Post #348,729
10/6/11 2:02:27 PM
|
You're not hearing me.
Sexual preference is nothing to be proud of or ashamed of. I don't feel uncomfortable about gay pride parades. But just look at that phrase: "gay pride" What in hell are you proud about? Then think how ridiculous it would sound if it was "heterosexual pride." It's just stupid.
There is a sort of logic to kids embracing it, though. If we are saying that being gay is actually something to be proud of. And if we run public service announcements telling us "Don't say 'that's so gay'" and determine that by being gay you are in a protected class, I can see where some troubled, socially awkward tweener might see "being gay" as a way to be accepted. I've no proof that this is happening or will happen. But there is a certain logic to it. Increasingly, being gay insulates you from criticism. And as I said, sexual preference is about the most moronic thing I can think of to label and separate people.
My attitude is basically, "You're gay? Okay, who cares? You're bisexual? Okay, who cares? You're straight? Okay, who cares? You're celibate? Okay, who cares? You're hermaphrodite? Okay, who cares?" Being proud of that, whatever your personal answer is, imnsho, is idiotic. Believing you deserve to be part of a protected class as a consequence of your sexual predilection is absolutely insane.
|
Post #348,730
10/6/11 2:14:17 PM
|
So... what is your stance on...
Same Sex Marriages?
Or as some would call it:
Same Sex Civil Unions?
|
Post #348,768
10/7/11 10:19:37 AM
|
Having been married for 28+ years, ...
I'm in favor of mandating everyone be married by age 30. Why? Because misery loves company. ;0)
Seriously, I cannot comprehend why anyone would oppose same sex marriages.
|
Post #348,771
10/7/11 10:40:09 AM
|
Good answer.
|
Post #348,795
10/7/11 6:43:13 PM
|
The Teabagger/Birther/Tenther
I work with says that gays won't be satisfied with a "civil union", and want to have "marriage" so they can STEAL the word from religions ... as a first step to ATTACKING and then DESTROYING all organized religions! He says that gays should be satisfied with civil unions ONCE IT HAS THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AS MARRIAGES.
So when I ask him, "Why aren't RepubliCANTS pushing laws to make gay civil marriages the equivalent as heterosexual marriages in legal rights?" he replies, "Smart people (meaning "me and other ultra-conservatives") don't have the time to waste on such useless topics".
"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from."
-- E.L. Doctorow
|
Post #348,803
10/7/11 9:30:53 PM
|
I've been watching the debates.
And watching my own reactions.
I'm struggling to reconcile my own opinions and beliefs about gays. I personally know at least four gays as part of my various social circles (they're in different social circles, BTW) - all very nice people, actually. I don't want them to be unhappy in unfairness, but I can't objectively admit that I'm completely happy for them to marry a partner.
But I think what you just said about some gays wanting to 'steal' the term "marriage" from religion has made me consider for the first time that that might really be what I am subconciously objecting to. Which makes sense, given what my belief system is based on*. (Whether mainstream religions should allow their adherants to be gay and/or marry within them is an argument for another day.)
However, such attempts do look a bit silly. The term and meanings of "marriage" has been around a very very long time. Many religions have their own subtly different meaning of it, and I don't ever recall seeing one group denying another religious group the right to use the term.
* Another objection is awareness of how comparitively "over-the-top" some members of the gay community celebrate when gay marriage is permitted. We get it: you're happy. We don't need you to insult non-gays for not being gay whilst you're celebrating.
Wade.
|
Post #348,813
10/8/11 4:51:39 AM
|
Thanks
Ok, for the unnamed, this is ALL I can EVER ask for.
Really, this is at the peak of not what I expect, but what I hope for.
At least for some people reading this.
Not that I explained it that well, in my harsh adversarial way, at least to some, but anything that makes a person think about why they think something is the best start possible.
|
Post #348,858
10/8/11 9:18:34 PM
|
But I really wish they'd come out SOONER!
I've got daughters.
Daughters who's gaydar is broken.
M just asked her buddy if he'd go to the prom with her. They are SENIORS.
He declined, said he wasn't going to have a date, he'd just be meeting all of them there.
We've been telling her that all the signals are there, give up on him, she of course does not want to believe. She MIGHT accept it now.
Of course, maybe he just doesn't like her and will show up with a date, a female one. But I'd bet against it.
|
Post #348,833
10/8/11 4:36:03 PM
|
Re: I've been watching the debates.
The celebrations are disproportionate because when the past n hundred years have been spent in an atmosphere where you're regarded as an aberration at best and something to be beaten up or killed at worst, you're going to be chuffed when the law says you can do the same things (that harm no-one) that straight people can do.
Having negative feelings about homosexuality is, quite frankly, a ridiculous state of mind. It's like getting all up in my business because I don't like tinned salmon.
To wit: as long as The Gays are not forcing you to either participate or watch (goes for straights, too; kiss/grope/fuck your partners in private, please), butt the fuck out. It's got nothing to do with you.
I know I'm super-liberal about this sort of thing, though. As long as it's safe, legal and doesn't frighten the horses, I don't care who does what to whom with what. If two (or more!) people want to commit to each other, and codify that in a legal sense, good for them.
|
Post #348,844
10/8/11 8:18:41 PM
|
whatchoo got against tinned salmon
you prolly tried the pink crap. The rest of your post I agree with totally
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #348,868
10/9/11 7:43:06 AM
|
This is why I haven't posted on this topic before.
To wit: as long as The Gays are not forcing you to either participate or watch (goes for straights, too; kiss/grope/fuck your partners in private, please), butt the fuck out. It's got nothing to do with you.
Yes. Absolutely. I don't need to watch. I don't need to participate. I *know* my sexual proclivities and unless I specifically ask, I don't need you to dictate to me what you think it might 'really' be.
It's very similar to fanboism in certain IT-related matters. It is a turn-off.
Wade.
|
Post #348,912
10/10/11 9:14:33 AM
|
I understand that, to an extent.
The celebrations are disproportionate because when the past n hundred years...
Should we have Abolitionist Parades then? How long does this take? Especially over a non-issue.
Maybe it's a consequence of how I was reared, or where (Southern California). I don't know. Or maybe I'm just an old relic ($DEITY knows I have the years for it). I was only a tot in the 1960's, but I think had I been the age I am now when the "sexual revolution" was going strong and casual, public sex (particularly among college aged students) was common, I would have felt the same way about that as I do gay parades. It's not anger I feel, it's more like, "Jesus. Everything that's happening in the world today and this is what you choose to do with your time and energy? This is what you choose to celebrate?" Everybody schtupps somebody some time. It's no big deal.
It's difficult to "butt the fuck out" and that's what I'd most like to do, but having it incessantly thrown into your face is getting a little tiring. This marriage thing is idiotic. How the hell does Gay Marriage harm anyone? If those opposed would simply STFU and let it happen, the issue would go the fuck away - which is what I'd like it to do. I don't care about anybody's, check that, I do care about 3 marriages. Mine and my two daughters. Aside from that, what the fuck do I care if somebody wants to marry a goat? I don't have to live with it. But, please don't give me any photos. ;0)
|
Post #348,915
10/10/11 12:00:05 PM
|
It becomes a non-issue when it's over
It's not over yet.
|
Post #348,859
10/8/11 9:23:36 PM
|
Final tidbit was a bit worrisome though
We don't need you to insult non-gays for not being gay whilst you're celebrating.
I dunno about what YOU (not speaking for me, I assure you) need, but in THEIR celebration they can do or say anything they want. Hell, they can even scare the horses, I don't mind. And if I did, it wouldn't matter.
Note: I'm trying to figure out what insults you are referring to. Toss a clue my way please.
|
Post #348,867
10/9/11 7:35:05 AM
|
The clue.
There's a difference between heteros being afraid of gays and heteros actually not interested in gay sex. Some who would promote acceptable of gay people don't get this difference. "You're anti gay! Maybe you *are* gay and you're repressing!" Uh, no. That's insulting.
The vast majority of individuals - gay or otherewise - are not like this, fortunately, but pro-gay events have veered this way before.
Wade.
|
Post #348,872
10/9/11 8:19:35 AM
|
Understood (well, imagined)
I imagine (have never witnessed it) a gay event, with a gay speaker, giving some type of speech to rile the crowd up. He'll do some history, he'll point out the repression and deaths, and he'll be pissed. He'll list the large array of anti-gay people who turned out gay.
He'll then produce a list of current opponents of gay rights, and possibly "accuse" them of being gay (remember, to him, being gay is NOT bad).
On the other hand, I HAVE seen many on the other side tell their people that gay people are simply deviants, EVIL, that way by choice, who need to be cast out of society, and if they refuse to go it is ok to physically harm them and sometimes kill them.
In our country we have the concept of free speech. Dunno about yours.
Note: I say concept because it doesn't always work out that way.
The 1st example is perfectly permissible. The 2nd is not.
The 1st is a harmless (really, HARMLESS) example. Or at least it should be. If gay people aren't targeted for violence or second class citizenship, than the accusation of being gay should be about as bad as saying (hey peter, thanks for the example that I'm now warping) "You are evil for liking new Star Trek, I like old Star Trek."
The 2nd example is a call to arms to inflict pain on people for no reason.
So while I may have a hint of understanding what you are saying, I'm not sure where it is going, and when you say: "The clue", you are forcing me to imagine. And my imagination does NOT map to you or the context you live in.
And as far as "not interested", so, change the channel. Do you react AGAINST other things you aren't interested in? You are interested, it affects some portion of your life. If you weren't, I don't think you'd have such a firm opinion on the matter.
I have no opinion of baseball. I'm not interested in it. It screws up an occasional show I want to watch, so it does affect me. It also adds to traffic. So it does affect me. So it annoys me. Hey, I have an opinion. I didn't think I did when I started writing this, really. Not an opinion on an individual team or player, I'm not qualified, but an opinion on how the sport in general affects me.
I'm interested in the scheduling aspects of baseball. But I am not going to make a public comment on the badness of all of it. It has positive aspects for some people. My sysadmin loves his baseball. He lives for it. His positive viewpoint on baseball screws up scheduling activity at work.
Wow, baseball directly harms my ability to make an income. I really don't like baseball at all now.
How many more steps until I make it evil? Steroids! Done. Bad examples for little kids. Peer pressure. uh oh. Gay sex in locker rooms. Abolish it!
|
Post #348,875
10/9/11 10:44:16 AM
|
Imagining not needed.
I posted "The clue" to mean that that was what I realized was missing from my earlier post: Like the last piece of a puzzle. Sorry to confuse you into guessing what I might have meant. I didn't intend you to do that.
I was taught at a young age that homosexual proclivities was bad, but not taught how to separate this out from a person who might otherwise be perfectly fine. But then, that is hard to teach and always has been. I later learnt how to do this myself in quite a different context.
Living in white middle-class suburbia did not teach me much about sexuality. Again, that was learnt largely on my own and quite a bit of the most useful parts was during and after a failed marriage. I'm definitely not gay, BTW. I had cause to ask this of myself and found an answer.
But before then, my strongest emotion over images of the Sydney Gay And Lesbian Mardi Gras was one of confusion: the girls were usually good to look at, but the guys were not (to me) and the guys dressing up as girls didn't make sense, either, and the majority on display were in the last two groups. Much of the early movement around that that I saw and remembered did not have a totally clear message. There was a lot of invective on both sides. I know now that they were just asking for acceptance, but there was a lot of corner-painting going on in both directions. That "You might be gay" line was spouted as an insult far too often: the implication was that the person being anti-gay was being a hypocrite. Eventually, it was hard to *not* see it as an insult. Remember, too, that Australia was in the forefront of promoting safe-sex decades ago because of the rise of HIV and the biggest problem with HIV was in the gay community. So.
In any case, it is only relatively recent that I even knew any gay people that I knew were gay.
Our laws about free speech do differ both substantially and subtly from yours. We don't have a bill of rights; instead a lot of things like that are in common law and sometimes actual case law. We do have groups who would decry support for gay-friendly activities, but they don't advocate violence. Or if they do, the media carefully looks the other way. Our different history, and particularly lack of a war of secession means we have a substantially different outlook on patriotic fervour. This means people who would lead by demonisation discover it tends to not work, particularly in the court of public appeal, or at worst only works for a short time. In recent years, we'd rather vilify racial differences, anyway.
I personally think Australia is somewhere between a few years and a few decades away from recognising gay marriages in law. But I think there is still a lot of difficult road between now and then.
Wade.
|
Post #348,876
10/9/11 11:09:29 AM
|
Love the sinner, not the sin ehh
Your use of proclivity is interesting. It can be taken as both a natural state of being or simply a habit.
http://dictionary.re...browse/proclivity
As long as it's "bad", a significant portion of the population will react in an antagonistic and sometimes violent way toward the sinner. As long as it is both bad and a choice, then the sinner is always at fault.
Religion is horribly freaked when someone simply turns around and says something is not bad, especially when it considers it a sin. Not only is it not bad, it is CORE to their being, and the only way they might find happiness in life. And it is what religion has been actively denying them for their entire lives.
Just like us heteros feel. Strip the religion away and what do you have in common with whatever person you fall in love with. And then live your life happily, not trying to satisfy some 3rd party.
Religion says love through them is the answer to all life's problems. Love through any other method is to be controlled.
So, I hope you think a little deeper on the badness of it. And who told you what, and why.
|
Post #348,878
10/9/11 12:43:20 PM
|
Here in the US, several things are wrapped together.
In the USA there are several, often conflicting, schools of thought that are all tied together:
1) There are historical religious prohibitions on certain sexual activities that have been tied to Sodom and Gomorrah - http://en.wikipedia....h#Religious_views
2) Traditions of religious tolerance (no established church, etc.). But, "The USA is a Christian nation." wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
3) Suspicions of science and "elites".
4) "Live and let live."
5) "We must protect the children and everyone knows that gays are pedophiles!!!!"
6) "Keep your government out of my bedroom!"
7) "The Bible is always right."
8) "Sex is sinful unless it is within marriage."
9) "Sex education is indoctrination by the state and promotes promiscuity."
10) "Being gay is a choice. Therefore, they are choosing to be sinful and are dangers to children."
11) "Married men who have gay affairs do so because their wives aren't obedient to their husbands."
12) "Abortion is sinful because conception is a gift from God. Birth control is sinful because it promotes sexual mania and is contra to God's wishes that people "be fruitful and multiply". Masturbation is sinful because it wastes "seed" that could be used to bring more souls into the world. (See the story of Onan in Genesis 38:8-9.)"
13) "Humans are naturally sexual animals. There are many documented examples of homosexual behavior in other animals - http://en.wikipedia....mosexual_behavior Science tells us that people are complicated, so they shouldn't be judged and put in boxes solely based on old writings from people in an ancient desert culture."
And so forth. (Personally, I'm of the sexual-continuum and pro-sexual-freedom-among-adults and keep-your-religion-out-of-my-private-life - school.)
I think the problem with the "do what you want, just don't throw it in my face" school of thought is that it trivializes 'the other'. No one forces me to go to gay pride parades. No one forces me to go to Carnival or Mardi Gras or St. Patrick's Day parades. No one forces me to watch Washington Redskins games or put their logos on flags on my car. America is a better place because people can have those parades if they want.
But Redskins fans aren't in danger of being fired from their jobs, or accused of abusing children, or randomly beaten by gangs of thugs or randomly shoot by the police (see e.g. http://unfinishedliv...r-injuring-three/ ) or being denied the opportunity to buy a home in a certain neighborhoods.
Being gay isn't like picking a sports team to support. :-)
I understand the views of those who view the world as a place created by God and still undergoing battles between Good and Evil with Satan being an active participant. I was once quite religious myself. But even among those who are quite doctrinaire, there are different schools of thought. It's not at all clear to me that one (not you) must look down upon and repress others to be the best possible Christian. My reading of Jesus's life and works tells me that he wanted people to live their lives by their own choices; he wasn't Moses II and didn't lay out a new set of Commandments. He said to pray in private; to give to the poor; to recognize that the Kingdom of God was here (not in Heaven) - see, e.g. Mark I. FWIW.
Silence and "going along" doesn't change society's attitudes toward members of minorities. As someone above said, "Gay Pride" isn't about "pushing the gay agenda" or whatever - it's about fighting the "gays are evil degenerates" meme. "Black is Beautiful" wasn't about fighting "whitey" - it was about fighting the "negroes are scary and a threat to America" meme. The Irish in America went through a similar fight for their right to be treated as Americans.
It's about being treated like anyone else. We don't any longer think that brown eyed/short/Irish people are fundamentally worse than blue eyed/tall/Welsh people. Thoughts (and rules and laws) that gays are different need to go away just like those old prejudices did. People shouldn't be discriminated or lumped together based on innate characteristics. Until they do, and the discrimination ends, gay people need to push the envelope.
http://graphjam.file...1/gaymarriage.gif ;-)
I hope this is clear. My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #348,873
10/9/11 8:27:34 AM
|
Also, very specifically, a response
"You're anti gay! Maybe you *are* gay and you're repressing!" Uh, no. That's insulting.
When someone says I might be gay, here's what runs through my head:
#1 - I'm graceful, my movements flow.
#2 - I look good, either in straight physique or matching of clothes.
I then thank them.
Note: I've seen you. In your full regalia. You are very graceful. And your clothes were interesting. You might get that comment a bit more than most.
It's not an insult. It's only an insult to those who think it is bad. To those who think it is unacceptable. To those who would then cause harm based on the label.
Like schoolyard: LOOK AT THE FAGGOT!
Which is then followed by a beating.
Nah, don't accept your core point obviously. Oh well.
|
Post #349,104
10/13/11 4:16:18 PM
|
Anti- but Gay & Repressing
Probably a bit of correlation there.
The really down-to-the-core straight are completely un-tempted by gay sex. Which makes it un-threatening.
So yeah, not too surprising when an anti-gay crusader turns out to be...
Self-loathing is a powerful motivator.
---------------------------------------
Badass! (and delicious)
|
Post #348,842
10/8/11 7:58:57 PM
|
I've long advocated
I work with says that gays won't be satisfied with a "civil union", and want to have "marriage" so they can STEAL the word from religions ... as a first step to ATTACKING and then DESTROYING all organized religions! He says that gays should be satisfied with civil unions ONCE IT HAS THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AS MARRIAGES.
That gays should make civil unions harder to enter and harder to exit. The idea is to steal the "higher moral ground" by making them more elite than marriages.
When heteros start going for civil unions to "prove their love" rather than marriage, they will have effectively won.
|
Post #348,731
10/6/11 2:19:31 PM
|
Oh, I agree on the "pride" issue
I don't believe anyone should be proud of ANYTHING they are born into.
Pride is self generating based on accomplishments.
But I do agree on the IN YOUR FACE issue. Not directly 6 inches away. But still, yelling from a parade that one more try to harm them will result in a MASS of people fighting back gives attackers pause.
And if it doesn't give them pause, at least the attackers will get a hell of a beating.
At the parade and elsewhere. If you think it provokes it (like marching season in Ireland), then you've never been the underdog that had to group together to survive.
It is a group binding mentality, and they NEED it to survive individually. Every right wing vote brings them closer to Uganda.
http://www.google.co...h+penalty+for+gay
Don't forget that whole movement was funded and directed by Christian crazies in the US. Don't bother telling me they revoked it, so what, it merely means the general population still has to kill them rather than ask the courts to do it for them.
You really have no idea of the depth of fear for them. And let's face it, once they come for them, they'll come for me soon enough.
So I'm not shutting up.
|
Post #348,732
10/6/11 2:51:15 PM
|
I understand your point and agree to a certain extent.
In this context, it might be useful to view the "gay pride" phenomena as a reaction to a long standing social attitude that being gay is sinful/illegal/shameful and generally icky. Reactive behavior to persecution, real or perceived, tends to be somewhat overkill in the opposite direction. If/when acceptance has become general, I would expect the gay pride routines to fizzle out. Until that time, should it ever come, I would expect some to continue with the "look at ME" and others to bitch about it. If people were ever persecuted for being stamp collectors, I would expect a segment to proclaim "I'm a stamp collector!" when it became acceptable, and I would expect others to boo them, and the majority to be bored rigid by the whole thing.
My 0.02
|
Post #348,733
10/6/11 3:03:48 PM
|
Yay
You got it.
|
Post #348,734
10/6/11 3:25:36 PM
|
Speaking of the parades
http://www.suntimes....-on-drinking.html
Attendance has doubled over the last three years  to roughly 800,000 a year ago. The parade has become a mandatory appearance for elected officials currying favor with the fast-growing, clout-heavy gay community. Friends and relatives of gay Chicagoans show up in force to support their loved ones.
Bingo. Scare the politicians into paying attention when they are shit on.
And BTW: Retailers, trip planners, real estate agents, etc, LOVE them. Typically they are professional DINKs so they have extra income for both local neighborhood upkeep and toys and trips. You want to buy into a neighborhood that will increase in value, buy into a new gay neighborhood that is being rehabbed.
|
Post #348,736
10/6/11 3:47:04 PM
|
Re: You're not hearing me.
Proud of being willing to identify as what they are, despite the obvious risk of getting their fucking heads kicked in just because they stick their appendages in a different hole to other folk.
Yeah, I get why gay pride exists.
|
Post #348,739
10/6/11 3:56:40 PM
|
Now that is an accomplishment
I stand corrected.
|
Post #348,738
10/6/11 3:49:47 PM
|
ooerr white male privilege strikes back :-)
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
