Two sides to every story.

Indeed, I'd like to see what else develops.

Drunk guy attacks police. The family is only playing the gay card to get attention.

IF he did beat a cop in the face with a stun gun then reach for a cop's gun, he was shot and killed because he was a threat. Being gay would have had nothing to do with it.

More like Vin here has a gay bias because he posts threads about gay people.

Hoo-haw!

Just as the article says, I don't know how he could have had the strength to fight.

If you killed ANYONE in california, you are most likely killing a gay person.

Why is this even national news? You go for a cop's gun? Congratulations, you just drastically shortened your life expectancy.

Whether you're shot in the front or the back doesn't matter- there's no law that says 'to neutralize a deadly threat, you must shoot the front of the body.'

I didn't read the full article, but going from the quote you just said I can see why there is controversy.
Was he shot in the back or the chest? If the information about how he died is false then that brings everything else about the story into suspicion, never mind the gay thing.

fixed.

So gay is the new black?

Apparently.

JLee, you missed the point, it's not a news story when cops shoot a guy reaching for a gun but when the family of the deceased believe the police have fabricated their story.

Two sides:
1) "He was crazy and a threat to our lives so we shot him"
2) "That sounds nothing like him and he should have been exhausted. We reckon you're homophobic liars"

gay = not a minority and should not receive ANY minority benefits. Homosexuality is an erotic "fetish" more then anything. Should we consider feet worshippers a minority too?

I'm not saying you were saying this, I understand your comment was sarcasm. I'm just pointing this tidbit out. I personally could care less if the person is gay, straight, or into goats and horses, just dont give them special priviledges because they stick it in different places then the rest of society does.

Good grief. Where did you come up with that impeccable logic?

...a fetish? Scientists have found differences in the brains of straight people and gay people. I think it's a little more than a fetish.

Suddenly, this thread becomes interesting.

So you'd want a gay guy possibly receiving a job over you just because what he does in the bedroom differs from what you do?

That's what will happen if they are recognized as a minority. The color of your skin is one thing, but sex is sex, and should not suddenly become a "race" type of issue. Its your own personal buisness.





I'd like to get some links or pics on this one, I'm not arguing against it, but this is truely news to my ears. If you mean "differences" like through a psychological approach thats all speculation and unproven for either side of the argument, and really just forces my initial point that its all on how your wired. Some guys like men, some guys like big hooters, some guys like redheads, some guys like whips and chains, some guys like body modification, its all just part of the persons mentality.

If you mean like "this homosexual male has a larger -insertlatinwordhere- then this heterosexual male does" then that is actually interesting.

But yes, its just like people who are into masichism and the likes. They incorporate it into their lifestyle just as much as a homosexual reflects his own.

Haven't we already had the gay debate before? Resurrecting it will have no good results.

No, I mean physiologic differences, not psychological ones.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/

My god, Onimusha, you're an idiot.

Wow, uh yeah, homosexuality is a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Anyone who is educated at all knows this. From twin studies we can conclude that it's at least 50/50 genetic/environmental, probably more genetic than environmental.

I like that he thinks that rules against discrimination on grounds of sexuality will suddenly mean that there'll be a hoard of underqualified gay people stealing his job.

That and apparently homosexuals are not a minority! You're in luck Vinnie!

Onimusha, I'm so glad you're a member here. You actually post the things that people, mistakingly, think I believe.

I'm curious, Vinny, what are we to infer from the thread title and you're opening post? You don't state any opinion on the matter.

To me it was more that he completely missed the point of 'gay being the new black'. But I would agree that I wouldn't want homosexuals getting equal opportunity treatment as in affirmative action. Then again, I'm not a fan of affirmative action policy for anyone.

This is basicially all I'm saying. ^ I'm not trying to make a debate on the origins of homosexuality, rather that it does not qualify for any special treatment, and i'm certainly not gaybashing or any of the likes. Like I said, its your buisness not mine, but it shoulnd't have to interfere with the way I live my life either.



I love how people resort to personal attacks over discussion just because someone has a different spin on a situation then they do, with actual decent points rather then "god says its wrong!".

Thats top class right there, yes sir.

Oh, God, did I used to sound like this? Massassi, please forgive me!

lulz Onimusha doesn't know what the word minority means.

You're statement that being gay equates to people liking to dress up and enact sexual fantasies is absurdly stupid.

That you think that someone being gay gives them an unfair advantage while seeking a job in the same vein as affirmative action is stupid because there are very few places where affirmative action is still actively used.

I don't resort to personal attacks, bud. I just call it as I see it.

Fair enough, but I think you misinterpreted the point of what I was saying with selective reading. That was not the intention of my statement at all or I would have simply and bluntly stated your summation. There are plenty of people into the things I stated who live just as normally as some homosexuals do. You missed my point entirely.

Also you honed in on my example rather then taking it at face value for exactly what it was -- an example. There was a million different exmaples I could have used, yet I chose that one, not becase I believe its a problem, but because it was the first thing I could think of when comparing similar racial issues.




The point? Read more in context and do less picking apart of specific things that don't digest well with you.






Hate to break it to you, but you still do. I bite my lip on alot of these threads, especially the political ones I've seen you post feverently on, specificially for this reason.

Now I'm really sorry!

Don't sweat it pal

BTW this: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/ was an interesting read. It will be even more so when they start to research it more in depth. Maybe it will finally put an end to the "origin" debate. Thanks for the link.

Seriously though, Onimusha, you managed to take a discussion about a police shooting and a comment about how 'gay is the new black' which is a reference to how much of the media and public opinion seems so negative toward the police action because some minority criminal was "victimized" by police and turn it into an anti-affirmative action for homosexuals discussion. Really, I don't think I could have even done that.

No its just that I found the initial post kind of boring/overplayed and rodney king-ish, so I did a little highjacking, thats all.

Seriously though, I did misinterpret the whole "gay as the new black" statement as negativity towards gays as a "race" rather then just another complaint about cops doing their job. So thats my bad.

I think it was more along the lines of you saying that gay individuals were not a minority.

-Ron White

^ hahahaha

Homophobe ITT.

That's a bannable offense isn't it...

If not that, Onimusha basically called you gay for living in California.