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.
As for advice to you. I'd stop yelling at people and start living your life in the open. My uncle tells his patients that the best place to start is with facebook. A photo of you and yours together, looking happy. Another is to have houseparties and invite friends over, even so-called "hard right" folks. Don't exclude someone - that is what you do not like. Hey look, we are normal people like you. One of my uncle's favorite things is to take people shooting. That provides a common ground for him to show he is normal. He takes things one person at a time. Which gets him a lot farther than getting in people's faces.
A lot of churches are changing, too. You'd be surprised.
You totally got me wrong. In this thread, I've asked honest questions, explained the plight of many LGBT people, and rightfully questioned statements saying conservatives have no problem with LGBT people. And because of that, I'm accused of having a persecution complex and getting in people's faces and given coming out advice by a straight person despite the fact that I'm well past that stage.
I guess I'll do a bit of summarizing on the issue free of the begging question. I'm not a victim. I don't hold anyone responsible but myself for my life. As a Christian white guy with a strong build, breezing through an engineering degree, who happens to be gay, I don't have a plight, but you better believe that I'm one of the extremely lucky ones. For that reason, I do feel a bit of need to remind people to check their privilege, especially those who insist that conservatives aren't discriminatory when in the vast majority of cases, people who hold conservative values and their kids are the ones who can make life a living hell for a group of people that, for better or for worse, I am lumped in with.
You're correct. I haven't had a conversation with a LGBT person about what it's like to be gay. Why would I want to do so?
War Beagle said it so well:
Also, the gay community needs to ask itself what it expects from straights. We hear about tolerance, which has supposedly been the goal of the gay rights movement, but it seems to me the movement has moved beyond simple tolerance and now expects straights to celebrate their gayness with them.
That said, I'm not going to celebrate your gayness, say how great it is or march in rallies with you. I'm not gay and I just don't care about your plight that much. It's not PC to say so, but it's the truth. If the expectation amongst gays is that tolerance=straights celebrating and taking up their cause, then they have set upon themselves an impossible task. If tolerance means "live and let live", then this is a very achievable goal.
I couldn't have summed it up better myself. It seems to me that LGBT do expect straights to embrace what is important to LGBTs. I think that is asking waaaay too much.
That would be great, if thats what most gays actually wanted. Im not, gay but I have many gay friends and from what I can gather, what they want is:
1) to be able to marry
2) to have the legal rights we heterosexuals enjoy as a couple
3) to have children or a family
4) to not have to fear discrimination in the work place
Thats pretty much it. Are there "pride" events to celebrate? Sure, but no one is asking you to go to them. Youre free to ignore it. Let the people who want to go celebrate do that and you can do something else.
As for having things shoved in your face, thats just part of being America. We get all kinds of junk from racism, to right wing Christianity, to flamboyant gay lifestyle, to the gun control/proponent yahoos shouting their junk, etc. 9 times out of 10, it isnt the people in question that are making an issue of it, its the media or the people who oppose them. Ill use an example from the right and left.
Look at the Chick-fila thing. The CEO made a comment to a Baptist publication about how they oppose same sex marriage. Who was really surprised by that? Anyone who knows anything about the company would have been able to tell that. Yet, because of that, the media spun it out of control and the gay rights community got up set. (Disclaimer, I fully support gay rights to the top but I eat at Chic-Fila about once a week). Then that set up Chick-Fila day (or whatever it was called). That fueled things to the point where the emotions took its toll on the LGBT community and Chick-Fila itself.
On the flip side of that coin look at the whole Boy Scout situation. It comes out that they are considering opening the organization to homosexuals. You get an uprise from many right wing and fundementalist politicians and preachers. They get their signs and they go public and talk about gays as if they are responisble for all the moral decay in the US. Of course, it gets people upset and that leads to more gay rights leaders and groups showing up in Irving to protest along side the fundementalist preachers and "family" groups.
To take it further, it seems that many take gays fighting for equal rights (which marriage is one) as shoving their "gayness" in people faces. When women were fighting for the right to vote, was that just women shoving their gender in the face of society? When people were fighting for integration, was that just African-Americans shoving their race in the face of society? The answer to all of these is no. When a group is denied equal rights (which gays currently are), dont mistake them fighting for those rights as shoving their sexual orientation in your face.
Beyond that, people complain about gay pride and other gay events, why? Is it because people see things they associate with gays in a negative way like promiscuity? Not only do you not have to take part in them, we celebrate straight promiscuity every night in Dallas. Ill be happy to take anyone to Uptown Dallas any day of the week if you want to see what a bunch of straight people look like when they are about to sleep with someone random. Its pretty visable as well. It bothers many people, but they simply dont go to watch it. The same view should be given to gay events.
The bottom line is none of us heterosexuals know what its like to be gay. We dont know what its like to walk in their shoes or to be told that we cant marry the person we love for something we cant help. We dont know what its like to know that they can be fired for being who they are.
We dont know what its like and straight opponents of gay rights need to stop acting like they do.
It is always nice to debate/discuss with someone who can make a reasonable argument without resorting to accusing ones opponent of hateful motivations...
Quote:
Originally Posted by happycrow
[highlit for emphasis] If that's a principled stance, then the corollary to that, Reb, is that folks do get to try -- a social issue should be no more out of bounds than a contractual or legal one. There are legitimate questions of civil rights at stake, and while one can rightly object to those who go about it like asses*, it would not be legitimate to say "This topic is offensive to me and therefore should be out of bounds for politics."
I think we can generally agree on that one.
Quote:
While I don't think you mean it that way based on some of your other writing, that's very much the same kind of wordage folks in the 60s and 70s used to use in regards to blacks and civil rights; the "we'll respect your rights so long as you keep quiet and don't actually push for them" position.
You are correct. It is the same type of wordage. However, just because the Civil Rights causes of the 1960's are now considered sacrosanct, doesn't mean they should be off limits in terms of discussing their negative effects as well. One was that of private property rights. Another was how such lead to activist judges ordering social engineering (i.e. forced busing), and then to racial quota systems. And so on...
The point is, that the term "Civil Rights" can be construed to apply to just about anything. I guess I am just one of those strict-constructionists who sees civil rights in terms of the Bill of Rights. Not some creation and taffy-pull on the part of the Supreme Court, just because it happens to suit a particular ideology of their own. That is a danger that can work both ways...
With all that said though, there were many good things that came out of the Civil Rights movement itself. The Montgomery bus boycott? The Greenville sit-ins? That was courageous and perfectly legitimate. It was working! The problem came in when the feds got into it, and forced changes overnight that went far beyond what people were ready for. And that can never work.
And, on a related tangent, it still makes me want to puke (pardon the inelegance, ladies), when thinking over that those northern politicians and elitist liberals who supported every interventionist measure aimed at the Southern states, suddenly put their mouths and agenda's in high-reverse when the courts started to rule that de-facto segregation was a blight that needed corrected as well. Oh man, those folks fled to the suburbs, stuck their own kids in private schools, and behaved like the self-righteous hypocrites they really were.
Ok, ok...I know I got my dander up! Sorry. LOL Anyway...
Quote:
I have seen issues very much like what Westerner describes, and others which simply make no sense -- why does the Red Cross, in the middle of an emergency blood drive, send two guys who are healthy as an ox home because they happen to be gay?
I happen to know a guy, a captain on the city fire department, who used to work on his off duty days, with the Red Cross. And yes, a few stories he told me confirm what you say. However? The flip side of it was that, personally knowing those guys were openly gay, they could not take the chance of HIV positive, which we all know is most likely in young homosexual men . So they took their blood, thanked them, then "threw it away". I am not a blood expert so I have no clue as to whether that was policy or not or even made sense...but it seems the decision was made for practical reasons, not out of hate for gay people.
Quote:
I lived in the Bay for a while, and some of the talk in the gay and bi community out there is every bit as hateful as what some people posting here expect from southerners -- I'm glad to be able to hang out in the middle where reasonable people can hash out difficult issues without getting a hate on for whoever's "the other."
Well said. And that has always been a certain corallary point of mine. That is to say, so often those who tout their own tolerant attitudes, do not not extend it to others. In fact, they are often the most intolerant people of all.
Y'know, Reb? It must be very burdensome having ultimate understanding of the world, especially when it comes to minority perspective. That part where I seemingly contradict myself? It's called knowing when to choose your battles. And on that note, I'm done. If you want to continue this discussion further, DM me.
I said my piece, westerner, and there is no need for me to DM you. However? If you would like to DM? I would welcome it and promise to reply.
Quote:
To make this all relevant to the thread: In my experience, as long as Texas is majority conservative, a gay person doesn't stand an ice cube's chance in hell at getting the governorship.
I hope and pray Texas remains majority conservative. As to whether or not a gay person stands a chance of getting elected? Well, just read the posts. I dont see a single one that says they would not vote for a gay person just because they are gay. Nope, the consensus is that their politicial philosophy matters, not their sexual orientation.
But in turn? That might depend upon how the candidate presents themselves. If they make a point of being homosexual and advertise it ala' a Barny Frank? Nope, it wouldn't happen and many Texas voters would be revolted (understandably) by such a display. At least I sure as hell would.
BUT? If they keep it to themselves -- even if it were actually known? -- and touted their proven conservative records and stances? You bet they could be elected. I'd be the first to vote for them, in fact.
That would be great, if thats what most gays actually wanted. Im not, gay but I have many gay friends and from what I can gather, what they want is:
1) to be able to marry
2) to have the legal rights we heterosexuals enjoy as a couple
3) to have children or a family
4) to not have to fear discrimination in the work place
Thats pretty much it. Are there "pride" events to celebrate? Sure, but no one is asking you to go to them. Youre free to ignore it. Let the people who want to go celebrate do that and you can do something else.
As for having things shoved in your face, thats just part of being America. We get all kinds of junk from racism, to right wing Christianity, to flamboyant gay lifestyle, to the gun control/proponent yahoos shouting their junk, etc. 9 times out of 10, it isnt the people in question that are making an issue of it, its the media or the people who oppose them. Ill use an example from the right and left.
Look at the Chick-fila thing. The CEO made a comment to a Baptist publication about how they oppose same sex marriage. Who was really surprised by that? Anyone who knows anything about the company would have been able to tell that. Yet, because of that, the media spun it out of control and the gay rights community got up set. (Disclaimer, I fully support gay rights to the top but I eat at Chic-Fila about once a week). Then that set up Chick-Fila day (or whatever it was called). That fueled things to the point where the emotions took its toll on the LGBT community and Chick-Fila itself.
On the flip side of that coin look at the whole Boy Scout situation. It comes out that they are considering opening the organization to homosexuals. You get an uprise from many right wing and fundementalist politicians and preachers. They get their signs and they go public and talk about gays as if they are responisble for all the moral decay in the US. Of course, it gets people upset and that leads to more gay rights leaders and groups showing up in Irving to protest along side the fundementalist preachers and "family" groups.
To take it further, it seems that many take gays fighting for equal rights (which marriage is one) as shoving their "gayness" in people faces. When women were fighting for the right to vote, was that just women shoving their gender in the face of society? When people were fighting for integration, was that just African-Americans shoving their race in the face of society? The answer to all of these is no. When a group is denied equal rights (which gays currently are), dont mistake them fighting for those rights as shoving their sexual orientation in your face.
Beyond that, people complain about gay pride and other gay events, why? Is it because people see things they associate with gays in a negative way like promiscuity? Not only do you not have to take part in them, we celebrate straight promiscuity every night in Dallas. Ill be happy to take anyone to Uptown Dallas any day of the week if you want to see what a bunch of straight people look like when they are about to sleep with someone random. Its pretty visable as well. It bothers many people, but they simply dont go to watch it. The same view should be given to gay events.
The bottom line is none of us heterosexuals know what its like to be gay. We dont know what its like to walk in their shoes or to be told that we cant marry the person we love for something we cant help. We dont know what its like to know that they can be fired for being who they are.
We dont know what its like and straight opponents of gay rights need to stop acting like they do.
Thoughtful post.
The bottom line is none of us heterosexuals know what its like to be gay. We dont know what its like to walk in their shoes...
That is very true, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to find out. But I draw the line at traditional marriage, which--in my view--should be restricted to a man and a woman. Period.
But a civil union could possibly grant them the same rights (and should also encompass the same liabilities by the same token). A gay relationship is not the same as that of a heterosexual, and it shouldn't be treated exactly the same. So why wouldn't a civil union be acceptable?
Consider.....
I often wonder if young gays have any real concept of just how far this has come and just how much has changed over the last 30-50 years, as far as homosexualtiy is concerned. I'm an oldie who went to school (late 60s to 1970) with lesbians that married straight guys, giving in to the pressure to fit in.
You can just imagine the absolute heartbreak of their husbands when they found out that their wives were not who they thought they were. They're both now divorced and have gone on with their lives.
I had gay colleagues in Midland (but didn't realize that any of them were gay at the time). This was during the time that AIDS burst on the scene, sometime in the early 1980s. Every single one of these strapping young guys (3) had AIDS, and they wasted away to around 80 lbs, all now obviously dead.
So yeah, blood transfusions were refused from young gay males, as this was the source of the start of the AIDs epidemic in the United States. It was once a death sentence, so you can understand the hysteria that surrounded it.
Gays--if their orientation was known--were shunned, ostracized, beaten and even killed outright.
We've come from all that to major broadcast network shows that feature gay couples that are struggling with their issues. We've come to the point where we can even discuss gay politicians in Texas possibly getting elected.
All of this is light-years from what it was years ago, and I wonder just how many of these younger gays have any real concept of that.
As far as gay pride and gay parades go...? Seeing a jaybird nekkid freak painted from head to toe riding down the street on a bicycle? Uhhh...if that's not getting in one's face, I don't know what is. They're going out of their way to shock and disgust. Thank God I didn't have to see that live. Ewwwww......
I think it could happen. I've always felt lesbianism was more accepted and respected in society than homosexual men. That's why I'm not shocked nor surprised by the election of Annise Parker.
Electing a gay man would be on a completely different level though.
I look forward to a day when what someone does in their bedroom isn't even discussed. Maybe I'm just dreaming, but passing on someone who is well qualified and doesn't cave to the large special interest groups to the detriment of individual freedoms just because of their sexual orientation, religious affiliation or non-affiliation, etc. seems like a a phase we are beginning to move away from. Slowly, but its happening.
Once homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals or the government gets uninvolved in marriage, it will happen.
As far as gay pride and gay parades go...? Seeing a jaybird nekkid freak painted from head to toe riding down the street on a bicycle? Uhhh...if that's not getting in one's face, I don't know what is. They're going out of their way to shock and disgust. Thank God I didn't have to see that live. Ewwwww......
Yes, but you dont have to go to the parade. Those things are there for those that want to see them.
What rights under the Bill of Rights, do homosexuals not have?
Are you contending that the rights described in the Bill of Rights are the only ones worth respecting, and later amendments to the constitution regarding further rights are not worth respecting?
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.
