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.
I remember back in ancient times (the 90s) when gays were a lot more pushy about sex. Gay pride parades were just freaking nasty and inappropriate with blatant sexual crap that would have been inappropriate no mater what one's sexual orientation was. Openly gay people were also far more... well, gay. Really flaunting it, you know as if to make it totally obvious to the world at all times. TV and movies also made a big 'effing deal about gay characters and everyone had a "token que*r" in their show to the point it became cliche.
Today it's not that way anymore... Gays tend to be normal people who don't wear their sexual preference on their shoulders and don't wave their "rainbow banners" in your face all the time. A gay tv or movie character is no longer defined by their "gayness"; they tend to be interesting characters who happen to be gay and nobody cares (I'm pointing at you, Dumbledore! )
I'm sure history will credit the loudest and most "colorful" gay pride proponents for milestones like legalized gay marriage but I suspect the winds of change finally blew in a meaningful way because the gay majority stopped scaring the hetero folks by acting like normal people.
My point is: Elites with the Magical Vision of The Anointed, reading into the Constitution what isn't there, rather than keeping the 9th and 10th Amendments as the Federalism touchstones they were meant to be, which takes us into some rather ambiguous, and therefore dangerous, legal territory. Yes, I am a disciple of the Great Justice Antonin Scalia ("We are Jurists, not legislators, nor philosopher-kings....")
IA, MA and a dozen other states voted gay marriage in. That is perfectly fine Constitution wise.
I may disagree with it, and frankly the real "bigotry" here is the dogmatic demand that such a relationship be *the exact same* as a marriage, whatever legal "domestic partner" status it may merit.
But that's irrelevant. IA, MA and a dozen other states voted it in. Fair enough. And if that is done state-by-state, then yes it will become the Law of the Land, a la nationwide Women's Suffrage and a Direct Federal Income Tax on Citizens.
I don't like physician assisted suicide either, but Oregon voted it in. Fair enough.
And many of us believe that the Constitution should evolve, just as human society has evolved. The framers of the Constitution -- who were anything but united in their views on government -- could not possibly foresee life in 21st century America.
From my point of view: the Anti-Gay movement was based on lies. It attempted to demonize gay people. The foundation of Anita's campaign was that gay people were child molesters and mentally defective.
The LGBT movement was grounded in reality. They stuck to the facts. Steadfast and unwavering, they never changed their arguments and showed patient determination. As more gay people "came out" to their families, friends, neighbors, work colleagues, and more celebrities came out in the media it was harder to demonize them.
100% agree with this. I grew up in a conservative Midwestern family, who bought into every negative stereotype about gays. Over time it became obvious to me that none of those stereotypes held any water. Knowledge is power, as they say. Gays weren't a bunch of deviants hell-bent on destroying religious and cultural institutions... turns out they were just human beings who wanted the same rights and respect afforded to everyone else. Imagine that!
And many of us believe that the Constitution should evolve, just as human society has evolved. The framers of the Constitution -- who were anything but united in their views on government -- could not possibly foresee life in 21st century America.
Jefferson didn't participate in the Constitutional Convention, but there's a quote of his in the Jefferson Memorial that expresses a view many of his contemporaries no doubt held:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Jefferson didn't participate in the Constitutional Convention, but there's a quote of his in the Jefferson Memorial that expresses a view many of his contemporaries no doubt held:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
How dare you base a liberal view of the Constitution on what some Virginian said who had nothing to do with Constitution. Oops.
I remember back in ancient times (the 90s) when gays were a lot more pushy about sex. Gay pride parades were just freaking nasty and inappropriate with blatant sexual crap that would have been inappropriate no mater what one's sexual orientation was. Openly gay people were also far more... well, gay. Really flaunting it, you know as if to make it totally obvious to the world at all times. TV and movies also made a big 'effing deal about gay characters and everyone had a "token que*r" in their show to the point it became cliche.
Today it's not that way anymore... Gays tend to be normal people who don't wear their sexual preference on their shoulders and don't wave their "rainbow banners" in your face all the time. A gay tv or movie character is no longer defined by their "gayness"; they tend to be interesting characters who happen to be gay and nobody cares (I'm pointing at you, Dumbledore! )
I'm sure history will credit the loudest and most "colorful" gay pride proponents for milestones like legalized gay marriage but I suspect the winds of change finally blew in a meaningful way because the gay majority stopped scaring the hetero folks by acting like normal people.
Just my thoughts...
Those parades that you found so terrible were no more representative of the 'gay majority' than Mardi Gras is or ever was representative of the 'straight majority'.
The gay rights movement succeeded because they first advertised "tolerance," then slowly switched their propaganda to "acceptance," and once enough powerful people back them they started in harassing, bullying, and extorting people into blind obedience. I'm convinced a large segment of the "movement" doesn't want marriage, they just want to bring the opposition to heel. It is a power play and a sign of dominance and victory.
Gays have no use for monogamy considering their promiscuity rates are much larger than straight people and consequently their HIV and STD transmission rates are sky high. No, no this "movement" is all about signaling their strength over their enemies. They don't just want to win, they want to destroy the opposition and will attempt to ruin your life and your career if you oppose them. This is larger than just two people of the same sex getting together, it is about the fundamental transformation of the concept of marriage. It is taking it and dragging it down the mere realm of hedonism. While not ever straight couple has lived up to the standards of marriage, there was at least a sense of shame when they failed. Divorce brought shame. Now that marriage as an institution and a concept has been completely destroyed who cares? Marriage now reflects the prevailing operating morality of hedonism at work in the West.
I think the gay rights movement largely "succeeded" for a few reasons:
1) "Gay rights" has been a simple ask for legal equality and general social acceptance. These may offend some people sensibilities, but doesn't materially cost anyone anything.
The recent success of the "gay rights" movement were about obtaining basic formal legal equality that movements for gender and racial long ago achieved. Virtually nobody today thinks overt discrimination on the basis of gender or race is acceptable. This wasn't the case with gays until very recently, where homosexuality was wrapped up in notions of morality.
Additionally, sexuality doesn't include a legacy of socio-economic disadvantage. Advocates for racial civil rights will freely admit that mere "legal equality" is not enough. To undue the legacy of centurys of discrimination, positive efforts or "affirmative actions" are needed. It is one thing to say that racial discrimination in the housing market should be illegal. It is a far tougher to gain support for a massive social intervention to solve concentrated inner-generational African-American poverty.
The lack of economic component makes "gay equality" a much easier ask than "racial equality." You can just appeal to the widely shared ideal that this is a free county and people should be allowed to live as they want as long as they don't harm others.
2) The gay population is spread across the general population.
Although gays are a relatively small share of the population, they are widely spread across families. Pretty much everyone has a gay family member or friend. This makes it easier for many people to relate to gay people than people of another racial or ethnic group who in many cases you may not know personally.
3) The "victory" is only an overt legal discrimination, not more subtle forms of discrimination/disparate impact type stuff that currently focus much of the attention in the struggle for racial and gender equality.
In some sense the gay rights movement may be moving from a phase 1 type push for basic rights to a much more nebulous push for true social equality. Just as most people oppose overt racial/gender discrimination, but may still hold biases. There are lots of people who think gays shouldn't be discriminated against, but who still feel that being gay is a little weird or unnatural.
When you look at discrimination that gender and racial activists worry about it is less of "company X refuses to higher group Y" and more of a general "Hispanics are under-represented in Silicon Valley" or "Women are statistically 30% less likely to be promoted than men in banking." Going forward the concerns for gay right groups will probably be more of the same type of issues. It isn't so much that a company won't blatantly refuse to hire gay people, but perhaps the interviewing manager may think Mike "sounds a little gay and may not connect with some of their older customers" or perhaps a senior executive might be a little turned off by Tom's desk photo of his husband. The executive would probably never say anything discriminatory, but may not recommend Tom for a promotion or high profile project.
Since subtle (often unintentional) discrimination is so hard to prove, it is very hard to fix.
The gay rights movement succeeded because they first advertised "tolerance," then slowly switched their propaganda to "acceptance," and once enough powerful people back them they started in harassing, bullying, and extorting people into blind obedience. I'm convinced a large segment of the "movement" doesn't want marriage, they just want to bring the opposition to heel. It is a power play and a sign of dominance and victory.
Gays have no use for monogamy considering their promiscuity rates are much larger than straight people and consequently their HIV and STD transmission rates are sky high. No, no this "movement" is all about signaling their strength over their enemies. They don't just want to win, they want to destroy the opposition and will attempt to ruin your life and your career if you oppose them. This is larger than just two people of the same sex getting together, it is about the fundamental transformation of the concept of marriage. It is taking it and dragging it down the mere realm of hedonism. While not ever straight couple has lived up to the standards of marriage, there was at least a sense of shame when they failed. Divorce brought shame. Now that marriage as an institution and a concept has been completely destroyed who cares? Marriage now reflects the prevailing operating morality of hedonism at work in the West.
Yes, the agenda: The homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media and the perceived "acceptance" from polls is a bunch of crap. When you start doing the research, and when you google, go past the first page of links, you'll see it isn't there. There is a difference between "acceptance" and "tolerance". It will never be accepted. Also, when some of the youth get older and see what the lives of different people are like, most will wake up and realize quality of life issues matter.
Not everyone has a gay family member or friend but those are the people that feel forced to say they "accept".......
Also, the straight and short answer is that "sin sells". Simply look at the porn industry for yet another success story. Both have succeeded for the same reason.
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.
) 
