Homosexuality

[DDDDAAAAAANNNNNN]

But how we respond to our conditioning is the choice-aspect. This usually comes with the self-realization part--you can't really choose if you fail to, or willingly decide to not, observe your own conditioning. If you want to be fatalistic and believed your sexuality is set in stone without another word about it, you can't really accept the chance to change yourself. You've committed yourself already.

In your example, the family bit, it sounds a bit biased to western cultures which don't have much chance for sexual roleplay or exploration (which now, isn't so much western, but most of the world which engages in "modern" social practices). Conditioning happens from all over the place--this must be noted, so as to avoid confusion later on.

There's tons of studies on the subject of sexuality, though. For the subject of developing sexuality, the most interesting s to note development of sexuality in more tribal societies, where sexuality and sexual play in youths isn't so much frowned upon. Children learn their sexual dispositions through their play, essentially.

How you respond to conditioning is not always a choice, as a humanist theorist would believe, but is also subject to genes you are born with. Most psychologists now-a-days would argue that there is a genetic factor that comes into play as well. If a person contains a certain genetic formula that would make them more susceptible to a personality, and are also exposed to an environment where the personality could thrive, they are most likely going to have the personality. However, if they have the genes and aren't exposed to the right environment, or have the right environment but the wrong genes, they will most likely not develop that personality. It also depends on the intensity of the environment or the genes.

And while there is no "gay gene," there are a combination of genes that, exposed to the right environment, are very likely to result in homosexuality. In lesbians, this gene formula even has a physical effect, causing a slight variation in how some of their ears look.

And I don't really know how to respond to the children play except by saying "ewwwwwwww."

[Celice]

That's why I said, It's what humans are: conditioned... things. We're bags of it. But when we have the chance to self-reflect, to notice a thing, we then have the possibility to make a choice involving that object.

What influences us becomes the frame of limit, within which we act--it funnels our "actions," and selects for us what we have available to use in our investigation of life. Sometimes our limitation makes it hard to realize things, or understand things--we all get slanted in such a myriad of ways. But this sort of conversation is quickly leaving the realm of sexuality and into what intent is and why it is such an interesting thing.

[eclipse]

I think the difference is that no one is persecuted for liking the color red and not blue...

But you do have a valid point even if it wasn't the best analogy, opinions are any human's right. However on the flip side that means that I have the right to argue my opinion and express it. I also have the right to defend it, even if that means completely smashing heads with someone who has a different opinion.

You are free to have an opinion, express it, defend it, etc. You must be willing to accept the consequences of such, as well.

Then tell me how you chose your sexual orientation.

The point. You missed it.

YOU control how you react to others. Don't let them control you, or you will forever be at another person's whims.

[-Cynthia-]

I will agree that sexual orientation is largely a learned behavior (though it may certainly have a genetic component). However, being a learned behavior does not make it a conscious choice. Let's take another example of a learned behavior, such as language. I did not choose to be a native English speaker, but I was not biologically made to be one either.

[Defeatist Elitist]

The question was directed at him and meant only to be responded to by him. I can't make this any clearer. If two people were talking and one asked the other about his view on Obama, would you interrupt them just to state your own?

That would be a private question in a private conversation. This isn't a private conversation, it's a very public one, and just because you aim a question at one person doesn't make it exclusive. I understand that you only intended for him to answer, and ultimately I wouldn't have posted if the question was actually narrow or personal enough, or if it made particular sense as a specific rebuke to one of his arguments, but it didn't really.

I did not assume this in any way. The only thing I assumed, which seemed fairly clear to me, is that you did not understand what I said.

I understand completely what you said, I just think it's wrong.

There is a lot to be said for a name. The legality of the situation doesn't matter, and that is the point I've been trying to constantly make. It's the cultural aspect that is the problem. If the name were to be changed, you would hurt the culture immensely as many couples would feel invaded, offended, that the government was bending over (both figuratively and literally), and making a drastic change in order to accommodate the homosexual groups. The gays would have their governmental protection, and they would need every last bit of it as the vast majority of people whom had been in a marriage before the redefinition would be furious at them. There may be many paths to attaining the goal of equal gay rights and gay marriage. The one suggested here is most certainly not one of them.

The legality of the situation DOES matter. Gay marriage being illegal, regardless of how you look at it, does two things, it a) prevents gays from getting married, and b) makes discrimination against homosexuals legally recognized as being okay. A law that demands different treatment of a certain group is a law that propogates different treatment. And you see, I understand that there is a cultural ELEMENT to the problem, but that cultural element is mostly just in the bigots who oppose gay marriage, and you will not convince them to change their position through logic, because they have an inherently illogical position. I don't believe that the civil union thing really would cause many people to oppose homosexuality, that weren't already opposing it.

Like it or not, they are the people you need to convince that gay is okay if you want to have equal rights/marriage. You won't win this fight through legality. You will need to manage to shift the entire culture to become accepting, and one of the best ways to do this is to become more understanding of the people you will need to work with in order to obtain it.

As I said before, these people's opinions are not based in any logic, and in many cases will be nearly impossible to win over. In almost every country where gay marriage is legal there are some bigots who still oppose homosexuality, but gay marriage still works, despite what you seem to be implying.

I apologize if I am, because what I am suggesting is that, if you want a change, you will need to go out and shift the culture. I don't care if you are Atheist or not. Any success your group is to have in the long run will need to not be legal, but cultural. One of the strongest steps you can make towards this victory is learning how your opponent thinks and functions so that you can work with them better for your goal.

I more or less understand how my "opponent" thinks and functions. The problem is, most opponent's of gay marriage are not willing to work toward a goal, and as I've said several times before, they hold opinions and positions that have no basis in logic. They cannot really be convinced to change their views, at least not through reason.

Forget about rights. They will come with time and a shift in how the culture perceives you. What matters is changing that perception first. This cannot be done through being loud and vocal, as that will make you seem like whiners. Instead, improve yourselves first. When other people notice the change, negative stereotypes will stop. As they cease, the road will become easier. Make peace with your enemies, and the resistance will lighten.

A lot of people have responded excellently to this, but I'm going to do so as well.

In response to "improve yourselves first. When other people notice the change, negative stereotypes will stop."

"I suggested recently to three Jewish gentlemen with whom I am well acquainted, but it might be a very good thing if they would call a conference and have a day of humiliation and prayer, which might profitably be extended for a week or more, where they would honestly try to answer the question of why they are so unpopular almost everywhere..." - Frederick Charles Blair, Director of the Canadian Immigration Branch in 1936

"Kristallnacht might turn out to be a blessing." - Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King to a Jewish delegation in 1939

The thing is, fighting for your rights isn't whining, and ultimately, you will never get your rights if you don't fight for them. Want some proof? Just ask women. Women were oppressed for the majority of recorded history and only EVER began to see positive change as soon as they started "whining" as you would have said. Them sitting back and waiting changed nothing. Same thing with blacks. Same with people in India, hell, you could say the same thing about people in Egypt recently. Hey, you know what, ask Native Americans how they would feel about just sitting back and taking it, because honestly, if they had done what you said in Canada, there would probably be very few of them left today.

[Strawman]

I think it would be interesting if someone tried to tie in memory with whether people think of something as a choice or something innate. Because really with the lack of basically every childhood memory, its pretty much impossible for someone to tell just where they are getting their personality, likes, dislikes, etc. Are likes and dislikes even really conscious choices that we make? I dislike most vegetables. When I eat broccoli, I don't decide to not like it. I taste it and it tastes disgusting, it just does. Then, based off the taste I experience, I decide that broccoli is disgusting. But what makes me dislike the taste of broccoli? I don't think its the past because as far back as I can remember I disliked broccoli. I can't ever remember deciding I was going to not like it. at least not without first experiencing the nasty taste. I mean to me it seems like its the same thing with sexuality. Theres no way for a person to tell if its a choice or not. Because just like the taste of broccoli was just disgusting to me without me actually deciding that it was disgusting, maybe a man is attractive to another man not because he decided he was attractive, but just because he was. And then based off the feeling he got, he decided the guy was attractive. Theres no way for the guy to tell if it was in his genes or not, and theres no way he can remember every detail about his childhood and environment, etc. So how is there really a way to tell why someone finds one sex attractive versus another?

Basically I just really don't understand the whole choice versus innate thing. And does innate necessarily have to be based off of genes?

[Caliban of Sycorax]

Basically I just really don't understand the whole choice versus innate thing. And does innate necessarily have to be based off of genes?

I'd argue no, just because there is only one blood relative that is gay in my family and he is a great-uncle. I'm more inclined to believe in a combination of the two. Although it is not a conscious choice, I do believe that conditioning within the first years of life have a great impact.

[Snowy_One]

Please note that the segment within the spoilers is a response and a continuation of the us v them fighting. Do not read unless you want to return to that fighting.

That's the most fucked-up thing I've heard said in some time.

Because learning to communicate with the opposing side and changing how you present yourself to them so you don't seem like such a, pardon the expression, flaming homosexual to them so that you stand a better chance of getting rights and being accepted into the current culture is fucked up. Right.

you should follow your own advice, bro.

If I considered gays my enemies, sure. I don't. I'm offering you advise on how to both get your rights and get the culture shift needed to obtain those rights as well as not become outcast by the culture. You are the ones who are casting it aside without stopping to consider that I may have a point.

I attempted to find the proper words to express my rage and shock at that profoundly stupid and obnoxious statement.

Instead, I will not even attempt to dignify that paragraph with my words and post this instead.

It's called reality Sage. Even if gays get their rights, they will still need to change the culture to accept them. By changing the culture first, the pathway becomes easier to both rights and acceptance. Forget about the rights for now. They don't matter. What does is a culture shift first.

Many uninformed people operate under the assumption that all governing principles are present in the Constitution. Looking at actual history, other things like Supreme Court rulings have proven important in goverment and The U.S. Supreme Court has voted in favor of seperating church and state in many cases

I don't mind the Supreme court passing a ruling. I mind people claiming to know what the Bill of Rights says without even bothering to look it up the bill first.

It is not preaching, but you are operating under a series of false assumptions. One, that supporters of gay marriage are not Christians themselves. Two, that athiests/agnostics cannot understand Christianity without going to church first. This study may be relevant here, religious knowledge would certainly be a part of Christian culture.

I never made such assumptions. I stated outright that I only assumed that a decently-sized portion of the posters in the thread were. And yes, I still stand by my stance, even knowing that some in support of Gay Rights are Christian/non-atheist. There is a reason why. Religious knowledge doesn't count for squat for what I'm suggesting. I am suggesting that they study the community that opposes them to learn their ways and what they are like. There is a lot more to successful communication with a religious person than just quoting Bible-verses. Each church is a community within itself. Now, obviously, you can't visit all churches, but if you learn just a few of them, not just one, you can start getting a better view of how they act and function.

How is the legality not important? Ignoring the fact that it serves as a symbol of equality, obtaining equal gay rights is the end goal for many activists.

Will there be people who discrimate? Sure, there are still people who discriminate against blacks too. Legal victories have meaning, despite how many people agree with the end result. Perhaps *you* are more concerned with the cultural backlash, but I would not speak for all advocates if I were you.

Why would you not be concerned with the cultural backlash? Why would you not be concerned with the cultural front-lash either? Legality doesn't change peoples minds. O.J. Simpson was declared innocent and people still believe him to be guilty (for the record, so do I). The Arab and Shiek communities received NASTY backlash after 9/11 even though many of them didn't even do anything wrong and they had full governmental protection. The reason I say to ignore the rights is because getting rights only makes gays the same as straight people in the eyes of the law. It will not make them the same as straights in the eyes of the people. If you ask me, not receiving a tax-break is a lesser evil than people despising you for your sexual choice.

There will always be bigots and not all of them will be convinced. That being said, I personally suspect gay marriage will become legal in a matter of decades anyway. Polls like this indicate that views on gay marriage are highly linked to age. So it may not be the case that the gay rights movement somehow needs to acquiesce to its opponents, but rather that the culture needs to change to accept gay marriage...and polls indicate that it may already have.

Interesting information. I never considered age to be a factor. If this is true, it sounds like all the gays need to do to have their cake and eat it too is wait it out until enough of the old people have died off.

The right of a gay couple to get married should be valued more highly than the right of someone to deny that's couple's rights because they dislike it. They are still allowed to dislike it, that's freedom of thought and all, but their opinions are ultimately meaningless on whether people are getting married or not. As should be the case, not their wedding, not their decision.

Aye. In theory, that is what should happen. In reality, you still have to respect the rights of the people who hate gay marriage and their right to vote against it. Hence why I keep suggesting the culture-change. Change the culture favorably, less of them vote against gay marriage. Less of them vote against it, the rights come. The rights come + the culture shifted = much less pain than if they just got the rights and didn't care one bit about the culture.

Bringing up rights everyone else has that you do not hardly qualifies as "whining" in my book, but I digress. Are you actually claiming here that gay activists should not be vocal about the issues? Let me give you a brief history lesson:

Martin Luther King Jr. ended segregation and a lot of legal discrimation against blacks...by being vocal about the issue.

Nelson Mandela ended apartheid...by being vocal about the issue.

Gandhi obtained independence for India...by being vocal about the issue.

Social changes do not happen by sitting on your ass and waiting for the people in power to come to an epiphany. The message has to get out that there is current dissatisfaction with the system and change is needed. If you qualify that as 'whining' so be it, but you're calling a lot of men and women considered to be great people whiners in the process.

The difference between 'being vocal' and 'whining' is that you can be vocal without whining. Ghandi did just that. He practiced 'non-aggressive resistance' or w/e it was called and calmly reminded the world that, while Britain was calling for aid to fight the Nazi's, it was doing so with its foot on India's neck. MLK won rights by pointing out how blacks were being mistreated and discriminated against and putting pressure for equality. There was even a culture-shift in the black-community as they strove to get away from the stereotypes that were presented of them at the time.

The Gay Rights movement has continually pined that they should be capable of receiving the same marriage benefits as straight couples without actually giving a reason why beyond 'we're the same as straight couples' and blaming religion for keeping them from obtaining these rights. Regardless of the truth, that needs to change. Besides, part of being vocal is being able to communicate. You know, kind of what I am suggesting.

Well, yeah, first you gotta give 'em the rights, then change comes. It's usually not the other way around. Booker T. Washington gave gradualism a shot, and it didn't work. There was cultural backlash after Brown v. Board, but things eventually changed. Would things have changed if that case never happened?

America was founded on what started off as a cultural shift. The colonists were too far away from the crown to feasibly enforce. This resulted in the British being less able to enforce their laws and the concept of self-government to grow and people to start flocking too it. When they tried to enforce the laws, it resulted in them smacking right into the changed culture and a massive shift in... well... everything. Yes, gradualism can work. However, when it does work, you often don't notice it since it takes time. However, it is a lot easier for people to consider gays undeserving when they look like this in their minds eye and less like this

I'm pretty sure the other side is doing worse. Have you seen some of the propaganda they throw our way? It's disgusting, sickening filth that people make up in order to promote homophobia and bigotry. And by us trying to peacefully fight for our rights, and they still throw this fucking waste at us? Clearly we cannot let this go by without being a little vocal.

If a man throws mud at you, does the better man throw mud back? Or does he calmly ignore it and try to make peace with the mudslinger? This is not to mention that one of the reasons there is so much filth is because there is little in the way of gay idols who are not, well, flamboyant about it. It's very easy for people to see the gay-dressing, lisping, gay person who sleeps with six different men in a month and can't hold down a relationship because that's the image the media projects. Can you imagine how much harder it would be for them to say 'no' when they can no longer hold that image and, instead, have to deal with Carl from the next cubicle over who they don't even KNOW is gay until they meet his partner by happenstance? Image matters. Culture matters. Not just rights.

Or is it that you ENJOY watching people like the Westboro Baptist Church throwing this shit at us?

Uggg... I hate those morons. I suspect that they haven't even read the Bible and just browse through it until they can find something that can support them whenever they are outraged.

You're a trolling bigot who thinks he knows everything about everything which can be proven wrong by the amount of people replying to your idiotic rantings. Here's the ball.

Considering I seem to be one of the few, if not only, people here trying to tell people to open lines of communication so that a easier time can be had by all, I doubt that this is the case.

First off: Congrats on completely missing the point. Less than sixty years ago it was unheard of and illegal for interracial marriages to take place.. Yet here we are fifty years from now and people are still getting married. I'm completely sure people could get over a simple name change and learn to be fine with the gay culture in spite of, or because of this. You don't know what is going to happen, and if history is an example, which it totally is, people will get over it and move on.

If history is an example, gays won't be considered equal to straights despite equal rights for at least a century. After all *points to woman's and black peoples rights*.

Secondly: Its called the Establishment Clause. Anyone who has taken a political science course or who has studied the First Amendment for more than five minutes knows what it is. Its the first part of the amendment " Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion," and has been interpreted throughout history to 1. Prohibit the establishment of a national religion by Congress and 2. Prohibit the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.

The Establishment Clause is what gave rise to the term seperation of church and state, and its the reason that people are not required to say the pledge of allegiance, and the reason that religious private schools aren't funded by the government. Its also the reason why we shouldn't base our definition of marriage on religion. Rather we should change it to adapt to the times of supposed equality and not discriminate against the estimated 10.5 million people within our states, just as we adapted it to allow interracial marriage.

Congrats! You managed to read a political book! I'm so proud of you! Now... Problem 1) This isn't *just* Christians. There are multiple religions throughout the U.S. and multiple microcultures who are against gay marriage. Not just Christians. That is hardly 'Prohibit the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another' as it is multiple religions (including non-religious people).

Secondly, marriage is something that has pre-dated government by many, many, many, years and is VERY MUCH a religious institution. Not just Christian, but EVERY religion! This is ignoring that many marriages are conducted by the local church/mosque/temple/what have you and changing the definition would be an infringement upon the church (separation works both ways).

Or better, we could prevent further problems with name association and make it domestic partnership for all so we don't have to deal with any religious interference. This would finally give couples the 1,138 rights that should be afforded to any loving life partnerships, but is only provided to those under the title of marriage (see first point before you make that damn resentment argument again).

Name-change = massive backlash for all. Bad idea.

Finally: If you're going to suggest that we go to church's you should practice what you preach and go find a gay partnership and ask them what will happen when their partner dies. Go ahead I'll wait.... back yet? What did you find out? Did you find out that they can be challenged by the family of their partner for survivor benefits? Did you find out that since they aren't married they can be made to receive nothing in terms of spousal insurance? Yeah definitely fair. I'm sure the Christians will have a lot to input about that. The most they would say would be "Well, at least he'll be warm in hell." They persecute us. Would a Jewish man walk up to Hitler and talk to him to try to understand him?

Why do you assume I have had no experience with the gay community beforehand? Plenty of my classmates are openly gay, my WoW guildmaster (whom I adore and consider to be as close as a RL friend) is openly lesbian and has been through six relationships that have ended in heartbreak, and my girlfriend is openly bi. I also recognize that there is more too it than money, which seems to be the main drive of your post.

And yes I know I'm Christian and shouldn't be ragging on it, but hey, we've got some messed up stuff in our religion. As I've mentioned before in this thread, the book of Leviticus has some weird-ass rules. I just tend to ignore the outdated and disrespectful parts (that people use to back up outdated philosophies) of the bible and take the good life teachings of respecting your neighbor.

It's a lot more complicated than that. A LOT!

Color favoritism is a preference.

Sexual orientation is not.

Yes it is. Asexuality is always possible. Besides, this is a cop-out. 'Oh I can't help it! It's my genes!' So you have no control over yourself? Yes, genetics may have a factor, I'm not saying they don't. Man is not ruled by his genetics though! His life is what he makes it to be. I don't care if you make a choice and your choice is gay. I care that you pass off your choice as a cop-out submission to your genetics.

[eclipse]

*does not read*

Why do you insist on fighting?

[Esau of Isaac]

Because learning to communicate with the opposing side and changing how you present yourself to them so you don't seem like such a, pardon the expression, flaming homosexual to them so that you stand a better chance of getting rights and being accepted into the current culture is fucked up. Right.

No, because you are advocating for sitting back and taking unjustified negativity rather than standing up and fighting for better treatment as though laying down like a dog and accepting it is the better way to get rights.

It's a disgustingly sick line of thought, and you should feel positively ashamed you hold it.

It's called reality Sage. Even if gays get their rights, they will still need to change the culture to accept them. By changing the culture first, the pathway becomes easier to both rights and acceptance. Forget about the rights for now. They don't matter. What does is a culture shift first.

Right. Of course.

So, there was this pretty big thing in America a bit back called the civil rights movement. I can't remember, how'd that one do, what with the whole "waiting for culture to just shift and love them" thing?

I never made such assumptions. I stated outright that I only assumed that a decently-sized portion of the posters in the thread were. And yes, I still stand by my stance, even knowing that some in support of Gay Rights are Christian/non-atheist. There is a reason why. Religious knowledge doesn't count for squat for what I'm suggesting. I am suggesting that they study the community that opposes them to learn their ways and what they are like. There is a lot more to successful communication with a religious person than just quoting Bible-verses. Each church is a community within itself. Now, obviously, you can't visit all churches, but if you learn just a few of them, not just one, you can start getting a better view of how they act and function.

Learning about how a community works and what they are like has absolutely nothing to do with not arguing and fighting them tooth and nail over an issue you vehemently disagree with them on.

Why would you not be concerned with the cultural backlash? Why would you not be concerned with the cultural front-lash either? Legality doesn't change peoples minds. O.J. Simpson was declared innocent and people still believe him to be guilty (for the record, so do I). The Arab and Shiek communities received NASTY backlash after 9/11 even though many of them didn't even do anything wrong and they had full governmental protection. The reason I say to ignore the rights is because getting rights only makes gays the same as straight people in the eyes of the law. It will not make them the same as straights in the eyes of the people. If you ask me, not receiving a tax-break is a lesser evil than people despising you for your sexual choice.

So, is this your stance on any given situation in which a minority is being unfairly bullied and criticized by an uneducated and bigoted majority? Just wait for the majority to suddenly decide they don't hate them anymore because they rolled over and played dead?

I mean, when it comes to history I'm pretty dull, but I've got to say that even to me that seems like the most braindead way of getting society to change that I have ever heard in my life.

Aye. In theory, that is what should happen. In reality, you still have to respect the rights of the people who hate gay marriage and their right to vote against it.

Are you fine with any form of mob rule, then? At what point do you think it is unacceptable for a larger group of people to persecute another one?

The difference between 'being vocal' and 'whining' is that you can be vocal without whining. Ghandi did just that. He practiced 'non-aggressive resistance' or w/e it was called and calmly reminded the world that, while Britain was calling for aid to fight the Nazi's, it was doing so with its foot on India's neck. MLK won rights by pointing out how blacks were being mistreated and discriminated against and putting pressure for equality. There was even a culture-shift in the black-community as they strove to get away from the stereotypes that were presented of them at the time.

The Gay Rights movement has continually pined that they should be capable of receiving the same marriage benefits as straight couples without actually giving a reason why beyond 'we're the same as straight couples' and blaming religion for keeping them from obtaining these rights. Regardless of the truth, that needs to change. Besides, part of being vocal is being able to communicate. You know, kind of what I am suggesting.

Why should black people be allowed to use the same facilities as white people? What kind of reasons did Martin Luther King give aside from them being the same as white people?

This is getting interesting, here.

America was founded on what started off as a cultural shift. The colonists were too far away from the crown to feasibly enforce. This resulted in the British being less able to enforce their laws and the concept of self-government to grow and people to start flocking too it. When they tried to enforce the laws, it resulted in them smacking right into the changed culture and a massive shift in... well... everything. Yes, gradualism can work. However, when it does work, you often don't notice it since it takes time.

What the hell are you talking about, here? The English enforced the laws for decades. It was a gradual change, yes, but do you know why the final differences between the two were recognized as valid in a sovereign state? I'll give you a clue, it didn't involve sitting around and waiting for the Crown to do what the colonies wanted.

However, it is a lot easier for people to consider gays undeserving when they look like this

in their minds eye and less like this

I would just like to take a moment to say that responding to such an incredibly stupid, offensively moronic statement as this would be more offensive to my sensibilities than raping a baby and eating its heart.

If a man throws mud at you, does the better man throw mud back? Or does he calmly ignore it and try to make peace with the mudslinger?

It depends on how often the mud is thrown, and if it's thrown at me because of who I am in a measured and calculated effort to mock and belittle me. Especially if there is a large group of people like me who are also receiving unfair treatment, it is not ridiculous for me to suggest that we as a group stand together and seek restitution from this group, whether it is through legal means or otherwise. Of course, we could as a group just keep taking mud to the face and trying to talk peaceably. I am sure those mudslingers' throwing arms will get tired one day and they'll just love to have me in their group. Oh boy if only!

This is not to mention that one of the reasons there is so much filth is because there is little in the way of gay idols who are not, well, flamboyant about it. It's very easy for people to see the gay-dressing, lisping, gay person who sleeps with six different men in a month and can't hold down a relationship because that's the image the media projects. Can you imagine how much harder it would be for them to say 'no' when they can no longer hold that image and, instead, have to deal with Carl from the next cubicle over who they don't even KNOW is gay until they meet his partner by happenstance? Image matters. Culture matters. Not just rights.

That's the image the media projects because that's what people eat up like candy. It's almost like people like personalities to be different than what they're used to, crazy. Moreover, if you're drawing your approval of the situation from the popularity of some well-known homosexuals on television, you're fairly out of your mind.

Considering I seem to be one of the few, if not only, people here trying to tell people to open lines of communication so that a easier time can be had by all, I doubt that this is the case.

Snowy, I've read your posts before; you're a bigot, and a pretty bad one, you're just less bad at dressing up your crazed ideologies in flowery speech than others.

If history is an example, gays won't be considered equal to straights despite equal rights for at least a century. After all *points to woman's and black peoples rights*.

Right, and how did those things change? Oh yeah, it was by standing up and fighting for equal representation, not laying down and accepting something they don't have to.

Congrats! You managed to read a political book! I'm so proud of you! Now... Problem 1) This isn't *just* Christians. There are multiple religions throughout the U.S. and multiple microcultures who are against gay marriage. Not just Christians. That is hardly 'Prohibit the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another' as it is multiple religions (including non-religious people).

It's primarily headed by the religious right attempting to hold onto the last vestiges of "traditional" values they have. Pretending it isn't makes you look just a mite bit silly.

Secondly, marriage is something that has pre-dated government by many, many, many, years and is VERY MUCH a religious institution. Not just Christian, but EVERY religion! This is ignoring that many marriages are conducted by the local church/mosque/temple/what have you and changing the definition would be an infringement upon the church (separation works both ways).

It's a very religious institution? Meaning religion has to be involved? In the United States of America?

I want you to confirm all of this before I show how you are hilariously incorrect.

Name-change = massive backlash for all. Bad idea.

Do you think it is wrong or not? If so, do you think peoples' offense is more important, in this situation?

Yes it is. Asexuality is always possible.

Snowy, consciously decide to be attracted to a man. Try it. Go Google "hot sexy dudes" (you pervert), and see whether the images you come up with are pleasing to you. Done yet? If you succeeded, congratulations! You're bi-sexual! But most people can't do that. Just like most people can't just turn off their sexual drive by saying "Hmm, you know what, just so I don't offend some people I'm just not going to be interested in sex at all anymore".

Besides, this is a cop-out. 'Oh I can't help it! It's my genes!' So you have no control over yourself? Yes, genetics may have a factor, I'm not saying they don't. Man is not ruled by his genetics though! His life is what he makes it to be. I don't care if you make a choice and your choice is gay. I care that you pass off your choice as a cop-out submission to your genetics.

You wouldn't if you were being persecuted for the same reason. You might as well have told an Asian he could try modifying his eyes if he doesn't want to face persecution after he simply stated that he cannot change how he was born. It's fucking offensive, and I can't say I'm surprised you said it. I think that's the most disappointing thing I've found in this entire exchange.

[Dark Sage]

Because learning to communicate with the opposing side and changing how you present yourself to them so you don't seem like such a, pardon the expression, flaming homosexual to them so that you stand a better chance of getting rights and being accepted into the current culture is fucked up. Right.

But they have communicated with the opposing side. The opposing side has been hostile. Being apathetic is one of the worst ways to get rights because, guess what, the opposing side isn't going to change it's minds on it's own unless you fight back.

If I considered gays my enemies, sure. I don't. I'm offering you advise on how to both get your rights and get the culture shift needed to obtain those rights as well as not become outcast by the culture. You are the ones who are casting it aside without stopping to consider that I may have a point.

Your advice is, at best, worthless. It is at worst, sickeningly offensive. You might as well just tell the gays to meekly go up to the opposing side and offer them more chances to kick the gays' asses.

It's called reality Sage. Even if gays get their rights, they will still need to change the culture to accept them. By changing the culture first, the pathway becomes easier to both rights and acceptance. Forget about the rights for now. They don't matter. What does is a culture shift first.

You do realize that gays gaining rights can help gain acceptance from the opposing side right? It worked for the blacks.

I never made such assumptions. I stated outright that I only assumed that a decently-sized portion of the posters in the thread were. And yes, I still stand by my stance, even knowing that some in support of Gay Rights are Christian/non-atheist. There is a reason why. Religious knowledge doesn't count for squat for what I'm suggesting. I am suggesting that they study the community that opposes them to learn their ways and what they are like. There is a lot more to successful communication with a religious person than just quoting Bible-verses. Each church is a community within itself. Now, obviously, you can't visit all churches, but if you learn just a few of them, not just one, you can start getting a better view of how they act and function.

You can listen to the opposing and learn how they work, but that doesn't mean the gays shouldn't fight for their rights. In fact, some of the gays already do know how the community works and thinks because some of them (like Dan) are part of that community.

Why would you not be concerned with the cultural backlash? Why would you not be concerned with the cultural front-lash either? Legality doesn't change peoples minds. O.J. Simpson was declared innocent and people still believe him to be guilty (for the record, so do I). The Arab and Shiek communities received NASTY backlash after 9/11 even though many of them didn't even do anything wrong and they had full governmental protection. The reason I say to ignore the rights is because getting rights only makes gays the same as straight people in the eyes of the law. It will not make them the same as straights in the eyes of the people. If you ask me, not receiving a tax-break is a lesser evil than people despising you for your sexual choice.

Um, since when did we care about the opinions of bigots? We don't. There was definitely cultural backlash against the blacks when they finally did gain their rights and it's pretty much gone now. At the very least, I'm not advocating rolling over like a dog because unlike you, I'm not a big enough wimp to care about offending whatever sensibilities bigots like you have.

Also gays being persecuted even under legal protection is not the same as the Arabs and Shieks suffering persecution after 9/11 because for one thing, there weren't any people who were known to be homosexual who were responsible for an act like 9/11.

Interesting information. I never considered age to be a factor. If this is true, it sounds like all the gays need to do to have their cake and eat it too is wait it out until enough of the old people have died off.

Why wait? Why not gain their rights now? Why is later>>>sooner?

Aye. In theory, that is what should happen. In reality, you still have to respect the rights of the people who hate gay marriage and their right to vote against it. Hence why I keep suggesting the culture-change. Change the culture favorably, less of them vote against gay marriage. Less of them vote against it, the rights come. The rights come + the culture shifted = much less pain than if they just got the rights and didn't care one bit about the culture.

But you can't just wait for the culture to shift because people rarely change their minds on their own. Or at the very least, not enough do so. Getting the rights allows gays to shift the culture and it makes it easier because gays can enjoy less persecution since they're under the protection of the law. Or if the level of persecution is the same (which is possible since it doesn't go away immediately), then they can use the law as an argument on why they should not be persecuted. Because, you know, legally they'd be the same as straight people.

The difference between 'being vocal' and 'whining' is that you can be vocal without whining. Ghandi did just that. He practiced 'non-aggressive resistance' or w/e it was called and calmly reminded the world that, while Britain was calling for aid to fight the Nazi's, it was doing so with its foot on India's neck. MLK won rights by pointing out how blacks were being mistreated and discriminated against and putting pressure for equality. There was even a culture-shift in the black-community as they strove to get away from the stereotypes that were presented of them at the time.

Martin Luther King Jr. stood up to the culture though. He fought back, but he preached not to do so violently to his followers. Instead, he did a peaceful fighting of sorts, fighting with words to get rights for the black. How are people whining when they are doing the exact same thing MLKJ was trying to do, gain rights peacefully and respectfully? Answer: they are not. They only are from a bigot's point of view.

The Gay Rights movement has continually pined that they should be capable of receiving the same marriage benefits as straight couples without actually giving a reason why beyond 'we're the same as straight couples' and blaming religion for keeping them from obtaining these rights. Regardless of the truth, that needs to change. Besides, part of being vocal is being able to communicate. You know, kind of what I am suggesting.

Ok. Let me ask you this.

Why SHOULDN'T gays be capable of receiving the same marriage benefits as straight couples? Besides hurting the feelings of the bigots?

Seriously though, that reason is a damn good reason why they shouldn't be denied the rights as straight people. Because in that case, you might as well give nobody equal marriage benefits at this point.

America was founded on what started off as a cultural shift. The colonists were too far away from the crown to feasibly enforce. This resulted in the British being less able to enforce their laws and the concept of self-government to grow and people to start flocking too it. When they tried to enforce the laws, it resulted in them smacking right into the changed culture and a massive shift in... well... everything. Yes, gradualism can work.

What the hell are you talking about? America was formed because the British imposed several tyrannical acts first meant to prevent the crown from taxing citizens living on the British Isles (they were being taxed heavily already) and then to keep the colonists silent when they objected. In fact, the British had allowed the colonists to mostly govern themselves for a long time. There was a shift in the culture of the colonies yes, but that had happened before the Revolutionary War. Before the war broke out, groups such as the Sons of Liberty took direct action to gain their rights. The colonists were given two choices. Fight the British for their rights back, or roll over and let the British stomp all over them and hope it would just get better, like you've been suggesting the gays do. If the colonists did what you've been suggesting the gays should do, there would be no USA.

However, when it does work, you often don't notice it since it takes time. However, it is a lot easier for people to consider gays undeserving when they look like this in their minds eye and less like this

If you heard a flushing sound Snowy, that was the sound of any remaining respect and liking that anybody had for you going down the toilet from that statement.

If a man throws mud at you, does the better man throw mud back? Or does he calmly ignore it and try to make peace with the mudslinger? This is not to mention that one of the reasons there is so much filth is because there is little in the way of gay idols who are not, well, flamboyant about it. It's very easy for people to see the gay-dressing, lisping, gay person who sleeps with six different men in a month and can't hold down a relationship because that's the image the media projects. Can you imagine how much harder it would be for them to say 'no' when they can no longer hold that image and, instead, have to deal with Carl from the next cubicle over who they don't even KNOW is gay until they meet his partner by happenstance? Image matters. Culture matters. Not just rights.

It depends. If they've been trying to do the latter option on dealing with the mudslinger for a long time and it hasn't worked, eventually the person is going to snap and throw mud back at the mudslinger. And you wouldn't blame them either because of all the abuse they've taken from the mudslinger.

Considering I seem to be one of the few, if not only, people here trying to tell people to open lines of communication so that a easier time can be had by all, I doubt that this is the case.

Yeah there are people who want to open lines of communication. None of them besides you have suggested that the gays should just lie down and that the culture will just shift enough so the gays can earn their rights.

If history is an example, gays won't be considered equal to straights despite equal rights for at least a century. After all *points to woman's and black peoples rights*.

Yeah, they fought for their rights, they gained them. You know how much longer it would've taken for them if they didn't fight for their rights. Most likely twice as long at best, with the more likely option being never.

Congrats! You managed to read a political book! I'm so proud of you!

Wow. No wonder people seem to think you're a condescending blowhard Snowy. You are one.

Secondly, marriage is something that has pre-dated government by many, many, many, years and is VERY MUCH a religious institution. Not just Christian, but EVERY religion! This is ignoring that many marriages are conducted by the local church/mosque/temple/what have you and changing the definition would be an infringement upon the church (separation works both ways).

No it isn't a religious institution. If it was, the government wouldn't have control over the marriage rights of gays. The USA government is not a religious institution Snowy.

Why do you assume I have had no experience with the gay community beforehand? Plenty of my classmates are openly gay, my WoW guildmaster (whom I adore and consider to be as close as a RL friend) is openly lesbian and has been through six relationships that have ended in heartbreak, and my girlfriend is openly bi. I also recognize that there is more too it than money, which seems to be the main drive of your post.

If I recall correctly Snowy, you were once a homophobe but apparently that changed. I say apparently because anybody but a bigot would disagree with you on what your suggestions for what the gay populace should do.

Also, you have a girlfriend? That genuinely surprises me.

Yes it is. Asexuality is always possible. Besides, this is a cop-out. 'Oh I can't help it! It's my genes!' So you have no control over yourself? Yes, genetics may have a factor, I'm not saying they don't. Man is not ruled by his genetics though! His life is what he makes it to be. I don't care if you make a choice and your choice is gay. I care that you pass off your choice as a cop-out submission to your genetics.

You can't just say that a guy can decide he's bisexual or asexual if he wants to. Only profoundly ignorant people would say such a thing. Sexual orientation is instinctual and difficult to change and it may not be possible for some. In fact, for the mostly part, it's pretty much impossible to change your sexual orientation. I don't even get what you're so pissed off about in regards for that. Being gay is a cop-out of...what exactly. I'm sorry, it's very late and I'm very tired, and I guess I haven't been following this thread closely enough, but what are you getting so mad about with that statement you're replying to?

Edited April 21, 2011 by Dark Sage

[-Cynthia-]

*does not read*

Why do you insist on fighting?

If issues don't get discussed, nothing will ever change. One should not deny justice to maintain a false peace.

The difference between 'being vocal' and 'whining' is that you can be vocal without whining. Ghandi did just that. He practiced 'non-aggressive resistance' or w/e it was called and calmly reminded the world that, while Britain was calling for aid to fight the Nazi's, it was doing so with its foot on India's neck. MLK won rights by pointing out how blacks were being mistreated and discriminated against and putting pressure for equality. There was even a culture-shift in the black-community as they strove to get away from the stereotypes that were presented of them at the time.

The Gay Rights movement has continually pined that they should be capable of receiving the same marriage benefits as straight couples without actually giving a reason why beyond 'we're the same as straight couples' and blaming religion for keeping them from obtaining these rights. Regardless of the truth, that needs to change. Besides, part of being vocal is being able to communicate. You know, kind of what I am suggesting.

What is the difference between "MLK won rights by pointing out how blacks were being mistreated and discriminated against and putting pressure for equality." and the Gay Rights movement pointing out how they're being discriminated against and putting pressure for equality? Those movements ultimately had little reasoning other than upholding principles of equality and fairness either.

@images I get your point here, but casting the blame for negative media portrayals of homosexuals on the Gay Rights movement hardly seems fair. These negative stereotypes have existed for centuries and were mainly perpetrated by heterosexuals. A minority group does not have control over its own image, they have an effect certainly, but ultimately the group in power is in charge of how most minority groups are perceived.

[frat_tastic]

Snowy, you're asking people to change who they are to gain acceptance. That is not acceptance in the slightest bit.

[eclipse]

If issues don't get discussed, nothing will ever change. One should not deny justice to maintain a false peace.

There is a difference between "let's discuss this like reasonable people" and "you are a miserable person, and here's why!" The former is how progress is made; the latter keeps the status quo.

[Phoenix Wright]

America was founded on what started off as a cultural shift. The colonists were too far away from the crown to feasibly enforce. This resulted in the British being less able to enforce their laws and the concept of self-government to grow and people to start flocking too it. When they tried to enforce the laws, it resulted in them smacking right into the changed culture and a massive shift in... well... everything.

Yes, gradualism can work. However, when it does work, you often don't notice it since it takes time.

However, it is a lot easier for people to consider gays undeserving when they look like this http://imanasshole.jpg

Apparently you're forgetting that there was a war. And there were plenty of problems before that that included direct action, or "whining," but explaining that to you truly isn't worth the time.

You aren't making a bit of sense. I didn't say gradualism doesn't work, I said it didn't work for B. Washington. It's the fucking opposite, by the way. It's highly noticeable when change take time.

Uhh....

Edited April 21, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[DDDDAAAAAANNNNNN]

Snowy continues to be an extraordinarily stubborn, and straight out rude bigot in the face of extreme conflict and refuting of his arguments. While I am extremely frustrated by his inability to realize just how wrong he is, I can also respect him standing up for his views.

Since I'm not very good at quoting yet I'm just gonna sum up my two most important arguments here.

1. We have no precedence on which to base the argument that a name change would upset everyone and lead to a boycott on domestic partnerships. However, we do have a precedent of allowing those who are discriminated against the same rights of marriage (i.e. interracial marriage). People got over it, and interracial couples got all the perks of marriage. Gay couples miss out on somewhere around a thousand rights (depending on location) that married people get with the title of "marriage." So I see two courses of action if we plan on ending discrimination of couple's rights. 1) allow gays to marry or 2) change names to domestic partnerships. Since apparently so many religions (except for almost every non-Abrahamic religion) are against gay "marriage," we should go with option two. This name change is purely a political thing, and would be the technical term for the partnership, this wouldn't mean that there would suddenly be no marriage ceremonies (Kind of like how we call people gay, but the technical term is homosexual). This would finally remove the religious aspect of the word marriage from federal laws. This would also be able to encompass the couples who don't believe the institution of marriage, but who are life partners (like my uncle and "aunt" who have been together for 14 years, but never married) to get the perks that only being married currently provide.

2. Protesting is the only way for things to change. If people are unaware of the problems with the Status Quo, they will continue to live their lives the way they have been. We need protesting if we are going to ever change anything. Whether its the peaceful protesting that Gandhi used to get Britain out of India, or the angry protesting of Malcolm X during the civil rights era. To say we should just lay down and wait for change is to say we should just accept our fate. The only reason gay rights have come this far is because we've made people aware that we are here.

[General Spoon]

Guys, stop picking on Snowy. Just because he's behaving intolerantly and telling people to conform to the standards of society (even if it means self-imposed brainwashing) doesn't mean he's wrong.

[Anouleth]

Secondly, marriage is something that has pre-dated government by many, many, many, years and is VERY MUCH a religious institution. Not just Christian, but EVERY religion! This is ignoring that many marriages are conducted by the local church/mosque/temple/what have you and changing the definition would be an infringement upon the church (separation works both ways).

Why? As long as the church isn't being forced to marry people who they don't think should be married (and nobody is in favour of that anyway), then it's not infringement on the independence of the church. If anything, the fact that churches can't have gay marriages recognised is violation of seperation of church and state, since it is the government trying to say what churches can or cannot do.

And while marriage is in some ways a religious institution, it is in some ways a secular one as well. There is nothing 'religious' about tax breaks, or conjugal visitation rights, or inheritance law, or adoption rights.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Black★Star

[Bearissoslow]

I hate it when people try to say that marriage is an exclusively religious idea when the fact that it provides governmental status advantages (such as tax benefits, or the ever classic "ability to rightfully sue someone on the basis of malpractice should your lover be killed as a result of it" as shown in Armijo v. Miles). No, you're wrong and you'll continue to be wrong if you think that homosexuals are trying to intrude upon religion with their sexuality. It's quite the opposite, except replace "sexuality" with "political and legal rights as citizens". If you completely ignore the moral issue that is obviously on a lower level here, there's no defeating a pragmatic argument that says all people should be recognized as equals in the face of a government if you want said government to function.

Another thing I hate is when people are too fucking apathetic to care about this and act like it's just some big tiff about something small and insignificant and that homosexuals should just take their balls and play in someone else's jungle gym. Shit like this is majorly important if you don't want America to become a theocracy by definition or if you don't want the governmental rights of people to be waved on something that amounts to private preference.

Not aimed at anyone specifically, but I'm juss sayin'.

[eclipse]

Another thing I hate is when people are too fucking apathetic to care about this and act like it's just some big tiff about something small and insignificant and that homosexuals should just take their balls and play in someone else's jungle gym. Shit like this is majorly important if you don't want America to become a theocracy by definition or if you don't want the governmental rights of people to be waved on something that amounts to private preference.

Not aimed at anyone specifically, but I'm juss sayin'.

Way to overreach.

In order for an ideal solution to be reached, there's a ton of laws all over the place that would have to be rewritten. Also, theocracy by definition? SERIOUSLY?

[Bearissoslow]

Way to overreach.

In order for an ideal solution to be reached, there's a ton of laws all over the place that would have to be rewritten. Also, theocracy by definition? SERIOUSLY?

Explain how I'm overreaching. I'm not saying some crazy utopian society should be actualized, I'm saying that it's a contemporary issue that needs attention before it's swept under the rug. Laws have had to be rewritten before and people have survived, I don't see what the issue is here.

Also, yes, srsly. If a religion has the power to empower, restrict, or even have any influence amongst a government at all, that's a theocracy. The fact that the Church is able to restrict rights to a demographic of people due to religious/miscellaneous reasons fits into that category. If the Church was just the middle man in this situation, then it wouldn't qualify, but that's not the case. The Church is actively picking and choosing who they allow to have more rights, giving a basis in the government, whether or not we like it. Fact of the matter is that marriage needs to either lose the rights that it gives in favor of civil unions or just be put entirely in the hands of the state government (which I'm doubting churches would want).

tl;dr: shit you got me

[Aleph]

Yeah I don't think "it'd be too hard" was ever a good excuse to not fix a problem.

Especially when basic human rights are involved.

[KingKomodo]

You said earlier "if god is perfect, and he doesn't make mistakes, then arent gays supposed to happen, or something like that. But my point of view is, If you were an alchoholic then you have a problem right? Well it's the same type of thing. If you are sinning that means that there is a problem, and you need to get it fixed.

[Aleph]

Someone said that? lululul

j/k that's not funny ;/

[Celice]

If you were an alchoholic then you have a problem right? Well it's the same type of thing. If you are sinning that means that there is a problem, and you need to get it fixed.

what

Alcoholic effect exists in actuality, sin exists in your beliefs. Not same at all.