The Gay Threads

[Sabre]

Right, before I get started I should point out that any bans, warning ect as a result of this thread or the thread being prematurly locked will taint this forum as a place when the opinions of the members don't matter. Also note this isn't a gay rights issue, a gay bashing thread ect. I will also insult american culture, or at least certain aspects of it.

In Britain, no one cares if your gay. Really. We don't give a toss what you get up to in the bedroom, as long as you're not a git about it, no one cares. However, in America I understand there's still a paranoia about the whole thing and anything less then hyper masculine is frowned upon. I was once told that one theory that homophobia (technically meaning a fear of humans, but meaning hatred of gays in this case) was a result of people thinking they are gay for not liking the hyper macho ideals.

I should also mention, despite being explained to my numberous times by a smart, logical and understanding friend, I still don't completly get this gay pride thing. Much like furry pride it's more a case of calling attention to yourself rather then the issue. As I said before. Dress as a female racoon in the bedroom and no one cares, but make a pest of yourself in public and we will start hating you not because of your kink, but rather the fact you're being annoying.

I also can't stand hypocrasy.

When Dermot first arrived and caused a splash with his openly gay-ness. I was kind of aliened, see second paragraph. However, after going on about not making it an issue, and not to treat him special or go on about the fact he's gay I understood. After all, we have Krystal X Fox, he can have his Wolf X Fox. All good right? Well, no.

Remember that cross dressing racoon that is making a pest of themselves then screams discrimination I mentioned earlier? Well, that's what's happening here imo. He keeps spamming these threads about being gay, then when one starts dying he creates another. I could just ignore these threads, but they are often full of factual wrongs and hypocrasy, but any atempt to correct has the mods and members pouncing on me. Notice how they are cool with it when it comes to ghosts and UFO believers, but £don't correct the gay guy, because hes gay!"

This spamming of threads about this one topic that is only an issue in backwards american culture is also something no other members get away with. If I were to spam the forums with variations on "How do you think Krystal sucks Foxes willy?" I garuantee I'd be permabanned before the page could refrash. Try as much as you like to hide it, but we are talking about fictional characters bedroom antics here.

I'm not saying ban these threads outright, I'm just saying to mods "Give us a fair shake." and asking the members "Who's with me?"

[Asper Sarnoff]

I see your point here, and I at least won't take any action against this topic, unless a serious flamewar should arise.

And as an answer to your question, no. Though I'm pretty sure I would if Dermot intensified this and keept going on about the subject. And that's not because of the subject at hand, but because it keeps getting picked up again and again.

As an example of this, take Krystal. When I first came here, I was honestly glad she was a part of the series. An interesting character to drive the general storyline foreward, and female characters is an area SF has been lacking quite a bit as well.

Though, around last christmas, I got a little tired of getting flooded with posts and threads centered around this character, and I've adapted a much colder opinion of her. Not hostile, just colder.

Same principle really.

The reason you, seemingly quite alone, seems to have more trouble about this than the rest of us, I'll guess is more because you've got a shorter patience when it comes to stuff like this than the rest of us.

[Ris Grestar]

will taint this forum as a place when the opinions of the members don't matter.

There you have it.

[Andrew McCloud]

I see your point here, and I at least won't take any action against this topic, unless a serious flamewar should arise.

And as an answer to your question, no. Though I'm pretty sure I would if Dermot intensified this and keept going on about the subject. And that's not because of the subject at hand, but because it keeps getting picked up again and again.

As an example of this, take Krystal. When I first came here, I was honestly glad she was a part of the series. An interesting character to drive the general storyline foreward, and female characters is an area SF has been lacking quite a bit as well.

Though, around last christmas, I got a little tired of getting flooded with posts and threads centered around this character, and I've adapted a much colder opinion of her. Not hostile, just colder.

Same principle really.

The reason you, seemingly quite alone, seems to have more trouble about this than the rest of us, I'll guess is more because you've got a shorter patience when it comes to stuff like this than the rest of us.

Thank God someone finally said it aloud, now I don't have to hide anymore! j/k

Seriously though, I know I'll get tired of this too, but at least Dermot's 'gay' threads are somewhat of a relief from the "ZOMG KRYSTAL" stuff that was 100x as frequent e.e

[Ris Grestar]

I got tired of the Krystal topics...

But anyway, I think I should clarify my earlier post a bit.  Like you said, here on SF-O everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.  -Anyone- can have an opinion on -anything-.  Some things, obviously, are against the site's rules and cannot be shared, but Dermot's threads are perfectly fine.  He's sharing his opinions and would like to see the opinions of others.  If it started to get like the Krystal topic situation, yes, I'd get annoyed, but I personally don't think it's reached that point yet.

Also...I don't agree with you calling someone out in a thread.  Doesn't work out well.

[Steve]

Oh man, not this again  , Poor big DZ will have a headache again if he sees this, can't we let this just die quietly?, I mean, if you see a topic with this kind of selective subject, then just freaking  avoid it!, and stop nagging about it. Unless of course, a random normal topic gets bombarded by gay related things, that would be excessive.

I really don't want to end up making a special-gay subforum, because that's going to be hurtful for Dermot. But you guys don't leave me with any other choice. And while I can't take serious action towards this, because it's the voice of the people from this forum, I'd rather ask you all, is this really necessary? Can't you all just suck it up and let it go away?, after all, it's as easier as simply just NOT look at the topic.

[Sarita]

I can see your point Sabre (no offense, Dermot)...the "hypocrisy" factor, I also agree with you, though it's not as bad here at this web forum as it is at others (no offense to SF-O or its staff).

I'm tired of gays getting the upper hand in today's society, I'm not saying they should be treated like 2nd class citizens, no, never.  I just think we're overcompensating by some of the excessive favoritism showed to them nowadays, especially in California.

I agree with you, Sabre.

Sorry to anyone I may have offended, but I have to speak my mind.

I hate to say this, but seriously, black people? At least around here, most of them STILL believe America owes them the world for something that neither they nor their parents experienced. Gay people STILL don't have equal rights. At least black people can marry white people now. (Did you know that used to be illegal?) They were just as obnoxious when they were fighting for their rights, now a new group of people come demanding their rights and people get just as defensive as they did then. And they'll get over it. You should, too.

(this post isn't really directed at anyone)

I agree with Steve, if this becomes the huge issue that YOU'RE making it, Sabre, then I'm going to have to do something.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

....after all, it's as easier as simply just NOT look at the topic.

True, as long as there isn't a staggering amount of those type of topics (and there isn't).

I hate to say this, but seriously, black people? At least around here, most of them STILL believe America owes them the world for something that neither they nor their parents experienced. Gay people STILL don't have equal rights. At least black people can marry white people now. (Did you know that used to be illegal?) They were just as obnoxious when they were fighting for their rights, now a new group of people come demanding their rights and people get just as defensive as they did then. And they'll get over it. You should, too.

I know it was once illegal for blacks to marry whites, I'm not some ignorant biggot.

[Guest DRL]

To be really honest, I really do not think

Dermot is annoying me. While our opinions may

differ one from the other, so far he has always

been polite and respectfull. But that is what gives

life to the community, right? Respect and understanding,

yeah? Sure, not everyone has to like, agree, or love it,

but that does not means that it should be restricted.

As far as it concerns me, Dermot's threads are between

the rules. And in fact, if I do not like a thread, I do not

post or read it, so if something annoys you, the best solution

is to outright ignore it, not try to limit it or get the admins/mods

to limit it.

[Guest DRL]

I'll let you guys in on a little secret...I got NOTHING against gays, at all.  Never did, never will.  The only main reason I "speak out against them" or vote against their agendas is to get revenge on people like Gloria Allred, or Gavin Newsome.  I hurt elitist left-wing bullies like them through the [gay] people they rabidly support. 

I know it's not fair to do that, but it's even more unfair for people like Allred and Newsome to exploit gays just to get votes, attention, or to further their [political] agendas.

Uh... With all respect, Julius,

let's not mention politics again,

ok? (or this thread will get locked.)

[Ris Grestar]

let's not mention politics again,

ok? (or this thread will get locked.)

Which, I have to say, I think is ridiculous.

[Guest DRL]

Which, I have to say, I think is ridiculous.

Fine, but every time politics showed up

in a thread it ended locked.

[Ris Grestar]

Fine, but every time politics showed up

in a thread it ended locked.

Exactly my point.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Uh... With all respect, Julius,

let's not mention politics again,

ok? (or this thread will get locked.)

Fine, but every time politics showed up

in a thread it ended locked.

Exactly my point.

Okay, fine, I'm sorry DRL and Ris Grestar.

[Guest DRL]

Okay, fine, I'm sorry DRL and Ris Grestar.

No problem, it is just that we do not

want to lock another thread, right? :wink:

[Ris Grestar]

Okay, fine, I'm sorry DRL and Ris Grestar.

Sorry?  No, no, no, you took what I said the wrong way.  I just think it's stupid how if there's any mention of politics a warning follows soon after.  What I said wasn't meant as anything bad towards you.

Anyway, my apologies for straying from the original topic.

[Guest DRL]

Sorry?  No, no, no, you took what I said the wrong way.  I just think it's stupid how if there's any mention of politics a warning follows soon after.  What I said wasn't meant as anything bad towards you.

Anyway, my apologies for straying from the original topic.

Yes, no problem with you either.

What I said was mostly from personall experience.

It is not that anyone would get banned or warned,

simple the topic would get locked, and we do not want

that to happen, right?. Well, I apologize too for helping

in the thread-derail.

[Vy'drach]

As I've said before, I couldn't care less one way or the other about someone's sexuality. Only beef I've had with Dermot was at the beginning with the relationship images of Star Fox characters, which would apply to any and all of you (Seriously, please don't embed any, link em with a short description). As far as his topics, I get involved in the ones that seem interesting, and ignore ones that don't. Simple as that.

[Ris Grestar]

As I've said before, I couldn't care less one way or the other about someone's sexuality. Only beef I've had with Dermot was at the beginning with the relationship images of Star Fox characters, which would apply to any and all of you (Seriously, please don't embed any, link em with a short description). As far as his topics, I get involved in the ones that seem interesting, and ignore ones that don't. Simple as that.

Concerning the images, yes, I'm straight, no, I don't enjoy seeing my childhood heroes in those kinds of relationships.  Still, though, that's my opinion and I'm allowed to have it just as everyone else is allowed to have their own opinion.  With most everything else that seems to bother some people on this forum, it can all easily be avoided.

[Vy'drach]

Concerning the images, yes, I'm straight, no, I don't enjoy seeing my childhood heroes in those kinds of relationships.  Still, though, that's my opinion and I'm allowed to have it just as everyone else is allowed to have their own opinion.  With most everything else that seems to bother some people on this forum, it can all easily be avoided.

The thing that got me then was that it couldn't be, as it was in a general fan-art thread, and a massive sized image, so by time you realized you didn't want to see it, you already saw it. Also, I don't have a problem with it being a gay relationship, just a relationship in general. I'm not too fond of Fox/Krystal and Falco/Katt art (and any other coupling) since I usually just don't want to see relationship art, any relationship.

[Ris Grestar]

The thing that got me then was that it couldn't be, as it was in a general fan-art thread, and a massive sized image, so by time you realized you didn't want to see it, you already saw it.

Heh, which is why I pointed out "with most everything else" lol

Also, I don't have a problem with it being a gay relationship, just a relationship in general. I'm not too fond of Fox/Krystal and Falco/Katt art (and any other coupling) since I usually just don't want to see relationship art, any relationship.

Yeah, I don't really like seeing any coupling art either, whichever orientation.  I mean, some pieces are naturally good, naturally well-done, but still, you know?

[Vy'drach]

Yeah, I don't really like seeing any coupling art either, whichever orientation.  I mean, some pieces are naturally good, naturally well-done, but still, you know?

I have... 4/124 images that are relationship images with Krystal, and all of them had a mark against them for being relationship. Only reason I saved them on my computer is a combination of them having other saving graces (usually a perfect or near perfect rendition of Krystal), or me deciding, "Hmmm, I don't really like it, but I'll save it if I ever want to see it. I don't have to if I don't want to, after all."

I have other Star Fox art works as well, not involving Krystal, but none of them are relationship orientated.

["User"]

Why all the perceived anti-Krystal bias?  You can never have too much Krystal!

Anyways, just my own opinions on what I've seen so far:

I got tired of the Krystal topics...

But anyway, I think I should clarify my earlier post a bit.  Like you said, here on SF-O everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.  -Anyone- can have an opinion on -anything-.  Some things, obviously, are against the site's rules and cannot be shared, but Dermot's threads are perfectly fine.  He's sharing his opinions and would like to see the opinions of others.  If it started to get like the Krystal topic situation, yes, I'd get annoyed, but I personally don't think it's reached that point yet.

Also...I don't agree with you calling someone out in a thread.  Doesn't work out well.

Dermont has been very polite and respectful in most/all of his posts, even against heavy criticism.  I wish most posters would have that same attitude when faced with trials and tribulations.  Furthermore I can understand how his topics aren't on the same perceived annoyance level as Krystal related topics are.

Oh man, not this again  , Poor big DZ will have a headache again if he sees this, can't we let this just die quietly?, I mean, if you see a topic with this kind of selective subject, then just freaking  avoid it!, and stop nagging about it. Unless of course, a random normal topic gets bombarded by gay related things, that would be excessive.

I'm sure I've seen that happen a few times already, but I could be wrong.

Can't you all just suck it up and let it go away?, after all, it's as easier as simply just NOT look at the topic.

In the end I'm prone to agree.  The decision has already been made by DZ to let this kind of content stay on the board and the staff have already pointed out (on more then on occasion) that it becomes "obsessive" then they will take action.  Unless that happens then constant nagging at this issue will get us nowhere for the time being.

Gay people STILL don't have equal rights. At least black people can marry white people now. (Did you know that used to be illegal?) They were just as obnoxious when they were fighting for their rights, now a new group of people come demanding their rights and people get just as defensive as they did then. And they'll get over it. You should, too.

On the flip side of that equation though Sissi it can be argued that you can't "equally" compare those three scenarios.  We all know that other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, however as one smart individual I know pointed out:

    “Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”

You might not agree with the above quote, but just letting you know, it's not as clear cut as women/non-white rights go.

True, as long as there isn't a staggering amount of those type of topics (and there isn't).

I know it was once illegal for blacks to marry whites, I'm not some ignorant biggot.

I'm pretty sure she wasn't implying you as such, although I understand where you're getting at.

Uh... With all respect, Julius,

let's not mention politics again,

ok? (or this thread will get locked.)

Fine, but every time politics showed up

in a thread it ended locked.

And what would be your rational for having a zero tolerance policy on any statement, quote, etc that can be considered political in nature?  You don't like politics.....we get the picture...but locking any topic that talks about it is no better than locking any topic that has gay overtones in in.  Yes, I know you don't want to get this topic locked, but a couple of mild "politically based" comments from a person such as Julius is NOT going to make much of a difference...if at ALL.  I'm confidence in the staffs ability to lock topics only when REALLY necessary.

When it's all send and done I really think we should all just drop this issue and move on with our active, crazy, SFO lives.  Decisions have already been made on this, and regardless of whether you agree with them or not, they ARE WITHIN the rules.

[Guest DRL]

And what would be your rational for having a zero tolerance policy on any statement, quote, etc that can be considered political in nature?  You don't like politics.....we get the picture...but locking any topic that talks about it is no better than locking any topic that has gay overtones in in.  Yes, I know you don't want to get this topic locked, but a couple of mild "politically based" comments from a person such as Julius is NOT going to make much of a difference...if at ALL.  I'm confidence in the staffs ability to lock topics only when REALLY necessary.

When it's all send and done I really think we should all just drop this issue and move on with our active, crazy, SFO lives.  Decisions have already been made on this, and regardless of whether you agree with them or not, they ARE WITHIN the rules.

All the opposite, Politics is one of my favourite topics.

But here, when I tried to debate about it the topic got

locked 'very' quickly. It was not my intention to offend Julius,

it is just that someone might take what he said and start

a political debate, leading to the eventual lock of the thread.

["User"]

All the opposite, Politics is one of my favourite topics.

But here, when I tried to debate about it the topic got

locked 'very' quickly. It was not my intention to offend Julius,

it is just that someone might take what he said and start

a political debate, leading to the eventual lock of the thread.

I'd have to see this topic you are referring to to get my own impression of how political it went. 

As far as what I've been seeing the staff have been more lenient with topics that have gotten slightly political recently.  I haven't been around SFO as long as you have so I'm not exactly sure how they handled such topics when you first joined for example.

Again, it all boils down to who can maintain their control and be intelligent in dealing with other people's opinions.  Yes, I know we have a mature sub forum for a reason and I think that any topic that is originally about something political or slightly controversial should be started there.  However I still hold to my opinion that a zero tolerance policy is not the way to go when dealing with political statements, beliefs, etc.  Some leeway SHOULD be granted.