No Tips After Dinner For Gays!

Do you realize you just claimed to be a tolerant person even though you admit to being intolerant. If one can be tolerant while still being intolerant, one can be a bigot while not being a bigot.

You're as much of a bigot as the people you call bigots.


100% strawman. Not what I said at all, you're putting those word in my mouth.

This is not an argument for "cookie cutter-ness", people are who they are and they should be. But you cannot exist without affecting people. The affect you have on them is your responsibility, their reaction to it is theirs. You guys are walking around saying I get a pass to affect people because I'm special and they don't because they're not.


You keep insisting that we have no idea if she was "acting gay". By what measure do you draw this. She IS gay, and she claimed she was stiffed a tip because the patron thought her to be gay. Regardless if this was a hoax or not, she conveyed an impression that she was gay to the patron she claimed stiffed her a tip no? Besides, if you're going to be that obtuse, how can you even be certain that when the patron refereed to her "lifestyle" he meant her sexuality?


At least you can admit that its discrimination either way. Bravo! However, stiffing someone on a tip when they've provided you excellent service is malicious anyway you cut it. Weather they're gay or a fan of the opposing sports team.

As for "team gay" you might not choose what team you get to be on, but you do choose if you want to play or not. No one will know if you play on team gay if you don't play at all.

I am not gay, but I've often been thought to be playing for that team. While I find this somewhat unfair, I realize that the reason people think I'm gay because of how I act, who I hang out with, my mannerisms, and my tastes. If I don't like how I am perceived, it's on me to either change that perception, or avoid dealing with them altogether. Since you can't really avoid people when you're working for them, that leaves a pretty clear choice.

You have latent homoerotic yearnings. explains everything.

Human sexuality is far more complex than the American monoliths of straight and gay.

You did not understand what I wrote at all. Dont curr

I've said before I'm bigoted against stupid. The difference here being that that particular brand of anti-gay bigotry will eventually be reflected back on as yet another blemish on American culture (even more so than it is now) while I'll get to explain to my newly adopted Cambodian child that, yes, people really were that stupid.

If you're actually being hassled by people at work for your perceived sexuality, that's illegal. It falls under sexual harassment law. I used to do some sign-spinning and a particular jerkass would come by every morning, slow down, and scream "***!" at me (note: though I am gay, I was in a costume, so he was just shouting the most offensive thing he could think of). Had I had my glasses on, I could and should have taken down his license number, then called the police.

That said, you believe far too hard in the idea that someone can alter their behavior. Some of it is learned, a lot of it is surprisingly built-in, but change basically only happens at gunpoint (or a similar threat to one's well-being). It's hardly right or just to say that someone should feel adequately threatened by idiots that they will change their behavior.

The "tolerate the intolerant" thing is a really weak dodge, too. Let's say, for sake of example, that I find Chinese immigrants speaking Chinese amongst themselves to be really obnoxious and I have next to zero tolerance for it. I can be as annoyed by it as I please so long as I don't affect other people. My intolerance is covert and harmless (in theory, anyhow, as this kind of attitude almost always leads to discriminatory or harassing behavior). The moment I start shouting at a couple of Chinese people, though, I've stepped over the line where my behavior is no longer acceptable. There is no reason to accept someone imposing their opinions on another person. It actually comes very close to assault under the law, depending on your jurisdiction, so let's not pretend that it is something we collectively tolerate.

This is mostly a function of my upbringing in a part of the country that culturally believes in personal self-determination, but I find the Wiccan Rede sums things up rather well: An it harm none, do what thou wilt.

That sounds like something a person would say to justify marrying a pet.

Every so often I see someone spout that but never follow it up with more. I assume by "monoliths" you mean that people treat it as a black-or-white opposition instead of a graded spectrum? If you mean something else, please enlighten me.

Animals don't have the ability to consent to sexual activity no more than a child does.


Yes, it's a gradient rather than black/white. Hyper-masculine men have been known to mancrush (but im not gay bro!) as much as someone who is gay can be sexually attracted to the opposite sex yet not actually engage in any sexual activity.

American binary however wants you to either be 100% one way or the other.

so you meant.. dichotomy or the even fancier diametricaly opposed but not monoliths.



the question arises: was the pet of the same biological sex and gender identification of said person!!?!????

Yes, however he's a stinking liberal...

Which makes it all the more amusing when Nausi attempts to lecture people on tolerance. The same guy who has dehumanized all the people in this section to 'liberals'.

*** your individuality, he can take it at will.

It seems he already does.... Zing!

Nausi, if people think you're gay, it's not because of anything you've done (well, unless they've seen you having sex with a dude). It's because they fail to understand that "mannerisms" and sexual orientation are not the same thing. A large number of gay people act in a way that might be considered "straight," and you yourself are an example of the fact that many straight people act in a way that might sometimes be considered gay. Because of this, it's neither fair nor reasonable to judge someone as gay or straight and then treat them differently as a result.

I know so many gay guys who won't hang out with straight guys because they think straight guys are boring and don't talk about anything but football and boobs. Obviously the reverse is also true; a lot of straight guys won't try to hang out with gay guys because they think gay guys do nothing but watch musical theater and make drama. In the first example, the gay guys need to understand that they dislike certain things that they've wrongfully attributed to all straight guys--not straight guys as a whole. In the second example, the straight guys need to understand that being dramatic or liking musical theater doesn't make someone gay, and that those things don't preclude other mutual interests.

tl;dr, it's common knowledge that there are both gay and straight people who represent all the different combinations of mannerisms, behaviors, and interests. It's wrong for people to 1) assume you're gay in the first place (your life is yours to live, so don't let someone tell you that certain things only belong to gay people), and 2) for them to then attribute other things to you that they think are true of all gay people (because as we've established, nothing is true of "all gay people" or "all straight people" aside from their preference of gender).

I actually agree with this. Changing perceptions is really important, but we can only do this through education. If you just hide your so-called "gay" mannerisms/interests, then people will go on thinking that those things really are just for gay people. If you truly want to change their perceptions, then you have to show them they're wrong.

-----

We're not really getting anywhere debating the proper usage of the term "discrimination." Stiffing a tip is a *** move, but this is the only point that the two scenarios have in common.

Both sides of the Alabama/Auburn sports rivalry have willfully created a social atmosphere in which it is both appropriate and expected that they will take any opportunity to pull a *** move on each other. It's like getting punched in boxing--both fighters enter the ring knowingly and intentionally risk getting hit in the face for the opportunity to hit their willing opponent in the face. Once again, this is a game. Stiffing a gay waiter on the other hand is like abducting someone, throwing them into the ring against their will, and then smacking them between the eyes with no preamble.

Or Genetic research advances far enough to change genetic code.

I'd like to think that by the time designer babies become a practical reality, society would have advanced enough to not give a *** if a woman looks like a guy or who is smooshing penises with who. People will inevitably have looked towards some other hapless target to hate.

e-cigs

By the time we can tinker with our own genetic code, biological procreation will be something quaint and almost exclusively the domain of fringe groups. I'd almost expect us to start coding for non-heterosexual (probably some variety of bisexual, to clarify) since old-fashioned mating will be gauche or pointless.

Of course, by that point, gender will probably be getting close to optional, anyhow. We'll almost certainly have found practical ways to affect already living people before we can start messing with gametes.

"Won't someone please think of the children" Argument over. Children were upset.

"Old fashioned mating" is the reason I get out of bed in the morning, bucko...

That's a strange claim, and probably not likely. Considering how quickly research regarding genetics and genetic manipulation is advancing compared to research regarding pregnancy, let alone artificial wombs. It isn't exactly a simple system you are replacing.


It is generally easier to alter an egg or sperm prior to fertilization, than it would be to change post-fertilization.

I don't see the relationship a mother gradually builds with her child in utero during "old fashioned" pregnancy becoming passé either, unless society has reached a level of vanity that the minor inconvenience of a stretchmark or the "sympathy baby" (a gut from also indulging in a banana-peach milkshake at 9:00 PM) that a guy develops becomes too ghastly a notion to even prance across one's synapses.

A world with only external fertilization and external incubation takes away something mammalian, and taking away the bonding interactions with your developing fetus (hiccups, sonograms, and tracing those broad movements that look as if it's a scene from 'Alien'), that both you and your partner can bond with each other and your baby, takes away something specifically human. At that point, we may as well pivot toward the nearest ocean and rejoin the fish.

You're (Onorgul, probably should have excluded Jassik's) also forgetting the possibility of compromising sensory development that beings in utero. Humans may be vastly different a few generations after, if this were to become the norm, and maybe not for the benefit of humanity.

EDIT: Yes, I'm excluding a scenario that would involve a simulation womb in zero-gravity.

And, yes, I understand the benefit to those who would like to pass on their genetics but can't conceive naturally.

Mmmm...The thought of "designer babies" weirds me out.

We are pretty close to that.

Sperm and eggs from the brilliant, the beautiful, the talented (in both sports and music that I know of) sorted by race, creed, and color are currently available.

Fertility clinics can eliminate gametes containing defective genes.

Just think, in only a few years science will be able to do to us what they did to the tomato!

Yes, and it's a terrifying notion, aside from the benefits of eliminating hereditary disorders, in that it could lead to a bottleneck in genetic variation, right? And it's because of genetic variation that we, as a species, have come so far, right?

This is true, evolution has paved the way with so many different types of humans. It is a scary thought to be able to tinker with the genetic code. While we may want to weed out bad genes, think of the possibilities we will miss.

I can already envision the sit down for the sales pitch. The eugenicists breaks out 10 punnett squares to show the different potential combinations and permutations and the potential client couple wishing they paid more attention in biology.

I was thinking along the lines of how genetic variation bolstered our species' immune system from its genesis on.

And now that I think of it, from what I've read, even vaginal birth buffs a baby's immune, cardio-vascular, and respiratory systems.

Yeah...I don't see "old fashioned" going anywhere.

Yeah, cesarean's have been found to lead to children with more respiratory problems. For awhile it was "trendy" to schedule a cesarean rather than first even trying a natural birth. I'm sure some doctors/mothers still do this but I don't think it is highly recommended.

Scientists/doctors still don't know why women have nausea and throw-up during pregnancy. There are some good guesses as to why but there is no conclusive answer and the remedy right now is "deal with it". Medicine is a last resort as so many previous anti-nausea medicines caused birth defects.

For all the great strides we've made in understanding pregnancy and birth there are still a lot of unknowns. I don't see the "old fashioned" going anywhere anytime soon either.


For the designer baby part: can you imagine people getting the option to pick hair, eye, and skin color (not to mention a variety of other things)? We would go through the same cycles of fashion we go through now with clothes, baby names, etc. "Oh, you have lime-green eyes and flaming-red hair. You were born in 2022, weren't you?" Now handling genetic diseases is completely different, to me.

This have a conclusion yet?

I forgot the reasoning behind it, but doctors are apprehensive about giving requested episiotomies now, here at least. They just let you rip. Mine was adamant over pitocin induction, since there might be a correlation to autism (but they're not sure). The alternative, natural means of induction is NOT a nice experience, and I wished there was anesthetic involved, even though it was momentary.

Baby vogue is a strange thought. Like Zero mentioned, I can see couples with their own hereditary traits laid out in punnet squares, or just flip through a catalogue of neato genetic mutations that you too can even have introduced into your child's DNA! "We have a special on widow's peaks today! Buy that and get longer lashes at half price!"

You mentioned you are/were pregnant recently on here, right? Or am I thinking of someone else?