That are ignorant people out who’ve been fed some bullshit by society about what the gay community is and isn’t.
They aren’t hateful and would in fact be friends and allies but your approach of “there is no ignorance without hate therefore I’m justified in being a dick!”
So are they hateful of gay people because of ‘some bullshit by society’ or are they not hateful?
Its your fault for acting like a dick to people who are ignorant.
This is called Victim Blaming (the caps are for the concept, not the literal pairing of words) because it implies it’s the role of every minority to convince people not to oppress them, and not on the individual to not be a bigot. To see why this is the issue it is, replace ‘being gay’ with ‘being raped’ - is it, say, a woman’s ‘job’ to convince men not to rape them, or is it on men to know not to rape people?
doesn’t exactly fit the hypothetical I described of a person who’s just afraid of the concept without harboring any hateful feelings or displaying any discriminatory behaviors toward it.
I can’t think of a single example of this in reality. Phobia isn’t ‘just afraid’ in the context you’re using, it’s an irrational terror. People who are arachnophobic aren’t ‘just afraid’ they’re terrified of spiders. That is due to an inherent part of our past (as humans) that taught us spiders/snakes/etc were a danger and to avoid them, and for these people their brain changes ‘I should avoid that danger’ to ‘I should do literally anything to get away from that danger.’
There’s no precedent for ‘people of the same gender who love each other’ being a source of terror. Nothing in our collective past would cause that.
Meme: Use this gun to sneak a snickers into a movie theatre.
Title: (you could also say) You could also sneak peanuts into a school. (EDIT: Sorry I misunderstood the confusing part. In some schools in the US you cannot bring in peanuts due to some people having an anaphylactic shock when around peanuts.)
Also, following treaties signed under duress and in situations of radically unequally power dynamics isn’t too reasonable either.
I’m not sure the alternative to following treaties signed under duress is to not even follow said treaties. We can give them all sorts of land that we barely use, nobody is actually suggesting we give them back downtown Vancouver. The issue is we just shrug and go ‘yeah well people live in places now’.
Apparently we just do fuck-all because it’s ‘too complicated’ from what I’m reading here; seems pretty cut and dry. Follow treaties people in the past signed? Nah, why bother. It’s in the past. I mean honestly, what rules should we even bother following from back then.
Ok, so I steal your dads car. Years later, he dies, and they find me with the car. Well your dad is dead, so it’s my car now right?
EDIT:
To all the replies, what’s the cutoff? It sure seems to conveniently be the one where we keep everything and everyone else is fucked.
Should we give Japanese American/Canadian families back the houses and land they lost when they were interred? Why or why not?
If a car doesn’t count, but raw land does, what’s to stop the government from taking your house? They have the might, laws governing seizing of land is old, so fuck it, why follow it? Is that ok because they have the might?
If the actions of those ‘hundreds of years ago’ no longer apply, do Americans lose their constitutional rights? What exactly makes something ‘too far in the past’ to have actions done with it? Canadians got the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, is that old enough to break, or too new? What is the line in time, exactly?