Jim Beaux wrote:
CB why is the subject of sexual deviation so important in the social world/work place? What is the contribution? Why is it a priority to be recognized & accepted for something that should be private as one's sexual preference? I dont care and dont want to know if you have your hands full.
I don't think that it's a workplace subject at all. It shouldn't be discussed. However, the fact remains that it's relatively easy to turn up social associations without having first hand knowledge of the specifics of social deviation. The first time I ran into it in my working career was due to me asking, "what did you do this weekend"? The answer was a particular bar.. It still took a few weeks before it clicked. Answering that question was a real risk.
Jim Beaux wrote:
If that is the primary value one wants to present to mainstream society, one will not be accepted by mainstream society. Being gay will not keep one from being hired. Dressing inappropriately and touting what you do in the bedroom will. Wanna a job? It's simple, act rational and be prudent.
Rhetoric doesnt equal logic. I stated my opinion very clear & that's all you get. There is nothing wrong with me or my opinion. Once again, it's simple, if you wanna be accepted by mainstream, you gotta behave mainstream.
BTW I saw what you did - Phobia also means an aversion or repulsion.
What goes on the in bedroom has no value to mainstream society. It shouldn't be introduced in the workplace. That's not what SCOTUS ruled on. We've got lots of what you'd deem to be deviation in the hetero society too - why is this particular one so offensive?
I don't think there is anything wrong with your opinion. Your opinion is just as valid as mine and I've got zero problem with it. I'm simply taking the stated basis for your opinion and arguing counter points. It's just respectful discussion, that's all. Just because we don't have the same opinion doesn't mean that we can't discuss things...
IE: I took it that part of your argument was that the phobia was perfectly natural and therefore acceptable. I just pointed out that I can use exactly the same basis to justify the behavior. Point / counter-point. Discussion. Respectful on both sides. It's certainly part of how I learn to consider things.
All I get is your opinion? So you can ask me questions, but you can't answer mine? I understand your opinion. I'm trying to understand what it's based on. I do that through questions.
Historically, "being gay" has been met with discrimination. That is, it's not necessarily the act that is discriminated against, it could be a rumor, slander, or it could be a true statement about someone that isn't being in your face with a lifestyle. From a moral perspective, I think we should treat all the undesirable moral behavior equally, but I don't think we're so good at doing that... It's hard for me to get my head around why this is treated so differently within communities that are trying to uphold moral standards.
Jim Beaux wrote:
BTW I saw what you did - Phobia also means an aversion or repulsion.
You're right to call me out if I change the meaning of your words, but in this particular case, I took a dictionary definition. I actually looked it up before posting, to make sure I had it right. If you meant it another way, please explain.
"noun fear, horror, terror, thing about (informal), obsession, dislike, dread, hatred, loathing, distaste, revulsion, aversion to, repulsion, irrational fear, detestation, overwhelming anxiety about..."
I understand the fear around what the courts "might" do beyond this. And as much as I don't believe most of it, I could certainly get behind what everyone agrees is the right solution - getting the govt out of the "marriage" business...