OK, whatever, who cares, now stop shoving it in my face

HOW IS A FACEBOOK THING SHOVING ANYTHING IN YOUR FACE?

Explain it to me. You go onto SOMEONES ELSES PAGE, THEIR OWN PROPERTY and happen to see a certain gender. THAT IS NOT SHOVING SOMETHING IN YOUR FACE.

Well, you're the one who advocates that the public should be a neutral space and that one shouldn't disrespect other people's preferences and feelings by shoving your own ones into their face, and then ironically you come to a public (gaming) forum telling other people that their sexual orientation is disgusting and unnatural because they deviate from a normal majority which you seem to represent.

But I think you will find that at least in Germany, your outspoken disgust of homosexuality is in fact a minority opinion. I doubt even more than a handful of CDU politician would secretly agree with the things you said. You use words like "normal", "natural" and "majority" in a very uncritical and unreflecting way, and your speeches of lobbyism and the "ones at the bottom" is typical populist rhetoric.

If there's something we can agree on, then I guess it's that trying to lead a sensible discussion under these conditions is pointless, so I'll leave it at that. But it's also quite funny that you claim I was the one blinded by hate here.

Hiphish seems to like shoving his ignorance in my face. How about we start with that.

Agreed.

We may well have been misunderstanding each other here. From my perspective, here's how our exchange has gone:

You were trying to be insulting by bringing in a completely different topic by mockingly equating disapproving of someone's choices to being irrational (can't really support or not support a skin color). I pointed out that those were different topics. You then tried to claim that my having a different opinion was wrong. I pointed out that actually, everyone is entitled to have opinions.

From my perspective, the whole heart of the lifestyles movement is choices. I think we all agree on that. People want the freedom to make their own choices. This is great, and I fully support that.

But choices also come with consequences, many of which are social. One consequence is that some people will disapprove. That's the part that I find a lot of the liberals I know don't want to accept. Everyone is free to do what they want, but I believe some things are harmful or wrong, and I'm going to say that if asked. Some people can't tolerate hearing that what they're doing isn't universally supported. This is true on both sides of the political spectum, but I've run into more liberals like this. YMMV.

Disapproving is my choice, and I have just as much a right to it as they have to choose the thing I disagree with. That doesn't mean I stop caring about them or stop respecting them. It does mean I disagree with what they're doing and would prefer they choose something different.

I think we've gone pretty thoroughly off-topic now, so to circle back to the OP, I really don't care if Facebook users have more options for gender. I do think that people will make poor choices they'll later regret, because this is Facebook and that seems to be what people use it for, but it's not really a big deal. We're in the middle of a sea change with social stereotypes and this is more a symptom than a cause.

While your point is a good one, I have to correct something because this is actually important. Facebook's data is *Facebook's* property. Whatever data you give them, you lose all rights to AFAIK from reading the ToS.

nvm

Actually you were being judgemental about sexual identity. I was pointing out that it was as arbitrary as being judgemental about skin colour. You claimed that the fact that skin colour isn't a choice makes the analogy wrong. I claim that it doesn't, for two reasons :

- sexual identity isn't reductible to choice
- choice is irrelevant to the legitimacy of such judgements

I take another analogy, using "jews" (judaism as a "choice") instead of "black". As being judgemental on "jews", on "blacks" or on "homosexuals" is analogous.

Then you answer "anyone is entitled to his opinion". Well yeah, anyone is "entitled" to loathe jews, blacks, or homosexuals. Yet again, that's a bit what defines them as twats. In fact.

Your problem is that you judge minoritary sexual identities as harmful (well, some judge blacks or jews as harmful, whatever) or "wrong" ("wrong" !?). And yes, this is arbitrary bigotry. Or, to put it another way, phobia. And a social problem, leading to injustice.

Don't worry, "liberals" are also against some "social choices" that they consider harmful. Such as : discrimination, racism, homophobia, etc. You can consider them a right, but, as society progresses, they will be more and more shamed, and that will be for the best. That is : for the increase of the individual freedom to live in harmless differences, even if it hurts some traditional normative views.

As soon as I posted this, I realized I might have misunderstood your point, so I erased my post, but you were too quick for me. Sorry! :)

If having sex isn't a choice, there is a major underlying issue in that situation that takes priority over any question about orientation.

I don't loathe people who are in homosexual relationships. I think they are making a bad decision. This is the part you aren't getting. I can disagree with what someone is doing, and still respect them as a human being. You are not extending me the same level of courtesy. Instead, you are being insulting and mocking me. Not being able to follow through on your own stated belief that people should be tolerant is hypocritical.

Unless you mean your last paragraph to say that you don't consider people who disagree with you to be deserving of the same level of courtesy as people who do agree with you. If so, you're kind of proving my original point that there are liberals can be just as bigoted and discriminatory as some conservatives.

No worries,it happens to us all!

"While your point is a good one, I have to correct something because this is actually important. Facebook's data is *Facebook's* property. Whatever data you give them, you lose all rights to AFAIK from reading the ToS."
That is a good point there as well.
But you do understand what Im getting at.
Why do you care what goes on in someone elses life?
If it doesn't affect you personally, why worry?
Unless someone is forcing you to have gay sex, you can't say anything about it. You're not the one doing it. You're not the one experiencing their issues.
Stop caring about what other people are doing and focus on yourself.

You're wrong. While education SHOULD include facts, any good education is not merely the teaching of facts.

Education is very much about teaching people to think. Using science, they shouldn't just go "This is what we know, remember it for the test," they should teach you WHY they know that. For example, science classes (at least the ones I took) taught geocentrism. Not in "This is a piece of information for the test," but in order for the students to get an understanding of why we know it's wrong.

If all you got out of education was information, you were scammed.

Because you think that teaching gender studies will be different from other domains in that regards - biology, history, etc ?

The more options there are, the more informative the gender field is.

It's along the same lines as a question of agreement. You can have "agree" or "disagree," but that isn't as detailed as a question that includes "agree," "strongly agree," "N/A," "disagree," and "strongly disagree." It may be a "hip thing" to you, but to the people who identify with one of the given options, it's a signal that they matter.

First of all, sexuality is not a decision. If it were, nobody would choose to be gay because nobody would want to be treated differently. When you assume that homosexuals have control over something that nobody else can control (because nobody woke up one morning and decided to be straight, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar), you aren't really respecting them as human beings (unless you're saying it's a superpower or something).
Just because you say you do doesn't make it so. Your condemnation of homosexual relationships is like condemning interracial relationships; like everyone else, interracial couples don't choose their sexuality, but they do choose to have sex, and that's no different from homosexual couples. Why is it okay for one couple to have sex, while it's a "bad choice" for another to do the same?

Secondly, intolerance of intolerance is not as bad as "standard" intolerance. Saying that they are equal is like saying it's just as bad to hate a racist as it is for a racist to hate people based on race, and that's stupid.

To me, "tolerance" is crap that should be replaced with acceptance and/or understanding. It doesn't have any positive implications for whatever is being tolerated when used in any other context - tolerance to pain, tolerance to cold, tolerance to heat, and the list goes on.

It's kind of mind boggling that PC gamers who complain about the lack of options in console games (and the restrictions that platforms like Steam and Origin entail) are whining about more options.

Normal = working as intended.

Sex is for reproduction, non-hetero sex does not reproduce, therefore non-hetero sex is not normal. We can apply it to anything else really: eyes are for seeing, so blindness is an anomaly. There is nothing inherently good or bad about having anomalies, everyone has some anomalies, some have more than others. I'm not going to pretend that something not being as it was designed by nature is not an anomaly just because it might hurt someone's precious feelings. I'm just pointing out the obvious here.

nature has built us in a certain way for practical purposes. Why do you think most men turned on by fake lesbians but turned off by real lesbians and gay men? It's normal to feel that way and anyone who says otherwise is lying.