We part company at the third sentence

Post #183,652 by ben_tilly 11/8/04 10:47:50 PM Reply	We part company at the third sentence At least in part. I believe that a lot of people who say that they don't hate gays, but will admit to being uncomfortable around them, really are homophobic but won't admit it to themselves. Not all. But enough that I'd guess that over 50% of the population is homophobic. Note that I consider you homophobic if you claim to love gays but think that it is wrong to allow them to have gay sex. Which the position that many evangelicals take. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,669 by bepatient 11/8/04 11:48:19 PM Reply	And I think you overestimate... ...the numbers. Because I think the majority don't care >up to a point<. That point is where it becomes an open issue..at which point they become uncomfortable just as they would a discussion of any other sexual issue in public. Liken the above to the simple statement "you can do whatever you want, I don't need to know about it". But thats generally not good enough for the activist..who will push and push until they get to the point where the person says "enough". Then we get to your point...where that cry of "enough" is all that is need to bring about the... "See, I told you you >really do< hate gays". I'm not denying that homophobes exist...or that evagelical folks consider the behavior unnatural...they certainly are there...but I don't think they are there in the numbers you think...and I don't think that it had as much to do with the election results as is being made of it. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,767 by ben_tilly 11/9/04 12:17:26 PM Reply	And here's my belief I agree with you about sexuality. And to me the point where it is inappropriate for a homosexual should be the same as the point where it is inappropriate for a heterosexual. Neither should be fucking in public. Therefore if heterosexuals get to say that they are married, then homosexuals should as well. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,816 by bepatient 11/9/04 5:59:47 PM Reply	To what end? Therefore if heterosexuals get to say that they are married, then homosexuals should as well. So they can then say they're divorced? So they can pay more taxes? Go after the specifics...what is it about "marriage" that is being sought? Go after those benefits/curses/whatever. You see, I don't think these are the only objectives. I don't think its just equal rights being sought. It if is, then the movement does itself a disservice by attacking "the traditional" head on. I think there's a baser level acceptance being sought...and simply the act of seeking that "approval" creates a backlash. Look, I hate to be the one to say that a group needs to be more PC to accomplish its objectives....(but I just did). If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #183,833 by ben_tilly 11/9/04 7:59:43 PM Reply	Benefits and obligations go hand in hand If you can get married, then you can get divorced. Under the same terms as heterosexuals. The law should give equal treatment. I don't disagree that gays really would like equal treatment from everyone. However doing that through the government means regulating expressions of personal opinion. I'm a lot more leery of that. I also agree with you that any attempt by a disliked minority to assert themselves will result in a backlash. However I disagree that it is a useless endeavour, some will prove sympathetic who otherwise would never have thought about it. Whether that is worthwhile though, is harder to say. But giving them equal treatment from the government is a no-brainer for me. While I understand that some object, and I intellectually understand why, at a gut level I can't even begin to sympathize with that position. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #183,842 by bepatient 11/10/04 2:26:19 PM Reply	We both agree... ...that equal treatment under the law is a no brainer. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!