gay pride celebration? Why do we have to bow down to the different part of society and extoll them as being special?

What do all those initials stand for? I understand the L as being Lesbian, but G is gay and that is just a modern corruption of the word, even so I understand it as homosexual or maybe queer. B is I am told Bi, which means we screw anything. T transgender can't make up their minds, but what are Q and I? Surely if Q is queer, isn't that now covered by G? and I have no idea what I implies, except that we are all supposed to treat the whole damn lot as religion and bow down before them.

Maybe the bowing down is not a good idea.

[octave]

4 minutes ago, Yenn said:

except that we are all supposed to treat the whole damn lot as religion and bow down before them.

 

 

Seems like a bit of an exaggeration to me.  There are many days that celebrate particular groups.   I guess I find it hard to understand why anyone would feel so aggrieved that they would  threaten staff at the the shrine.  

[red750]

They are all mother natures mistakes. Fitted with the wrong accessories or software. But that's OK. They are what they are. If they would just get on with life instead of waving their rainbow flag everywhere, rubbing it in the nose of98% of the population.

 

They say they want to feel included. That's up to them. No-one is stopping them. 

[willedoo]

27 minutes ago, Yenn said:

What do all those initials stand for? I understand the L as being Lesbian, but G is gay and that is just a modern corruption of the word, even so I understand it as homosexual or maybe queer. B is I am told Bi, which means we screw anything. T transgender can't make up their minds, but what are Q and I? Surely if Q is queer, isn't that now covered by G? and I have no idea what I implies

I think 'I' is Intergender, but I have no idea what that means. Ditto with queer; maybe it means like Priscilla Queen of the Desert. Another couple of terms that leave me confused about my identity is binary and non-bibary. I don't know which one I am because I don't know what those terms mean. Maybe I'm neither.

 

I feel a bit sorry for the plus people as they are regularly discriminated against by being left off the end of the alphabet string. This morning on the ABC radio, they were debating the recent decision by some Manly players to refuse to play a match wearing rainbow colours. The ABC presenter was naming the whole string bar the plus people. How would you you feel if you were a left out plus not added?

[facthunter]

Red  (and others) would you like to be ONE even now when we have supposedly progressed a bit from the days of Poofter bashing after football training and other discrimination that drove many to suicide.. THEY are still People and should be accepted as such and have existed since man walked upright. There's a long way to go before they are treated FAIRLY. here and many other places.  Till then I think we should be able to  cop a few rainbow coloured flags etc Nev

[red750]

1 minute ago, willedoo said:

they were debating the recent decision by some Manly players to refuse to play a match wearing rainbow colours.

So this is acceptable to their religion?

 

[facthunter]

They should be more concerned about advertising betting on sports outcomes. IF any player does it it's considered a hanging offence. How much damage is done to society by GAMBLING?  Nev

[octave]

2 minutes ago, red750 said:

They are all mother natures mistakes

 

Do you really believe that?   Nature produces some level of diversity just look at the animal kingdom.  It is your subjective judgment that for example my sister is a "mistake"

 

7 minutes ago, red750 said:

If they would just get on with life instead of waving their rainbow flag everywhere, rubbing it in the nose of98% of the population.

 

 

I don't believe I haver ever had a rainbow flag waved in my face.   Seeing a rainbow flag on a building or outside a house does not constitute waving it in anyone's face any more than the house across the road flying the Ukrainian flag constitutes waving their Ukrainian identity in my face.  

 

My sister spent some time in the Army in the early 80s where far from flaunting who she was, she had to actively conceal who she was for fear of being thrown out.  Luckily the forces are now less antiquated.   Since leaving the army she has been a primary school teacher (and no not teaching the kids to be gay as some of the crusty old conservatives seem to think).    

 

Something she once told me that I found rather sad was that in the past on a Monday morning in the staff room  when other people were talking about what they did on the weekend with their families she had to pretend that she did not have a partner.    Although this has changed in recent times she can never be sure if someone in a social or work situation is a crazy religious person or a crusty old conservative who is living in the past.

 

This idea of ramming it down our throats is interesting. In the not too distant past my sister was confronted by someone because she was holding hands with her partner an accused of wanting to flaunt her sexuality.   My wife and I often hold hands in public but have never been, nor would we ever expect to be confronted.

 

In my sisters earlier day (she is in her mid 60s)    she was subjected to awful treatment by society.  Although society has progressed a lot since then, painful memories don't just disappear overnight.  The very notion that there are still people in society who are so hateful that they are willing to threaten violence against an organization that wants to light their building a certain way must be a bit confronting and must also contradict the idea that everything is fine now.

 

51 minutes ago, Yenn said:

Maybe the bowing down is not a good idea.

Yes I agree, the shrine should not have backed down from the people threatening violence over lighting.  Perhaps these people should just ignore the lighting and get on with "their" lives.   

[Jerry_Atrick]

I have missed the Sea Eagles controversy over wearing Rainbow colours.. What's the issue?

 

As for calling them snowflakes - it takes a lot more to stand up to bigotry than to join it. I have found the bigots to be snowflakes in real life, when they are on their own.

Edited July 31, 2022 by Jerry_Atrick

[Marty_d]

Would you call people with a genetic disease "Nature's mistakes"?  How about redheads?  Black people?  People with male pattern baldness?

 

LGBTI people (by the way, it stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex) have no choice in the way they were born, any more than any of the people above.  And in regards to the question of the original poster, I think a better question is "what sort of morons are so insecure in their own gender/sexuality that they have to threaten and bully people who plan to briefly recognise people who served their country?"

[willedoo]

43 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I have missed the Sea Eagles controversy over wearing Rainbow colours.. What's the issue?

 

As for calling them snowflakes - it takes a lot more to stand up to bigotry than to join it. I have found the bigots to be snowflakes in real life, when they are on their own.

The club management decided on the jerseys for a one off match. I think it was meant to be an inclusion thing to pay tribute to NRL players who belong to the alphabet in some way. Seven players objected; I think on religious grounds. A lot of the Pacific islander players are devout Christians; people like the Tongans etc.. Probably a bit of a storm in a teacup. The players concerned weren't happy that it was sprung on them and they weren't consulted beforehand about any possible conflict with their religious beliefs. The debate now has touched on whether in a case like that, religious people should be automatically branded bigots and homophobes because of a basic religious belief.

[willedoo]

3 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

Would you call people with a genetic disease "Nature's mistakes"?  How about redheads?

I know of one in Canberra that would qualify as a huge mistake.

[Marty_d]

1 minute ago, willedoo said:

I know of one in Canberra that would qualify as a huge mistake.

Nature or nurture?  Maybe her parents were stupid raging bigots too.

[willedoo]

It might have been all that fish and chip oil. Her brains might have just slipped right out her ear.

[nomadpete]

25 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

Would you call people with a genetic disease "Nature's mistakes"?  How about redheads?  Black people?  People with male pattern baldness?

Yep!

All  the non arians

Edited July 31, 2022 by nomadpete

[nomadpete]

21 minutes ago, willedoo said:

I know of one in Canberra that would qualify as a huge mistake.

I'm confused.

Only ONE ?

[onetrack]

Funnily enough, when I wore the Green Uniform, anyone who displayed open homosexual behaviour was promptly "discharged from the Forces". I don't know what went on their service record or discharge certificate.

So the idea that large numbers of homosexuals fought in WW1, WW2 and Korea and Vietnam seems to be quite incorrect to me.

I certainly never came across any homosexually-inclined people during my 2 yrs National Service and 12 mths War Service in Vietnam.

 

But I am sick of seeing rainbow flags, homosexuality and all the other variants shoved in my face relentlessly every day - and I'm not the only one to complain about this, I know quite a number of people who feel the same.

The problem as I see it, is that this group belongs on the autism spectrum, and as such - they are loud, demanding, obsessive, self-opinionated, self-interested, generally abrasive, and quite relentless and ruthless in their nastiness when pursuing people who belong to a religion.

I mean, these people have regular parades flouting their rampant, in-your-face sexuality, dress up as priests and nuns, and parody them - so why can't we object to this behaviour, which many "straight" people find quite insulting.

 

Edited July 31, 2022 by onetrack

[nomadpete]

6 hours ago, facthunter said:

. There's a long way to go before they are treated FAIRLY. here and many other places.  Till then I think we should be able to  cop a few rainbow coloured flags etc Nev

Nev, I agree. But the pendulum seems to have overshot somewhat and even so, that cannot erase the past historic bigoted discrimination that borders on cruelty to fellow man (or person).

 

Discrimination is a basic human trait. I have various friends, and those who 'identify' as homosexual have often had some historic horrible treatment. For the most part they just get on with their lives.

 

However discrimination works against ANY differences found in individuals, and I have also seen examples of injustice (discrimination) against various people for relatively trivial reasons, and nobody flies a special flag for them.

 

So I am firmly in the camp of "If there is anything different about you, whether it is lifestyle or physical, or even if you barrack for Collingwood", that's personal. None of anybody's business as long as it isn't used against you or imposed on anyone else.

 

Personal inner strength is paramount to an individual's wellbeing. Public displays don't fix these problems. No amount of attention seeking by minority groups wil ever turn a minority into a mainstream group. Whatever your interests or preferences are, they are PERSONAL.

 

Live and let live, ignore the bigots and get on with life. It works for all the successful people I know, wherever they sit on the spectrum.

 

Edited July 31, 2022 by nomadpete

[spacesailor]

Those Alphabet people are truly !

RASIST.

They refuse to acknowledge there should be a relevant H in their alphabet soup.

It only 98% of the population. 

BUT

To them the H doesn't mater.

And

I have a Gay married nephew in My family.

He a Great guy.

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Where'd you get the 98% from?    Regardless Ican't really see the" normal person " so called is too hard done by. The Sydney Mardi Gras was a great money spinner so less of an issue there when businesses make money out of it.? .  Nev

[spacesailor]

BUT

NO Christian floats were allowed !.

AND .THUS.

I would not allow my children to see the parade. 

Now they,r grown they can decide for themselves. & none have yet taken the step to sit on a float with their cousin. 

red750 posted " 98% " 8 hours ago

spacesailor

 

 

[octave]

8 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

NO Christian floats were allowed !.

Christian ministers to march in gay Mardi Gras 2008

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

I don't know what went on their service record or discharge certificate.

I would guess the discharge certificate would read, "A mistake to admit to the services".

 

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

So the idea that large numbers of homosexuals fought in WW1, WW2 and Korea and Vietnam seems to be quite incorrect to me.

Really? I can't recall if conscription occurred in WWII or Korea, but it did occur for Vietnam, so I guess the amount of conscriptees at least would have had more or less the same representation of gay people as society.. Remember, even in the seventies, but definitely before, it was a big risk coming out, so a lot of people would have gone to pains to hide it - even getting married and having kids. For WWII, I would have expected similar percentages volunteered when Australia's northern coast line and Sydney harbour was threatened.

 

2 hours ago, willedoo said:

The players concerned weren't happy that it was sprung on them and they weren't consulted beforehand about any possible conflict with their religious beliefs. The debate now has touched on whether in a case like that, religious people should be automatically branded bigots and homophobes because of a basic religious belief.

Thanks.. missed that. I agree, it should have been done in consultation, but if one's basic religious belief contains bigotry and they adhere to that belief - well, yes, they are bigoted to the point of the bigotry they subscribe to. Religion is a belief that something is true. Most religions have their rules set millenia ago.. and they are their rules.. FWIW, I know many religious people that do not subscribe to the more bigoted elements of that religion (inclduding Muslims, Christians, and Jews). For example, I think Pakistan is very tolerant to trans-people, yet in the middle east, they will be stoned to death in a Muslim country (at least, this is what I am told - happy to be proven wrong - although it would be sad if I was wrong on the Pakistan front).

 

2 hours ago, onetrack said:

But I am sick of seeing rainbow flags, homosexuality and all the other variants shoved in my face relentlessly every day - and I'm not the only one to complain about this, I know quite a number of people who feel the same.

The problem as I see it, is that this group belongs on the autism spectrum, and as such - they are loud, demanding, obsessive, self-opinionated, self-interested, generally abrasive, and quite relentless and ruthless in their nastiness when pursuing people who belong to a religion.

I mean, these people have regular parades flouting their rampant, in-your-face sexuality, dress up as priests and nuns, and parody them - so why can't we object to this behaviour, which many "straight" people find quite insulting.

I hear what you say, OT, but to me there are two different dimensions. Having Rainbow flags waved in my face is a bit of an overstatement, but seeing them in a deminstration for LBGTQ+ rights is not a problem for me, anyway. I think they still have a way to go, and the fact that the administation of the Shrine of Rememberannce felt too at risk to continue with using rainbow coloured lights to celebrate the contrinbution at least gay people have contributed is very sad and shows there are still real problems that a large part of society acquiesce to, if not subscribe to.

 

But, I do get the gay celebrations - if they are thrust into faces. I see no need to see them dress up in their favourite kinky dress in public. but then Brazil have some similarly raunchy stuff in there mardi-gras which is largely hetro. Having said that, I have the choice to see them or not.. so I choose not to see them. Heteros also get up in that sort of regalia in publick but often they do it in a setting called "dogging".. so it is not televised and I guess the locations are more or less secret. I have not been to the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras and when it comes on the news in highlights, I tend to either watch it, or treat it as a commercial and go find where Wolfie got to. I remember my mum, whos is a real prude and has been for as long as I can remember deciding she was going to "get with it" and become all new-age modern and go and see the gay mardi gras. I cautioned her not to, as it is quite risque (had a friend who's bro ther was gay and went up there every year without fail) - and that I don't know whey they need to publicly exhibit their sexuality so graphically (the San Fransciso one is so much more benign). I was branded homophobic by both my mum and brother, despite me saying quite happy for them to march and have a show, just do they need it quite so graphic.. what they do in their own time is their won business, and I don't need to see it. Well, on my mum's return, her tune had already changed. Needless to say, she hasn't been back, but she is not homophobic.

 

 

3 hours ago, nomadpete said:

So I am firmly in the camp of "If there is anything different about you, whether it is lifestyle or physical, or even if you barrack for Collingwood", that's personal. None of anybody's business as long as it isn't used against you or imposed on anyone else.

That is the rub, though - isn't it.. A lot of people who have no skin in the game make it their business and then use it against them, and go on the verbal, social, and even physical attack. Although, I knew a policeman in Melbourne that did have a problem with male gays in that they would "cottage" (apparently George Michael got caught doing it, and I think it is having sex inb public toilets). His view was why can't they be lioke normal people and have sex at home. I did say a) many were probably not able to as their family (either parental/sibling or married into) wouldn't stand for it; and that heteros are often caught having sex in public too..

[Yenn]

There were no homosexuals in the army in my day. Well that was the official word, but they were there.

I joined up at 17.5 years and during trade training I had my first encounter with a homosexual. He was a corporal and tried to take advantage of me and I had no idea about homosexuality. Luckily I had a few Royal Marines doing the course with me and they kept an eye on us young blokes. They put me wise and stopped the problem. I never came up against any others although they were always talked about.

Without those older men I could well have been given an introduction to homosexuality.

Now we are expected to treat it as if it is not a problem to anyone and I know it was a problem to me. We are expected to embrace it and if we don't we are considered to be religious bigots. I resent that. A bigot I may be but I have no time for religion, which in my opinion has done more harm that homosexuality.

I just don't like having to bow down to a way of life that takes advantage of young people who do not understand it.

I don't mind if they just shut up about it and stop trying to push it into my face all the time.

[octave]

yenn 

Of course hitting on people is annoying an and usually unwelcome.  I spent 12 years of my life in the military and the thing I observed the most was men hitting on women.  Does this mean there is a problem with heterosexual men? Probably not , what does it rationally mean? It means that a proportion of PEOPLE try to sexually proposition the people they sexually desire.  The majority of these instances of unwelcome sexual advances, I am willing to bet are heterosexual.  

20 minutes ago, Yenn said:

Now we are expected to treat it as if it is not a problem to anyone and I know it was a problem to me.

 

Ask any woman in the military (at least back in my time) whether they have had unwelcome sexual advances and I am sure the answer would be yes.    These days  younger ( and more enlightened) young people in the forces would I am sure treat any sexual advance from any gender the same way.  Today people are more aware about issue around consent and sexual harassment (whoever it comes from.)

 

I am assuming that your example of being sexually harassed happened many years ago before society became more enlightened.    I joined the RAAF at the age of 17 in 1979 and in  the 12 years I was there I was not hit upon by anyone and likewise I did not hit on anyone. Perhaps your thinking is stuck back in the sixties.  Sure sex pests are despicable but they come in all flavours.