quote:..."I am not anit-gay. I am pro-straight."...
This is not true though. If people were just "pro-straight" then they wouldn't care about what gays do, because they would be so busy being happy about being straight.
It's like this, you are in space, and your suit has a leak. Are you "pro-air" or "anti-suffocation". Now let's say you are on earth. Your "pro-air" stance is meaningless. Because you aren't "pro-air" at all, you are in truth "anti-suffocation".
All those other "hetro-ya!" names are not an accurate portrayal of your position, which is against gays, or at least against gay rights.
I'm with you on finding a non inflammatory title for your (assumed) side, but we do have to be real here too.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Introducing a new word in the first place, without consensus--here's what I am going to call you--has the effect of boxing that person into a definition of their beliefs and motivations that they very likely won't agree with. Saying "Let's not sugarcoat it. We should call them what they are" might have plenty of justification but does nothing to persuade anyone out of their trench into yours.
To be fair, I appreciate Dan's attempt at consensus here, whatever the rhetorical motives behind the thread. Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On an individual basis, I find it best to just use whatever labels someone chooses to describe themselves, and then try and discuss the issue itself rather than what it's called. So I don't really see the value in calling someone hetero-normative any more than I see value in calling them a homophobe.
Sam has one thing dead-to-rights: It doesn't matter what you call it, because you think it's bad, and that's what they're going to pick up on. My conclusion from here differs from Sam's, though, because I wonder: Why the need to assign a label to someone at all?
Now, when someone brings up some other source in a discussion, at that point it can be nice to have an accurate label that sums up your opinion of that source. And if someone cites an explicitly bigoted source, it can be valuable to point that out.
But (as many have said really eloquently already) when you apply that criticism to an individual, it drastically reduces the likelihood that they will listen to what you're saying.
In general, personalizing criticism often makes people less receptive to it, while keeping it general, hypothetical, or applied to a 3rd party allows the person to maintain some distance and look at the issue more objectively. If you can persuade them in this state, then once they realize it applies to them too it creates cognitive dissonance which will hopefully result in a critical self-analysis.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Excellent attitude for a citizen in a democracy!
Reminds me of a quote I heard somewhere. If you're young and a conservative then you haven't got a heart. If you're old and you're a liberal then you haven't got a mind.
I served in the military. I vote. I have faith in the process. I can see both sides on controversial issues. I'll leave it to the young to correct the process (though I would fight for a process for national referendum). Everything isn't perfect. That's what the courts are for. The only drawback is that it can often take decades for the system to self-correct. But our government is subject to Darwinian laws.
I do fundamentally believe in the good of people, in my country, and that we're moving in the right direction.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How young do you consider young, whippersnapper?
You do get somewhat of a pass for having served, but the process that you have faith in only works if people get involved. Otherwise, the process we get is further consolidation of power (and everything else) in the hands of the few.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It is not wrong, as a movement, to have no acceptance of this kind of prejudice and socially brand it as what it is, bigotry.
But there is a huge difference between a social movement and a discussion between individuals. For the sake of individual discussion, where minds can be changed and -how- you talk is as important as what is said, name calling is poison.
There's no disagreement here on that. In an individual discussion, labels are approached delicately. They still have to be used, because people have behaviors that need to be approached, whether it is about the person themselves or about a habit or a trait that they have ended up invested in (for example: othering), but they can for most people be used in a productive fashion.
I did this with my grandparents. I asked them to confront their racism. I didn't call them racist until I had laid out the case about what they were doing and explaining the avenues of disinformation and prejudice they were working on. But it all eventually came down to them having to confront something about themselves which is going to be A Label, one way or another. I asked them to confront the fact that they had racist attitudes.
I have done the same thing with friends. I have said something along the lines of "You're not just heteronormatively biased. You are expressing homophobic beliefs." Again, after the storied individual caseload. You would note the same individual restraint in me for private messages, assuming we even had them and there existed for some reason an individual discussion. Most of what you see here is open disagreement as part of a movement where I am given no substantive reason in most cases to mince words — either personally or tactically. I feel that the people who are trying to "protect" marriage from the gays have given many reasons to make their homophobia a heavily criticized issue. Even when (or perhaps especially when) most attempt to assert and hang on a narrative that insists that what they are doing is perfectly tolerant and respectful of gays and is not in any way, shape, or form motivated by fear of a (to them) aberrant, disgusting behavior.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Sorry, 'homophobe' is the proper term. If they didn't feel strong attraction to homosexual experiences -- and that they needed strong barriers to prevent themselves from acting out on that attraction -- they wouldn't assume that everybody else is like them, and thus in need of laws to prevent gay marriages.
So this is still the best there is? I first remember hearing this particular load of garbage about 20 years ago. It was a worthless tripe then, and the fact that a better argument has yet to be constructed is gloriously pathetic.
Disapproving of something is not at all akin to being afraid you might BE that something. Among other things, I disapprove of murder, strongarm robbery, and Spongebob Squarepants. And no point in my entire life has anyone EVER accused that my disapproval of these things has its genesis in the fact that I am afraid that I am a murderer, strongarm robber, nor Spongebob Squarepants.
Yet somehow this one particular facet of society has been deemed the only place that a person cannot express disapproval, lest they be accused and labeled as a person who fears that they themselves are gay.
If a person expresses disapproval of sex with the same gender, it MUST be because they themselves want to have sex with the same gender.
I'll apply your own logic and pose the question straight back to you then, aspectre, as well as the others who buy into this ridiculous mantra:
Why do you insist that "homophobe" is the correct term? Is it because deep down you know that you yourself are a homophobe? You are afraid that you yourself wish to oppress, bully, abuse, and harass people of homosexual orientation? It must be. If you didn't have that deep desire to oppress and violate the rights of homosexuals, then you would not be so outwardly disapproving of so-called "homophobes."
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Like "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" which only look at the label's belief holder's view of the topic, this title will likely stick. I still think that "Anti-Gay" is more accurate, as well as "Pro-Body-Freedom" and "Pro-Fetus-Rights" would be more accurate too. To quote Princess Bride, "Get used to disappointment."
I'm a bit confused - in both this an a subsequent post, you deny that being "pro" something (or decide that something is normative, thus declaring anything outside that norm as deviant and "other") is an adequate description. The "anti" part of being pro-life doesn't just come from being anti-abortion (unless you subscribe to the belief that all pro-life philosopies are fundamentally only about being anti-woman, which I think is a bit flawed) - it comes as a direct consequence of what you are "pro."
And saying someone is defined only by what they are against does not seem more accurate than defining them by what they affirm. The reasoning about being "pro-air/anti-suffocation" doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't buy for a second that the statistical lack of success of African Americans automatically means racism is the cause -and- therefore is one of the top problems in this country.
Only two options? Simple answers to complicated problems are comforting and wrong. Take into account parent's education level,
It's likely that black children are less likely to have well educated parents but how do you explain why black parents are less likely to be well educated than white parents? Is it the result of racist policies (past and present), or is it something about black people that has nothing to do with 400 years of discrimination that makes them less likely to get an education?
quote:urban or suburban setting, quality of schools available, importance of education and work ethic in whichever subculture individuals belong, prevalence of drug use, marital status of parents, and twenty or thirty other variables and might start to scratch the surface of the whys behind the stats you quoted.
Again, why do you think it is that these factors are strongly correlated with race? Why are these factors different for blacks than they are for whites? Is it the result of discriminatory practice (past and present) or is it something else that black people have in common besides a 400 year history of racial oppression?
quote:"Blacks aren't doing as well = racism" is about as good proof as "The cookies I left were eaten, so Santa Clause is real."
Then give me a third option because I see only two. It's either nature or nurture. Blacks in America are either doing worse than other races either because blacks are worse genetically as a race or because the environment in America is worse for blacks. If the answer is nurture, you have to explain why nurture is correlated with race in America. The only reason I can find that nurture would be correlated with skin color, that doesn't amount to genetics, is that our society has used skin color to determine how we treat people for a very long time.
If you say blacks have it bad because "black culture doesn't value hard work and education the same way other cultures do", it just leads in a circle back to the same to options. Why do people with different colored skin have different cultures? Either culture is inherited the same way skin color is or skin color has played a role in the development of culture? If cultural differences exist because different cultures evolved under different environmental factors, then a correlation between race and culture would only exist if different races were treated differently.
All the socially complex arguments you pointed to don't offer a third option. There has to be some reason for why all those social/cultural factors you've pointed to correlate with race and I can only think of two reasons those factors would correlate with race. The cultural differences between races exist either because the world has treated people differently because of their race, or the cultural differences are caused by genetic.
African American culture didn't orginate in Africa, it developed in America right along side white American culture. Slaves brought from Africa didn't bring a shared culture with them. African American culture is a product of America. If Africans Americans experienced a different environment than white Americans, it wasn't because the natural world treated them different. If was because society treated you differently if you were black. If Black Americans have a different culture today than white Americans, it's either because of our racist past and present or its something inherent in their race.
If you see a third reason please tell me. Is there something other than nature and nurture? Is there some reason other than genetics or a history of racial oppression that could have resulted in a strong correlatation between skin color and culture in America?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: The reasoning about being "pro-air/anti-suffocation" doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
The point of that example is that without opposition (something you are against, or "anti") you don't have any strong feelings on the matter.
Here on earth where breathing is taken for granted, you aren't "pro-air", because you don't bother thinking about it. Only when you are in danger of suffocation is it on your mind.
Same with gays. Were there no gays, would you still be pro-straight? There would be no point. because you aren't suggesting that what you do is right, you are suggesting that what they do is wrong.
Rabbit...I'll get back to you a bit later in the day, duty calls.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by odouls268: Disapproving of something is not at all akin to being afraid you might BE that something. Among other things, I disapprove of murder, strongarm robbery, and Spongebob Squarepants. And no point in my entire life has anyone EVER accused that my disapproval of these things has its genesis in the fact that I am afraid that I am a murderer, strongarm robber, nor Spongebob Squarepants.
But you are afraid of getting robbed...you are afraid of being killed. You may fear the effects that spongebob has on you or your kids (studies show it causes ADD in children). There are different levels of fear, and fear can occur for various reasons. You don't have to be afraid being a murderer or a thief, but you might fear something else about them.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
With that said, I don't feel that it is a clean mirror of the issue at hand.
What is at stake is the insinuation that anyone who disapproves of a homosexual lifestyle can only be feeling that disapproval if they feel that in truth they themselves are homosexual. Therein lies the weak kneed argument that I find so reprehensibly pathetic.
YOUR argument appears to stand on its own. People who disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle are likely feeling that way because they are, in fact, holding a measure of concern and even fear about what socially accepted homosexuality might do to society around them (and therefore the effect it would have on their family and them personally).
This I can see, and can accept as an argument.
But this often lauded horse excrement about "You don't like gays because you're afraid that YOU'RE gay!" simply makes me simultaneously shake my head and vomit inside my own mouth a little bit.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Take one of the factors I mentioned (say lack of access to proper schooling), and apply it to all races across the board, and then compare it to the opposite (good schools) again, ignoring race, and compare the results.
Do the same for urban setting, or negative subculture...is it the oppression of the majority that is causing the end result lack of success or is the problem a matter of circumstances? I can understand the argument that a past racist system has led to many of those circumstances. I fully acknowledge that this country has been very hard on certain groups though out its history (native Americans, women, blacks, gays, etc).
But how do you account for the successful African Americans?
Hatred and anger will always have a place in the human heart in this world, but to say that you either acknowledge that racism is a major problem or you are a racist yourself is just silly.
I'll ask you a question. Two applicants show up for a job. Both are equally qualified on paper, but one speaks well using standard English with no slang, and the other speaks Ebonics. The job requires speaking to the general public as a representative of the company. Is it racist to pick the standard accent applicant? Notice I did not supply any racial information about either one. Say for fun the standard speaker is black, and the slangy one is white. Or the reverse?
This is my point. It isn't always about racism. Sometimes its about circumstance.
Racism is a word that gets thrown out there a lot and is a catch all for nearly any disadvantage that needs to be accounted for.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why the need to assign a label to someone at all?
Because labels have power. Calling someone who doesn't share my views a bigot may be unlikely to sway that person, but I think it does have some potential effect on others that observe the exchange who may not yet have strong feelings on the subject but nonetheless apply the connotations of "bigot" to the opposing position. I may not care that much about gay rights, but I know I don't want to be a bigot and if bigots oppose gay rights...
Not that I can recall ever calling someone a bigot, but I can see a potential utility in doing so.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Matt, I see that too, but it's ultimately trying to argue/persuade via appeals to emotion.
I think that's a bad way to argue, so not only would I not want to do it, but I would be unimpressed with those who did.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Excellent attitude for a citizen in a democracy!
Reminds me of a quote I heard somewhere. If you're young and a conservative then you haven't got a heart. If you're old and you're a liberal then you haven't got a mind.
I served in the military. I vote. I have faith in the process. I can see both sides on controversial issues. I'll leave it to the young to correct the process (though I would fight for a process for national referendum). Everything isn't perfect. That's what the courts are for. The only drawback is that it can often take decades for the system to self-correct. But our government is subject to Darwinian laws.
I do fundamentally believe in the good of people, in my country, and that we're moving in the right direction.
Oh joy, I would fight against a process for national referendum. But I was born n a state where the citizenry, ( and thus corporations) are tyrants over their own legislature. It doesn't work.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Reminds me of a quote I heard somewhere. If you're young and a conservative then you haven't got a heart. If you're old and you're a liberal then you haven't got a mind.
I owe you a quarter, because I'm using that line for sure.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a person expresses disapproval of sex with the same gender, it MUST be because they themselves want to have sex with the same gender.
Neurologically, it appears that self-described strong disapproval of same-sex intercourse is strongly correlated to sexual arousal from images and descriptions of same-sex intercourse. It may just be the allure of the forbidden, but I think there's a strong element of self-denial that manifests here.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you're young and a conservative then you haven't got a heart. If you're old and you're a liberal then you haven't got a mind.
Ugh. I hate that saying. My in-laws use it all the time to smugly assure us that once we're wise enough we'll be super upset about paying taxes to support the less fortunate. And, you know, infrastructure. Right now we're just too dumb to realize how much we're paying.
posted
It's one of the weirder things about all this, and it always ensures a ready supply of tragic, self-loathing gays who go right off the deep end in vilely condemning homosexuality.
Not that it should be claimed that this is a necessary integral part of homophobia. Just that a disturbingly prevalent part of many people's virulent homophobia has turned out to be that they themselves are homosexual or bisexual and are acting out in a defense mechanism related to being indoctrinated plainly to see that part of them as disgusting, shameful, and wrong.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Liz B: Ugh. I hate that saying. My in-laws use it all the time to smugly assure us that once we're wise enough we'll be super upset about paying taxes to support the less fortunate.
It's as much a worthless canard as the notion that people trend towards being more conservative as they get older (they don't).
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Liz B: Ugh. I hate that saying. My in-laws use it all the time to smugly assure us that once we're wise enough we'll be super upset about paying taxes to support the less fortunate.
It's as much a worthless canard as the notion that people trend towards being more conservative as they get older (they don't).
Well, at least not if you control for education. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a person expresses disapproval of sex with the same gender, it MUST be because they themselves want to have sex with the same gender.
Neurologically, it appears that self-described strong disapproval of same-sex intercourse is strongly correlated to sexual arousal from images and descriptions of same-sex intercourse. It may just be the allure of the forbidden, but I think there's a strong element of self-denial that manifests here.
Though it is likely not true in most cases, still it is an undeniable phenomenon that there are those who express disapproval of sex with the same gender who themselves want to have sex with the same gender. Here is an old thread replete with links of high-profile cases. (George Rekers from NARTH, David Campbell: Australian 'family values' MP, Pastor Eddie Long, U.S. Rep Mark Foley, Senator Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Bob Allen, Phil Hinkle)
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It's one of the weirder things about all this, and it always ensures a ready supply of tragic, self-loathing gays who go right off the deep end in vilely condemning homosexuality.
Not that it should be claimed that this is a necessary integral part of homophobia. Just that a disturbingly prevalent part of many people's virulent homophobia has turned out to be that they themselves are homosexual or bisexual and are acting out in a defense mechanism related to being indoctrinated plainly to see that part of them as disgusting, shameful, and wrong.
quote:The point of that example is that without opposition (something you are against, or "anti") you don't have any strong feelings on the matter.
Here on earth where breathing is taken for granted, you aren't "pro-air", because you don't bother thinking about it. Only when you are in danger of suffocation is it on your mind.
Same with gays. Were there no gays, would you still be pro-straight? There would be no point. because you aren't suggesting that what you do is right, you are suggesting that what they do is wrong.
Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining - that makes a lot of sense now.
Though I think that homosexuality, while a huge part of heteronormativity as a movement, is hardly the only opposition which gave rise to the movement.
quote:Because labels have power. Calling someone who doesn't share my views a bigot may be unlikely to sway that person, but I think it does have some potential effect on others that observe the exchange who may not yet have strong feelings on the subject but nonetheless apply the connotations of "bigot" to the opposing position. I may not care that much about gay rights, but I know I don't want to be a bigot and if bigots oppose gay rights...
Not that I can recall ever calling someone a bigot, but I can see a potential utility in doing so.
Thank you - a strong articulation of my problem with the way political discourse appears today - no matter which side uses them.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing about teaching in a school where my classroom is 90/60 (90% of my students are minority, and 60% are free or reduced lunch) is that I have a new perspective on the achievement of minorities debate.
I can tell you I see almost zero difference between my white students and minority students in terms of work ethic, parent support, all the things people like to point at and say "That's why blacks aren't successful - their culture doesn't value education!"
It happens here no matter what color of skin the student has. I don't think it's about race as much as economic status, but I'm just a high school teacher. I've read all of Ruby Payne's stuff, and her critics, and I admit I do side with the critics that say she generalizes too much and doesn't base her findings on any real research, just anecdote. But when her anecdotes track so closely with mine, it's hard to ignore all of what she says.
I do believe we have a generational poverty problem, and it just so happens that in America generational poverty correlates strongly with race. I'm not all that concerned about what caused it, other than in an academic way...my immediate concern is how to fix it. How to convince a 15 year old whose mother just had a heart attack from cocaine use that he has other options than to sell drugs to support his now disabled mom and his three younger siblings. A kid like that doesn't really care much about the literature that is on my course of study today. And I teach more kids like him than I do kids who are trying to get into college. For most of my kids, the mention of the word college in the classroom is a joke to them - they laugh at it. They know they would never get in, and if they did, it could never be afforded. Of my over 100 students, probably 10% read on grade level...college is not an option. So what do I do to help them break the cycle of poverty in their families? If education is not the answer, what is?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
100 years ago Race was used to enforce class distinctions.
Today class is used to reinforce racial distinctions.
In other words, it was easy to tell the poor from the better by the color of the skin 100 years ago. Today they explain away class based differences by blaming it all on race.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is the idea that someone is strongly anti-homosexuality (whichever term we're gonna use) might be or is likely a closeted homosexual so extremely outrageous, odouls? Don't get me wrong, it's very often (though not quite always garbage, and however liberal the speaker is, is also often used as a slur.
So, granted freely: it's often sloppy, dishonest, cheap rhetoric and thinking used just to be dismissive. Lots of politics out there like that. What makes this one so extra-special nasty-awful?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that everyone or even most of the virulently anti-gay folks out there are latent homosexuals. I do find it baffling that they seem to be so obsessed with it, though.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that everyone or even most of the virulently anti-gay folks out there are latent homosexuals. I do find it baffling that they seem to be so obsessed with it, though.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
There are things I don't care for. Like the lion's share of reality television. Instead of going on rampages against the decadent nature of the stuff, I simply choose not to watch it. I only complain when the scheduling of more reality television comes at the cost of television I prefer. These days I seldom watch television.
The fact is that while I dislike reality television and I do think it has some negative cultural aspects, I simply choose not to indulge in watching it. I don't need to watch the stuff. It does nothing to me, and I only find reason to complain when it does.
I think of people who are vehemently obsessed with their agenda against homosexuality in the same way as I do with reality television. Homosexuality does nothing to you, you're not forced into being in a homosexual relationship. At worst, you have to confront it in public every now and then. It doesn't make sense to be obsessed with something you so despise. You don't like reality tv? Change the channel and let those who enjoy it have their fun. You don't like homosexuality? Go enjoy your heterosexuality and let homosexuals be who they are.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The obsession is multifaceted. To a point. The assessment of sociological studies of the constructions of the attitudes fighting against gay marriage shows a clear trend — not just here, but in other places like Ireland and Australia, where it has also, unsurprisingly, been studied. Generally, the advancement of gay rights represents the encroachment of an agenda for an expressly sinful lifestyle, a corruption, which to many of them is despoiling society and threatening collapse of society and the disfavor of god (and to a lot of them these are very, very linked). To not treat them like second-class citizens is, in their mind, a literal imperilment of civilization.
First, yes. It is expressly religious, even when they claim otherwise and spend a lot of energy trying to craft rationales that will ostensibly succeed a secular test for secular law and institutions (see: the disastrous defense of Proposition 8). Actually nonreligious objection to SSM is so rare as to be a negligible component of the cultural conflict over gays and gay marriage.
Secondly, this is all about why homophobia is a real thing. It's not a wildly inapplicable term that falsely frames the issue in inapplicable psychological implications.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: I think of people who are vehemently obsessed with their agenda against homosexuality in the same way as I do with reality television. Homosexuality does nothing to you, you're not forced into being in a homosexual relationship. At worst, you have to confront it in public every now and then. It doesn't make sense to be obsessed with something you so despise. You don't like reality tv? Change the channel and let those who enjoy it have their fun. You don't like homosexuality? Go enjoy your heterosexuality and let homosexuals be who they are.
It's not that simple for most of them, because of the aforementioned implications of corruption. Many of them aren't compatible with the 'live and let live' idea because it results in a society that erodes acceptable norms. For instance, many of them are terrified about secular corruptions of their children, and don't want their children to grow up in a society that teaches the tolerance of homosexuality. or, for that matter, to even mention the existence of homosexuality at all.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: I think of people who are vehemently obsessed with their agenda against homosexuality in the same way as I do with reality television. Homosexuality does nothing to you, you're not forced into being in a homosexual relationship. At worst, you have to confront it in public every now and then. It doesn't make sense to be obsessed with something you so despise. You don't like reality tv? Change the channel and let those who enjoy it have their fun. You don't like homosexuality? Go enjoy your heterosexuality and let homosexuals be who they are.
It's not that simple for most of them, because of the aforementioned implications of corruption. Many of them aren't compatible with the 'live and let live' idea because it results in a society that erodes acceptable norms. For instance, many of them are terrified about secular corruptions of their children, and don't want their children to grow up in a society that teaches the tolerance of homosexuality. or, for that matter, to even mention the existence of homosexuality at all.
I should hope it's not that simple. It's no fun feeling morally superior to others when there's no one to feel morally superior to. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: I think of people who are vehemently obsessed with their agenda against homosexuality in the same way as I do with reality television. Homosexuality does nothing to you, you're not forced into being in a homosexual relationship. At worst, you have to confront it in public every now and then. It doesn't make sense to be obsessed with something you so despise. You don't like reality tv? Change the channel and let those who enjoy it have their fun. You don't like homosexuality? Go enjoy your heterosexuality and let homosexuals be who they are.
It's not that simple for most of them, because of the aforementioned implications of corruption. Many of them aren't compatible with the 'live and let live' idea because it results in a society that erodes acceptable norms. For instance, many of them are terrified about secular corruptions of their children, and don't want their children to grow up in a society that teaches the tolerance of homosexuality. or, for that matter, to even mention the existence of homosexuality at all.
But it isn't that simple either. There are plenty of things that are contrary to various religious beliefs that don't get everybody's knickers in a (possibly dampish) bunch.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's just a function of time and what the controversy du jour is. In a relatively short while, we won't be getting our knickers in a twist about it anymore, just like how we used to be doing almost the same thing with interracial marriage but moved past it.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I strongly disagree that it is just a matter of "controversy du jour"...as if the problem just goes away by itself...both with interracial and gay marriage...a lot of people suffered a lot and worked very hard to get this country were it is/going.
posted
It's not a problem that goes away by itself. It is not a problem of the day, it's a controversy of the day, precisely because we've grown up enough that it's what's now on the social chopping block.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: [QUOTE]It's like this, you are in space, and your suit has a leak. Are you "pro-air" or "anti-suffocation". Now let's say you are on earth. Your "pro-air" stance is meaningless. Because you aren't "pro-air" at all, you are in truth "anti-suffocation".
Such a good analogy.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't fit everyone against changing the definition of marriage under one label. (Remember that homosexuals are entitled to marry; marriage is defined as one man and one woman. They have equal rights to marry.)
You can't fit everyone who believes homosexuality is a sexual perversion under one label. Some hate the individual as well as the act. Others follow the Christian view of "love the sinner, hate the sin."
Why don't we just skip trying to fit everyone who doesn't love homosexuality into one label, hmmm? Oh wait--we can't do that. The homosexual agenda doesn't leave us room for that. We need a definable enemy so that we can whine when we feel attacked by said enemy.
Just sayin'...
Posts: 4 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love that, in a post which complained about overgeneralization, you hauled out "the (singular) homosexual agenda" without any sense of irony whatsoever. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by coppertoe: You can't fit everyone against changing the definition of marriage under one label. (Remember that homosexuals are entitled to marry; marriage is defined as one man and one woman. They have equal rights to marry.)
just like blacks had "equal rights:" to marry under anti-miscegenation laws. Just not marry outside their race.
The right to marry outside your orientation is not an equal right, when it is shared with people who have the right to marry within their own. Yu might as well say that if straight marriage was illegal, straights would still have equal marriage rights. To marry people of their own sex. It only works if you ignore gays as a distinct class of people. If you do that, you don't understand anything about gay people anyway.
He does not love freedom, who does not love freedom fr all people. This statement doesn't incline me to believe the person who says it much cares about liberty.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have trouble taking coppertoe's post seriously...wiffs of troll...too inflamitory and from a poster with four whole posts.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To answer your question, I don't think it is a matter of "X is not equal to me me". From what I have gathered from those who are against SSM, they are against the changing of institution of marriage, and are specifically -not- thinking of the impact on individuals (and their rights). That is part of the problem.
I can understand how this happens...if some of those who believe this way had to look individual gay people in the eye and tell them "I am trying to make sure you can never marry the person you love." it might help change some hearts.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that everyone or even most of the virulently anti-gay folks out there are latent homosexuals. I do find it baffling that they seem to be so obsessed with it, though.
Kind of like how Al Gore has one huge ass carbon footprint, I think. Though for me, that means I've got more carbon to atone for, not that I shouldn't try.
I never did know, in the story of the mote and the beam, whether you look for motes because you have a beam or you get a beam by looking for motes.
Myself, I'm not bothered by being called a bigot, or I should say, it seems a small thing compared with going contrary to what I understand of God's law. Granted, I know people who support gay marriage in the name of Christian Charity, and I recognize that's where they're coming from even though I don't agree. But I know, many of us have known people who don't feel they can be friends with someone who thinks of them as a bigot.
I disagree with gay marriage, but I don't fight it because I dislike fighting. I may go to hell either way, for being unloving or for sliding on my good intentions.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I know, many of us have known people who don't feel they can be friends with someone who thinks of them as a bigot.
And yet gay people are supposed to, I'm not sure what exactly, not take it personally when they're told they can't marry their loved ones, can't enlist in the military, can't be openly homosexual without risking ridicule or even safety and career, so on and so forth.
I don't say you do those things, pooka. I have a hard time imagining you would. But the thing is, it really seems to me that members of a group who seek to confirm second class citizenship for another group-for whatever reason, because God say so though of course to the people being degraded, it's not God-members of that group are in a poor position to have their feelings hurt when that intolerance (again, whether it's God's or not) is given a label.
Put another way, opponents of SSM in this country (not exclusively Christians) weren't simply minding their own business when proponents came along and started criticizing them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heterosexist: a person, usually a heterosexual, who believes that heterosexuality is the only valid choice and that it is superior to all other sexualties
or
one who is accused of having a bias against homosexuals and holds the opinion that heterosexuals are superior
Posts: 9 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
Strict parenting and same sex urges lead to homophobia.
quote: Across all of the experiments, the subjects with supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, while those from authoritarian homes revealed the greatest discrepancy between explicit and implicit attraction.
CONCLUSION: The fear, anxiety, and aversion that some seemingly heterosexual people hold toward gays and lesbians can grow out of their own repressed same-sex desires, says co-author and University of Rochester psychologist Richard Ryan in a statement. "In many cases these are people who are at war with themselves and they are turning this internal conflict outward."
SOURCE: The full study, "Parental Autonomy Support and Discrepancies Between Implicit and Explicit Sexual Identities: Dynamics of Self-Acceptance and Defense," is published in the journal Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
tl;dr - no tl;dr, please. read the article.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The conclusion is elegant, but the methodology of priming has significant issues. Plus, the study depends on self-reporting the "supportiveness" of family and the strictness of parenting. When I can think of several ways a repressed person could introduce bias into his own self-report, possibly to blame his parents for his lack of self-actualization. That, and those in touch with their sexual identities may feel obliged to report that their parents were not strict, because they do not detect any inward conflicts that are the likely results of strict or unsupportive parenting. They do not feel repressed, ipso facto, they were not repressed by their parents.
I would trust the results of a collection of case studies over anything like this.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
just like blacks had "equal rights:" to marry under anti-miscegenation laws. Just not marry outside their race.
