Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We all know that the gay/lesbian scene has its own subculture. I have no problem with being proud of who you are, but if there's complaining and whining about discrimination and intolerance, maybe you oughta think about how you portray yourself? I know that sounds kind of harsh, but that's my point of view. We're all American citizens free to do what we want with our lives -- I get that. Call me old fashioned, but why would one's sexual habits have anything to do with how they live in public? I'm not saying that everyone should conform to what people like to see, but the very fact that we all mention the "gay community" is kind of discrimanatory in itself. Why segregate if you want to blend in? I don't get it. Does anyone else concur? Probably not. I'll most likely be labeled a bigot or homophobe.
I don't think you're a bigot or homophobe, however I wish I could explain to you what discrimination and prejudice feels like.
Imagine going to your job every day, and socializing with your coworkers. Obviously, the topic of conversation might drift to personal relationships, dating, etc., as it always does. Imagine yourself as a gay man. Imagine yourself being asked if you are seeing anyone, and then imagine yourself thinking should I tell the truth to this person, who may judge me for being gay, or just not say anything at all?
I guess my point is that, living as a gay male, I do not make my sexual preferences other peoples' business. However, other people often tend to make it their business. This has occurred everywhere I have ever lived. People like to gossip and know who is what, etc. The problem comes when people have a problem with your orientation. Also, it makes it hard to just hang out with people and socialize with them if you never know when you have to have your guard up.
"How does one's sexual habits have anything to do with how they live in public?" you asked. People make it their business to know what your sexual habits are. Guys like to talk about sex. So do women. Also, people have a have a habit of assuming one's sexual orientation, whether it is talked about or not. I have worked many places and in none of these places did I talk about my sexual preferences with coworkers. However, in all of these places my coworkers assumed I was gay with no input from myself, and then eventually cornered me on it.
What's with all the labeling of "homophobes" anyway? Does that mean one is afraid of homosexuals? That's how I'm reading it. I don't think I've ever met someone who is actually afraid of gay people.
So the historic, cultural, religious, etc. condemnation of homosexuality usually took the form of treating gay sex and gay people as "taboo". The basic notion is that gayness was similar to a disease, in that it would corrupt and ultimately destroy those people and institutions who came into contact with it. The mechanisms could vary widely--psychological, cultural, God's wrath, and so forth--but that was the typical common theme.
And you can still see that taboo notion in operation today. Consider the current debates over issues like gay marriage: people will argue that we need to "protect" traditional marriage by prohibiting gay marriage, the notion being that somehow if gay people can marry, that will lead to a corruption of the entire institution of marriage (again, the mechanism suggested to back up this notion varies). This taboo notion can also manifest as the idea that gay people are more likely to abuse children (or at least turn them gay), and so on.
So that is why the term "homophobia" makes some sense. It isn't necessarily a fear of immediate physical harm, but rather the notion that somehow gayness has this contagious, corruptive, ultimately destructive power.
Quote:
I guess my point is that if assimilation is the goal, then why try to stand out? Now if assimilation is not the goal, then I understand. I'm an accepting and open minded person, but I'm also fairly principled in my belief that homosexuals can do whatever they want in private. But in public, act like the rest of society. I'm straight, but I don't make it a point to hold hands with my wife everywhere we go. We're happily maried, but that doesn't mean we need to canoodle in public.
Gay people are typically just asking for the same rules to apply to them as apply to straight people. For example, you don't have to hold your wife's hand in public, but you can, and no one will call you "flamboyant" for doing so, or accuse you of trying to "make a point", or so on. They will just recognize that you want to hold your wife's hand. Similarly, if you reference your wife in various casual conversations, no one will view it as odd or trying to make a point, and so forth.
Quote:
We all know that the gay/lesbian scene has its own subculture.
That's actually changing as more and more gay people are living open lives. The gay subculture was in part a reaction to having to live in the closet in most contexts, for fear of reprisal.
Quote:
I have no problem with being proud of who you are, but if there's complaining and whining about discrimination and intolerance, maybe you oughta think about how you portray yourself?
Even if a gay person was trying to make a point with their public behavior, that would be absolutely no excuse for them to be the victim of discrimination (or worse).
Quote:
Call me old fashioned, but why would one's sexual habits have anything to do with how they live in public?
Sex and romantic relationships are a basic part of human existence. We talk about them, we make art about them, we make laws about them, we advertise products using them--the idea of removing them entirely from public life would be seen as completely ridiculous and a flagrant violation of basic rights if that notion was applied to straight people (see, e.g., the Taliban).
Quote:
Why segregate if you want to blend in?
I know no gay people who actually want to segregate themselves from straight people. That just isn't possible, in fact. Again, what they want is to be accepted as members of their chosen community on equal terms, but unfortunately they can't always find that, even today.
Quote:
Which brings me to my final point. Some of the most intolerant and bigoted people I've come in contact with in my life have been gay or lesbian. They preach but don't practice it. My father was involved in local politics where I grew up -- he's pretty right wing, even more so that myself. He ran for state senate a few times and his views on gay marriage and the like were pretty well known. So what kind of acceptance and tolerance did he get? Bomb threats, eggs splattered on the house and even death threats in the mail.
There is no excuse for violence and vandalism, and I think gay activists who use such tactics are being counterproductive. But note that someone who wants to be in an official position where he can try to prohibit something like gay marriage is no longer following a live and let live approach: they have engaged in trying to prevent others from living as they would choose.
Some of the most intolerant and bigoted people I've come in contact with in my life have been gay or lesbian. They preach but don't practice it. My father was involved in local politics where I grew up -- he's pretty right wing, even more so that myself. He ran for state senate a few times and his views on gay marriage and the like were pretty well known. So what kind of acceptance and tolerance did he get? Bomb threats, eggs splattered on the house and even death threats in the mail.
What kind of "acceptance" and "tolerance" do you expect to get from people whose rights you trample? Was your father expecting candy and flowers?
AlleghenyAngel, thank you for your respectful reply -- and I mean that sincerely. I think we can have a good discussion about this without it getting hairy, and this is a good example. I do know what intolerance and discrimination feels like, but in a different way. Consider this...
I grew up in a very strict Catholic family in a family of nine kids -- yes, 9. We were all home-schooled and were very often ostracized and labeled by the neighborhood kids as different or weird. My father, even though he's a great man and raised us very well, made up archaic and ridiculous rules. For example, he saw wearing blue jeans (!) as a sign of rebellion and disrespect, so up until the age of about 15, I never wore a pair of blue jeans. You think the kids around the block didn't notice this? They sure as heck did. The countless times I was called a "retard" and other names just because I was home-schooled, as if it made me unintelligent. I took some classes at a local private high school, and the teacher introduced me to the entire class by saying "welcome Josh, this is your introduction to civilization." So yeah, I know a thing or two about being discriminated against. It doesn't just happen to gays and lesbians, trust me.
BrianTH -- I see where you're coming from with many of your comments, but I disagree with most of them. I'm not sure if you were comparing my views to those of the Taliban, so I'll assume you were not. I could go on forever on this topic, especially gay marriage. Marriage, as defined in any dictionary, is between a man and woman. Nothing else. The sky is blue, water is wet and pigs don't fly. If gays and lesbians want to unite and commit to each other, great. But it's not marriage. Call it something else. It's pretty simple. Civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever. But not marriage. I can't call a turtle a horse.
In regards to my dad and the hate he's received. He is free to live how he chooses, and he chooses an unpopular view. So that makes it OK for those who disagree with him to impart violence and hate? Huh? He's not trying to prevent anyone from living any way, and neither am I. He simply views marriage as an unchangeable thing -- as a man and woman like I just mentioned.
Everyone under out Constitution should (and mostly do) have equal rights. Special rights should be afforded to no one. I know this is an idealistic view, but why can't everyone just be a productive part of society and not let anything get in the way of who they are. Yes, we're all different but why whine and complain that someone doesn't like you? The fat person, the bald person, the person with different skin color, the gay person, the short person, the atheist, the Catholic, etc. etc. all live and walk the same streets and don't hold signs advertising who they are. And if someone doesn't like me for who I am or what I believe, I cannot change that.
What kind of "acceptance" and "tolerance" do you expect to get from people whose rights you trample? Was your father expecting candy and flowers?
Well, the same acceptance that they wanted from him. Acceptance of his viewpoints even if they disagreed. Pretty simple. If you preach tolerance, walk the walk and quit being a hypocrite.
Well, the same acceptance that they wanted from him. Acceptance of his viewpoints even if they disagreed. Pretty simple. If you preach tolerance, walk the walk and quit being a hypocrite.
He already has what they wanted from him, the right to live their lives the way they want. Gay people should accept a person who would make laws that prevent them from living their lives as they want? Sorry, Disingenuina.
He already has what they wanted from him, the right to live their lives the way they want. Gay people should accept a person who would make laws that prevent them from living their lives as they want? Sorry, Disingenuina.
Ah, so here we have it. Acceptance only in certain cases. Thanks for clarifying that. If you believe in true tolerance and acceptance, you'll tolerate even those who try to put you down. I've done that throughout my life and will continue to do so.
They have the exact rights he has. The exact rights everyone has. Gays and lesbians can marry if they want. Just like I can marry -- thing is, marriage is defined as a man and woman. Period. We all obey the same traffic laws, same violence laws, same civil laws, and so on and so forth. Should I complain that I don't have the right to blow through a stop sign when I'm driving? Nope. I follow laws as a US citizen. Hey, maybe I can start a campaign that changes the definition of a stop sign...
Do you think Pittsburgh and Philadelphia would already constitute gay marriage if they could get away with it without having the rest of PA be a factor....
I mean we know this is a dead issue because the Burgh and Philly dont have the political clout in Harrisburg to over ride the rest of the state which will not go for it in any fashion...
But I want to know do you think the 2 cities are progressive enough that you could see a rally behind it?
I'm not sure if you were comparing my views to those of the Taliban, so I'll assume you were not.
Definitely not. My point was just that to truly expunge all references to and displays of heterosexuality in public, we'd have to go to Taliban-like extremes. Accordingly, straight people shouldn't ask gay people to hold themselves to a standard straight people would never accept.
Quote:
Marriage, as defined in any dictionary, is between a man and woman. Nothing else. The sky is blue, water is wet and pigs don't fly. If gays and lesbians want to unite and commit to each other, great. But it's not marriage. Call it something else. It's pretty simple. Civil unions, domestic partnerships or whatever. But not marriage. I can't call a turtle a horse.
I'll admit I don't really understand the dictionary argument. Definitions change over time--if we looked at a dictionary from, say, the 18th Century, and compared it to a modern one, I'm sure we would find lots of changes. So the fact that adopting a public policy would require some change in the next edition of a dictionary doesn't seem to me to be a significant consideration.
But the fundamental point is about equality under the law. If a state wants to recognize only civil unions for both straight couples and gay couples, I'd be fine with that. Then each individual person, family, church and so forth could decide what they wanted to call a marriage. But as long as the state calls what straight couples can get a "marriage", it can't deny that same status to gay couples.
Quote:
In regards to my dad and the hate he's received. He is free to live how he chooses, and he chooses an unpopular view. So that makes it OK for those who disagree with him to impart violence and hate?
I think I made it quite clear I don't condone violence of any sort in this situation.
But I think it is worth noting you are changing the situation. If he was just living his life and expressing his opinions, that would be one thing. But you said before he was running to be a state legislator, and as a state legislator he would participate in making marriage policy. As such, he is no longer just a person living how he chooses, he is seeking authority to determine how others may live.
Quote:
He's not trying to prevent anyone from living any way, and neither am I. He simply views marriage as an unchangeable thing -- as a man and woman like I just mentioned.
Again, if the state provides marriages to straight couples but not to gay couples, it is creating an unequal status under the law. As before, if your father wanted to get the state out of the marriage business entirely, that would be one thing, but if he wants to preserve the status quo, then he is not remaining neutral.
Incidentally, is it true your father supported gay civil unions with full legal rights equal to marriage?
Quote:
Everyone under out Constitution should (and mostly do) have equal rights. Special rights should be afforded to no one.
Exactly. Straight couples, for example, should not have a special right under the law to get married which is unavailable to gay couples. Either both should get it, or neither.
Quote:
Yes, we're all different but why whine and complain that someone doesn't like you?
That's fine until people start acting on that dislike. The most serious issues are things like violence, employment discrimination, and legal discrimination. But some people are simply publicly rude to gay people in a way we would never accept towards straight people. There doesn't need to be a law about that, but neither do we as individuals have to treat rudeness toward gay people as socially acceptable behavior.
Quote:
The fat person, the bald person, the person with different skin color, the gay person, the short person, the atheist, the Catholic, etc. etc. all live and walk the same streets and don't hold signs advertising who they are.
Again, the point is that when gay people do things which are ordinary for straight people, like publicly display affection for a loved one, or talk about their relationships, or so on, some people treat them as if they were doing something improper. As long as you agree we should treat straight people and gay people exactly alike in that sense, I don't think you will find many gay people unhappy with that prospect.
Hey, maybe I can start a campaign that changes the definition of a stop sign...
That's a good analogy. Suppose someone suggested we should change the speed limit on a given stretch of road from 35 to 25 (say because a bunch of residential development had occurred along the road).
Would you argue, "Nope, the sign currently says 35, so we have to stay with 35"?
The point is that when it comes to legal matters, what we say on the sign should be driven by policy. Policy should not be driven by what it currently says on the sign.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
