Should we boycott gay businesses?

i guess people who are upset over the tactics gay protesters use could try to boycott gay businesses, but how many gay businesses do you really frequent? In the end i would be willing to say almost for certain that most straight people aren't going to too many "pop and pop" stores for such a boycott to mean anything.

My guess the OP is a heterosexual guy

Please prove me wrong ^^

Actually, I support civil unions for gays/lesbians. That way I can marry my b/f and civil union my g/f. The law says you can't marry two people at the same time, well, I won't be married too two people. I'll be married to one and civil unionized to another.

Oops, double post. Won't waste it though! All you people who hate gays, get over it! Just because you're old, bitter, and divorced doesn't mean you shouldn't allow gays to become just as old, bitter, and divorced! And the next time they vote on Gay Marriage make it so people who are divorced can't vote. They screwed it up why are we going to let them decide on it for others?

[edit on 7-12-2008 by GamerGal]

Originally posted by GamerGal
Oops, double post. Won't waste it though! All you people who hate gays, get over it! Just because you're old, bitter, and divorced doesn't mean you shouldn't allow gays to become just as old, bitter, and divorced! And the next time they vote on Gay Marriage make it so people who are divorced can't vote. They screwed it up why are we going to let them decide on it for others?

[edit on 7-12-2008 by GamerGal]

OK I am sorry but I now have to say something to you. I have been very supportive of what you have said and even gave you a star, but that I see was a mistake. You do not appear to stand for equality at all as I mistakenly thought. You instead appear to stand for conflict. I am not saying the gay community in particular, I am saying you specifically. You and the people like you who hold this belief and need for deviance are just as much a part of the problem and maybe more so than the people you accuse of bigotry. It is in fact you who is intolerant and you who has the biggest problem. After reading this post of yours it would not surprise me to find out that you were involved with beating the old lady in Ca. Now I am not saying this is how you really are, but this is what you portray yourself as in the manner in which you communicate here. If I am wrong I am sorry, but you should practice some of the tolerance that your community stands for and people will not mistake your intentions as I may have.

The attitude you expressed in this post is one of bitterness, hatred, and intolerance. This is contrary to what the gay community stands for. I have long supported the gay community's rights and acceptance even though my own religious views consider it wrong. But I will not get into that because I myself AM a tolerant and accepting person. To iterate my personal position on this subject I will instead use a post I made in another thread:

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso
reply to post by grover

 

Nice post!

Although I myself am straight as an arrow. I do not think that gay people should not be afforded the same rights as straight people. My only concern would be those that hold marriage as a religious thing and mean it sincerely and not just to be in opposition of something. I feel that in a society where we try to make everyone appeased there could perhaps be some common ground.

This is what I would suggest:

Two different names, same exact rights and privileges. Please allow me to explain this before you start bashing me. For those married in a church the church has the authority to issue a marriage license this would not change and still be named a marriage. For those married by a JP or by other means whether or not they are gay could be called something else. This way all parties concerns are addressed and ideally everyone is happy. Those who true and sincere concern is the sanctity of the institution of marriage via religious justification could keep their unions exactly as they are now without any change in their beliefs; conversely those whom either do not have the honest religious convictions or are gay or any other reason may choose the alternate method of their union. If what is really important is the love two people feel towards one another, then the name associated with the union should not make any difference; however, if it is opposition or conflict that is truly desired this will not work and the problem is deeper than marriage between two people whom are in love, it is in fact then becomes an issue of a preference for social deviance.

There is absolutely no reason why both sides cannot be appeased if in fact the issue is spending your life with the person you love and being afforded the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy.

This is my proposal as to how it should be handled and as you can PLAINLY see through the words of that post, it is a position of tolerance, and mutual, peaceful coexistence. Just by the comment you made about marrying your boyfriend and having a union with your girlfriend shows a desire for deviance and also shows that you are in this just for the "attention" and I could be wrong, but that is certainly the way you come across. So if I have mistakenly identified you as something you are not I apologize; however, you must understand that the way you present yourself, is EXACTLY the same way people will view you.

I do not wish to pick a fight with you. So if you are just going to respond to me in order to call me names, or try to ridicule me, please do not even waste your time because I will not belittle myself to respond to it. If we could just all understand the other side's perspective, this would be a much more beautiful place to live, surely you could agree with that.

reply to post by DarrylGalasso


It was a joke. You can't deny some one the right to vote because they are divorced. I'm not even the first one too make the joke in this thread. Sorry for the misunderestimation of me.(Bushism 101)

reply to post by GamerGal


In that case please accept my apologies. That was not how I took the intent and I am sorry.

Isolating gay businesses is an awkward way to go about getting your point across.

Not all gays support gay marriage, so if your point is gay marriage, you could hurt the innocent, if in your view, gays are innocent.

However, if you want to boycott an industry that is going after supporters of Prop 8, boycott Hollywood.

Don't watch, rent, buy, or go to the movies.

That would send a message, but no one will do it.

[edit on 2008/12/7 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by DarrylGalasso


It would be like not allowing gays to vote on it because they are biased lol. And Grady, great point. Not all gays want marriage, so why boycott all gay businesses?

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

This is fact the best idea. Punish those who perpetrate the problem, make a living off of the conflict and in my opinion are the ones mainly responsible for the divisions in our society. Punish the media. You have a much better chance to see a gay person and a straight person in a fist fight on the media than you do seeing a person giving a baby blood because they are dying. This is not only pitiful, it is doing nothing more than fueling the fire even further. The media promotes these attitudes of intolerance and hatred and the sad thing is that a vast majority of people believe what the see in the media so it is unfortunately effective.

Why is it so bloody hard for people to give/grant EVERYONE equal treatment simply based on being a human?

Our race...I often feel shame

Originally posted by irs27
i guess people who are upset over the tactics gay protesters use could try to boycott gay businesses, but how many gay businesses do you really frequent? In the end i would be willing to say almost for certain that most straight people aren't going to too many "pop and pop" stores for such a boycott to mean anything.

Well, I wasn't concerned about boycotting them until they started raising such a stink about Prop 8, after it was over, even. Now, however, I am getting very interested in returning the pressure to them. I think the best way to do that is to return the same type of pressure by examining the businesses located on the link to SFGate and stop doing business with them. Maybe they will feel the pinch, or go out of business. I will give my business to those who supported Prop 8.

So, it's not about specific gay individuals, never was. It's about the supporters of the movement against Prop 8.

Fair is fair, right? Don't start a fight with me unless you want me to finish it.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Isolating gay businesses is an awkward way to go about getting your point across.

Not all gays support gay marriage, so if your point is gay marriage, you could hurt the innocent, if in your view gays are innocent.

However, if you want to boycott an industry that is going after supporters of Prop 8, boycott Hollywood.

Don't watch, rent, buy, or go to the movies.

That would send a message, but no one will do it.

Well, check out the listing on SFGate that shows the individuals and businesses that were against Prop 8. It shows all contributors to the fight against Prop 8. You can check the supporters by zip code. Then you can give your business to someone else.

I don't support your stand on blacklisting an industry, just the individual businesses, churches, and individuals that were against Prop 8.

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso
reply to post by GradyPhilpott

 

This is fact the best idea. Punish those who perpetrate the problem, make a living off of the conflict and in my opinion are the ones mainly responsible for the divisions in our society. Punish the media. You have a much better chance to see a gay person and a straight person in a fist fight on the media than you do seeing a person giving a baby blood because they are dying. This is not only pitiful, it is doing nothing more than fueling the fire even further. The media promotes these attitudes of intolerance and hatred and the sad thing is that a vast majority of people believe what the see in the media so it is unfortunately effective.

This tactic is used by the gay activists. I believe it is effective, as their methods are successful. However, I do not believe in being a bigot, as do they, and creating language and name-calling to get their point across and create fear. Fear of being a homophobe, a person who is prejudiced, a person who is discriminating, a person who is segregating, and all those other terms created around 1970 to make heterosexuals feel uncomfortable, and to put fear into the media.

Rather, I like the quiet approach. Let the businesses, etc. of the supporters of the fight against Prop 8 just dry up and blow away. I think those successful businesses have too much time and money on their hands if they can be out in the streets pushing around little old ladies and stomping on the cross. I really don't want to come across as hateful or mad, just wanting to get even. I want to return the favor. I want to give them the same thing that they give me. I won't stoop to their level, tho. I believe in common decency. I won't walk down the street in a black thong, or shout prejudiced epithets at bystanders.

Just don't buy anything from them anymore.

reply to post by Jim Scott

Originally posted by flymetothemoon

Originally posted by Jim Scott

What, if they succeeded, would happen to you?

Nothing.

I would see the generations of my family taught that sexual perversion is accepted.

"sexual perversion" ???. Is that statement subjective ? Or if you mean it seriously. In that case would you please post a source that proves homosexual behavior is perverse ?
I'm not gay, so i know nothing. Only thing i know is that there must be more in gay peoples life than sex. Just as in you're life i guess...

Hallo, hallo !!! headmaster of this thread !!!
I wonder when you will answer to my post from page 14

Originally posted by flymetothemoon

Originally posted by Jim Scott

What, if they succeeded, would happen to you?

Nothing.

I would see the generations of my family taught that sexual perversion is accepted.

"sexual perversion" ???. Is that statement subjective ? Or if you mean it seriously. In that case would you please post a source that proves homosexual behavior is perverse ?
I'm not gay, so i know nothing. Only thing i know is that there must be more in gay peoples life than sex. Just as in you're life i guess...

Hope this helps:

def: perverse: willfully determined not to do what is expected or desired; contrary. persistent or obstinate in what is wrong. turned away from what is right, good, or proper.

Good luck.

The tactic of creating a furor and fear has been used by homosexuals as a means of getting the political and psychological objectives they feel that they need to achieve normalcy.
In 1974, the American Psychiatric Association removed the stigma of homosexuality as being a disorder. They did this for several reasons, none of which is stating that it is no longer a disorder because it isn't a disorder. It's still a disorder in fact, but not in listing.
www.narth.com...
In fact, they reacted out of fear because of the demonstrations in and around their meeting places by homosexual advocacy groups.
This furor and fear-mongering is the method I detest, and the reason for this OP thread. It's about time that some significant opposition of like kind is used against the promoters of the defeat of Prop 8.
Fair is fair.

Originally posted by flymetothemoon
reply to post by Jim Scott

 

Originally posted by flymetothemoon

Originally posted by Jim Scott

What, if they succeeded, would happen to you?

Nothing.

I would see the generations of my family taught that sexual perversion is accepted.

"sexual perversion" ???. Is that statement subjective ? Or if you mean it seriously. In that case would you please post a source that proves homosexual behavior is perverse ?
I'm not gay, so i know nothing. Only thing i know is that there must be more in gay peoples life than sex. Just as in you're life i guess...

Hallo, hallo !!! headmaster of this thread !!!
I wonder when you will answer to my post from page 14

Unfortunately, due to reasons of "non existence" the poster cannot supply that link.

The people who think that NATURALLY OCCURRING sexuality is a "perversion" are either Religiously Extreme, or simply lack adequate education to understand.

Allocating the description of perversion is subjective, is is basically described as "against the norm" but "the norm" is in itself subjective and based on ones own perspective of normality.

More often than not, what they really mean is "I don't like it, therefore I'll do everything in my power to inflict my opinions and way of life onto you, much like a terrorist would in the name of their religion!"

I especially like it when people say that Homosexuality is "unnatural". I love that argument.
These people are usually so dumb that they are easy to destroy with a very simple explanation:
"Unnatural" means that it cannot exist in nature, therefore nothing can be unnatural, otherwise it wouldn't exist in order to be called unnatural.

Can you tell that I've argued about this quite considerably for several years.

It's one of my hobbies

If it was unnatural you wouldn't have gay animals. Also, all gay people had straight parents. If the parents were gay... the kid wouldn't have been born. So it can't be nuture, it must be some thing else like... Nature!

reply to post by Jim Scott

What, if they succeeded, would happen to you?

Nothing.

This was you're answer to the question above :

Originally posted by Jim Scott
I would see the generations of my family taught that sexual perversion is accepted. I would see the moral fiber of my country eroded. I would see an increase in infectious disease and see that passed to my family's generations. I would see the courts overturn the will of the people again and again for the will of a strong minority. I would see, well, that's plenty for now.

This was my question to you :

"sexual perversion" ???. Is that statement subjective ? Or if you mean it seriously. In that case would you please post a source that proves homosexual behavior is perverse ?
I'm not gay, so i know nothing. Only thing i know is that there must be more in gay peoples life than sex. Just as in you're life i guess...

This was you're first answer to my question:

Hope this helps:
def: perverse: willfully determined not to do what is expected or desired; contrary. persistent or obstinate in what is wrong. turned away from what is right, good, or proper.

Good luck.

This is the link you postet as you're source for the statement you made:
www.narth.com...

I will say:
Thanks for you’re answer. I read the article with interest.
Sorry to say i don’t believe that you’re statement "sexual perversion" was based on that article. Mainly because you made a post as answer to my question, and when you came up with the source in the next post. If you’ve said.: It was my subjective opinion , i now and then post my subjective opinions just like others” . Off topic or not off topic. Thats the question :

Originally posted by Jim Scott
reply to post by arkhanum

 

I'm sorry, but can you help me understand how your comments relate to the OP of this thread?

Then, some could have consider it as humor

This is a very sensitive subject. Of course some people gets upset. Sad and angry ect.

It would have been propper and fair if you once in a while would show people just a little twist of respect, and some manner, instead of being arrogant !
No more to say than gentleman has left the building !

It will not be polite to ask you if the OP, is the reason why you are “anti homosexual”or were you already “anti homosexual” before this started ? Its personal, so i will not ask
Not judge the whole of you’re person, based on the content of you’re thread, as i’m sure you have many possitive “faces”.

This is a link that defines perversion

The concept of perversion is subjective, and its application varies depending on culture. As a psychological term it was originally applied especially frequently to homosexual behavior.However, homosexuality is no longer treated as a disorder in mainstream psychiatry

An example of who some would consider as perverted and deviant,
is Marquis de Sade. Some would call him very controversial, even today (ironi)
homosexuality itself, i do not consider as a “sexual perversion”. But thats my subjective opinion...
You used “perversion” to define the sexual behavior of homosexuals

The noun sometimes occurs in abbreviated slang form as "perv", and the adjective "pervy" also occurs. Both are often, but not exclusively, used non-seriously.

Slang”. As same as if i call you a “racist” , “fascist” or “nazi”. I would consider it as a “slang”. A pure joke. Lets say humor also a question of culture and "persona"

Some homosexuals, may now and then need psychiatric or psychological treatment. Not because they are homosexuals, but because of the konsekvenses of have to live with constant “stress”, as the result of other peoples lack of understanding, respect and acceptance.

AIDS ! Even if it didn’t exist , i don’t believe that some people would accept homosexuals. But who am i to judge those who judge those who judge those who judge...

One more for the road :

People are different and how they handle problems are different. So is there any more to say than :

Good luck !



















[edit on 8-12-2008 by flymetothemoon]