Gay Bashing -- What Age, and What Extent?

[Blondie]

I hope my intro didn't sound inflammatory. The reason I ask is that the daughter of an aquaintance of mine (13 yrs old) seems unnaturally obsessed with homosexuality. Constantly making statements that show she is clearly uncomfortable with gays and finds them to be somewhat less than human. I think she picks this up partly from her parents, who I don't think are dangerous to the point of encouraging her to harm anyone, but who have anti-gay sentiments of their own and will crack jokes and make snide comments around her.

My question to the gay community on this board is when did they first experience prejudice against their sexual orientation, and did they notice any increase in the threat from the same people as they got older? Do you think this kid is going through a Jr. High "mean kid" phase, or does it just get worse? I try to steer her toward a more honest, caring point of view, but she almost seems to not hear me at this point.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Mother of 3 here, a 10-year-old, a 13-year-old, and a 16-year-old.

She doesn't pick this up "partly from her parents", Blondie. She picks this up 100% totally from her parents.

I doubt whether there's anything you can do about the parents, but you can provide a good example for the kid. Don't yell at her, just gently offer a dissenting opinion. She's at the age where she's trying out new ideas, and the idea that "gays are people, too" is not an idea that her parents "get". So it's very new to her.

Suppose her folks were dyed-in-the-wool Flat Earthers, and she started learning about plate tectonics in school. She needs to try out two ideas, that the earth is not flat, and that her parents are wrong. That's a big load for a kid.

She is hearing you, Blondie. She's just having a little trouble processing the data. You're telling her, basically, that her parents are wrong. That's a scary thought.

Just keep up the good work, but don't yell at her, don't preach at her, and most importantly, don't attack her parents in front of her, or to her.

[Blondie]

Thanks for the input. The reason I say that her parents are not totally at fault are because she tells me how the kids in school hate so-and-so 'cuz he's gay, and so forth. I agree that she never learned that this sort of behavior is "wrong" at home, but it is very scary that in this so-called enlightened time, so many kids in school are still promoting this crap.

[gobear]

Well, I have always been masculine and I played football and ran track in high school, so nobody ever suspected I was gay when I was younger. Of course, hearing guys joking about "fags" in the locker room was upsetting, but I never let on. Of course, I had a lot of self-loathing to deal with and suicide was constantly in my thoughts. I always thought all gays were a bunch of limp-wristed sissies who wanted to be girls. I knew that wasn't me, but I couldn't reconcile my raging desires for guys on the team with my total fear of being gay. Where I grew up, there was automatic contempt for gays, and it really made me hate myself. I finally came out after I graduated college and had to unlearn a lot of internalized homophobia.
The only time I've had a problem since then was when three punks jumped me coming out of a gay bar in Phoenix in 1990 and cracked my head open with a chain. Other than that, I've been very lucky to avoid any overt antigay prejudice.

It's sad that the 13-year-old girl is having hate passed down to her by her parents. The best thing you can do is to tell her (and them) that antigay prejudice is hateful and that it won't be tolerated in your presence.

[Blondie]

Thanks, Goboy. Sorry you had to go through that kind of crap. I had to tell the Dad of this kid not to use the "n" word in my house years ago. He actually seems to be coming around, now that he's getting older and sober and all. I guess I'll have to take the same approach with the kid.

It's really a shame. She's smart and nice enough, but I can see her throwing her life away already...hanging with a racially biased group (at home and at school), but her best girlfriend is Hispanic! I just don't get it. It's like she's got this internal tug-o-war going all the time. Sad...

[Freedom]

Ok, it's a real hijack.

The only time I've had a problem since then was when three punks jumped me coming out of a gay bar in Phoenix in 1990 and cracked my head open with a chain.

Hey Goboy,

I graduated HS in '91. I grew up in NJ (close to the city) but practically lived in Greenwich Village. I remember tons of gay bashing stories. It was a huge concern. I even remember posters plastered all over by gay vigilante groups threatening those who had bashed. I recall thinking that it was like a war over there.

Years have gone by since I hung out in the Village.

With the exception of Matthew Shepard, has the tension dropped since the early 90's? It seems to me that it has, but I would be interested in hearing a better informed opinion on it.

[Holly]

Duck Duck Goose:

She doesn't pick this up "partly from her parents", Blondie. She picks this up 100% totally from her parents.

Maybe not 100%. My husband and I have several gay/lesbian friends. In fact, his very best friend is gay, and my very best friend is lesbian. We had a cookout one time, looked around, and realized everyone at the party was homosexual except the two of us.

So, my kids have pretty much grown up around homosexuals since birth, and my husband and I have never said a disparaging word about people whose orientation is different than ours. We've also done our best to teach open-mindedness towards people of all orientations, races, and religions.

Last summer, my best friend and her fiancee, Suzy, were over and we were discussing whether or not they'd like to get married in my house. (Of course, in Texas such a union wouldn't be legal, but they want to cement their relationship with a ceremony.) My 6 year old son said, "If you do that, make sure you don't go outside".

"Why not?" asked Suzy.

"Because people might see you and think you're gee-ay-why." (He said this last in a whisper, as if it was shameful to speak the letters aloud.)

Suzy and I were shocked to hear this from Jake. Jeni immediately said, "He did NOT get that from Eric and Jody." Needless to say, Jake and I had an in-depth conversation about this later.

No, gay bashing starts in at least kindergarten. Even with parents who teach tolerance and love for all people, kids are very sensitive to the attitudes of their peers.

[OxyMoron]

My experience was that folks generally got more tolerant as they got older. Some girls really do go through an intense mean phase, but once they're over that they can actually be very decent, kind people. What you're trying to do is terrific, and although she may be tuning it out now that doesn't mean it isn't working into her subconscious for a time she's more open.

I also wouldn't blame the parents alone. A lot will depend on her peer group, which sounds pretty unappetizing on the whole. With luck she'll outgrow them. It does no good to criticise them directly - but maybe she needs some other social outlets, like summer camp, music, sports where she'd rub shoulders with a different bunch.

[Needs2know]

I have to disagree that her attitude might be "100%" the parents fault. In her case there does seem to be a good case but many of us do not perpetrate this attitude at home. Frankly I do not condone it in my house at all! But my children have come home and called each other "faggot". My daughter when she was in Jr. High was constantly called "Les-be-ann" because her name is Leslie. As young as kindergarten she was asking me "Mommy whats a faggot?" because other children were calling each other that on the bus.

I'm sure you've all heard of Eminem. Not that I would blame hate speach solely on the music industry either. Perhaps these other children are learning these things at home, and then trying to pressure and poison mine. I don't know. I just know that parents are not always solely responsible for the thoughts or actions of their children. Particularily when they reach young adulthood. Let's face it, I disappointed mine because I didn't turn out to be a raging bigot. My mother often wonders where she went wrong. Oh thats right she blamed everything on my "pothead friends".

Needs2know

[Blondie]

Thanks for all the input. I know it's none of my business directly (and her mother will TELL me that in no uncertain terms!) but indirectly, I think we're all responsible for raising good kids. I know many people don't go for Hilary's "It Takes A Village" take on things, but I truly do believe that people, and citizens, learn by example. My experience as a child was that we didn't want to do anything out of line because a neighbor might see us and tell our folks! We knew that people wouldn't turn the other way if we were screwing up. I'm not suggesting a "big brother" atmosphere, but I guess I do have a right to tell this kid what's permissible in my home and what isn't.

[TWTCommish]

Hmm...tricky subject. Obviously the parents have a major influence over the child, but if you ask me it's not what they teach children specifically about gays.

For example: if they teach a child to voice their disagreement when they disagree with something, the child will do this. If they, however, teach the child to voice their disagreements while *ALWAYS* remaining respectful of the other side's point of view, they will do that as well.

I've been fortunate to have my parents teach me things while making sure I remain respectful to other points of view. The result, for me, on this subject at least, is that I think homosexuality is a sin, but I know several homosexuals who are very nice people. I don't hate them - I consider it a sin the same as losing your temper in most respects.

I think tolerance is where the problem lies. We can get along just fine despite disagreement, so long as we remain open to another's point of view and always respectful.

[gobear]

[quote]
The result, for me, on this subject at least, is that I think homosexuality is a sin, but I know several homosexuals who are very nice people. I don't hate them - I consider it a sin the same as losing your temper in most respects.
/quote]
Well, I'm glad you're a tolerant sort, but homosexuality is not a sin, it's an orientation, just like being left-handed.
Homosexuality is as sinful as heterosexuality. You can't help being predisposed to love a gender.

[TWTCommish]

I'd always thought that homosexuality was a clear-cut issue for those who believe in the Bible, as I do. I also believe that it is not genetic or anything of the sort.

You have to admit this much: the sheer mechanics seem to go against the way we humans are designed. That alone makes me wonder about it. That, and the Bible of course.

Like I said, I'm not gay-bashing here. I think it is a sin as are things I do, but that's about it.

Oh, and the only times I have a problem with gay people would probably have to be when some of them wear dog collars and tight leather clothing and dance around in a parade - I wouldn't like it if straight people did that either, by the way.

[Freedom]

Goboy,

To be truely tollerant, you have to make room for those who view it as a sin. The bottom line is that we will not really know until we are dead.

Otherwise you are not doing anything different than those who try to outlaw it and discriminate against those who are gay.

[MrVisible]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
I've been fortunate to have my parents teach me things while making sure I remain respectful to other points of view. The result, for me, on this subject at least, is that I think homosexuality is a sin, but I know several homosexuals who are very nice people. I don't hate them - I consider it a sin the same as losing your temper in most respects.

I think tolerance is where the problem lies. We can get along just fine despite disagreement, so long as we remain open to another's point of view and always respectful.

Do you think that it's possible for a child to grow up in an environment where an entire class of people is seen as behaving sinfully, and still maintain respect for them as people?

I've known some amazingly mature children, but I don't think any of them would be able to maintain that level of detatchment. How can an 8-year-old really internalize the idea that "what these people do is sinful and against God's will. But treat them with respect anyhow." ? (Heck, how anyone can pull off that kind of emotional balancing act is beyond me.) If nothing else, people who teach this attitude are making their children vulnerable to the heterocentric propaganda that allows someone to degrade another human being's status in their own moral system enough to, say, crack their skull with a chain.

[gobear]

[quote]

To be truly tolerant, you have to make room for those who view it as a sin. The bottom line is that we will not really know until we are dead.
Otherwise you are not doing anything different than those who try to outlaw it and discriminate against those who are gay.

Hogwash. I never said that Commish could not air his views. I am a First Amendment absolutist, and I defend free speech, no matter how repugnant.

However, I am not about to cave in to people who want to treat me like a second-class citizen. I firmly believe that Biblical views of sex are ridiculous, and I refuse to be treated as inferior by anyone, ever!

[TWTCommish]

mrvisible: The reason it works for me is because I'm taught that all are sinners, including myself. It's not that hard to have respect for other sinners if you keep in mind that you yourself suffer from similar things.

goboy: No one is saying you should be treated like a second-class citizen...you're the first to mention such things here. Perhaps something hit too close to home, but I don't think anyone said that.

I was saying that it's a sin - I said it was like losing your temper in some ways, and I certainly didn't claim that rage-a-holics OR homosexuals should be treated with less respect than others.

Like I said, the only beef I have with homosexuals would have to be that parade, which is in approrpriate for anyone, regardless of their stance on sexuality.

[Freedom]

I firmly believe that Biblical views of sex are ridiculous, and I refuse to be treated as inferior by anyone, ever!

Hold on there All Star......


You have two seperate and distinct things going on in that sentence.

Regardless of your views on the Bible and sex, they are a totally seperate issue from how you are treated.

Goboy: I love the person, but their views are repugnant.

Right-Wing Christian: I love the person, but the actions are repugnant.


I see no difference between your views and and their's. I would not call your views tolerant anymore than I would call Fallwell's views on homosexuality tolerant.

You are both trying to "win."

[Guinastasia]

It's definitely from peers. My dad would make jokes about a guy who seemed feminine ("Now there's a guy who sits down to piss"), but for the most part, he and my mom have ALWAYS stressed that I should never judge anyone, or make fun of them, or worry about what they did in their lives. But in junior high, of course my friends and I would go, "Ew, that's so gay,", or "You're such a faggot!"
Now of course, I don't say those kinds of things. Like I said, my dad may have made those remarks, but he always taught me that you do NOT go around belittling others. You mind your own business and treat everyone with respect, because it's not my duty to judge.

[Polycarp]

Overheard outside our church a couple of weeks ago:

Two 11-year-old boys talking, not realizing I was standing nearby....

"Did you hear what happened to {boy's name} in school?"
"No, what?"
"He got caught kissing {girl's name}!"
"Eeeuw!! That's so gay!!"

[betenoir]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
I'd always thought that homosexuality was a clear-cut issue for those who believe in the Bible, as I do.

Well yeah. For people who believe in the Bible as you. But your's is not the only way of believing in the Bible. I said I was going to bring this book up every chance I got (and darned if it isn't relavent to a whole bunch of threads going on now): Take a look at Bruce Bawer's "Stealing Jesus". He believes in the Bible.

You have to admit this much: the sheer mechanics seem to go against the way we humans are designed. That alone makes me wonder about it.

Wonder about two people loving each other? Wonder about about the desire to be with the person you love and give them pleasure? That IS the way human beings are designed. Or are you reducing the whole complexity of human love and sexuality to a matter incompatable plumbing?

Oh, and the only times I have a problem with gay people would probably have to be when some of them wear dog collars and tight leather clothing and dance around in a parade - I wouldn't like it if straight people did that either, by the way.

Straight people do do that. And a lot weirder things. Obviously you've never been to Mardi Gra. Or for that matter the Mummers parade.

And most homosexuals don't march in the parade (Fifth Ave. just isn't that big) or wear dogs collars and leather clothes. So what does it have to do with the other several million homosexuals out there? If you don't like the parade, don't go (although you'd be missing out on a lot of fun. And some really nice floats.)

[betenoir]

Originally posted by Freedom2


Regardless of your views on the Bible and sex, they are a totally seperate issue from how you are treated.

Goboy: I love the person, but their views are repugnant.

Right-Wing Christian: I love the person, but the actions are repugnant.


I see no difference between your views and and their's.

Hmmm...I think I see one. If a homosexual tried to for a homosexual "action" on me it would indeed be repugnant. It would be assault. But But no homosexual has ever done that and most don't do it to anyone. So I see no reason to find their actions repugnant. Or even if I did I see no reason to rail against them as they don't effect me.

Right-Wing Christians on the other hand want their views to effect me. For the good of the nation. So I am far more jutified in bringing up the fact that I find them repugnant.

[IMATION]

My personal advice is to introduce a 'gay-hater' to a gay person. But, you dont tell them that the person is gay.. let them become comfortable with the new friend while you are with them. jsut make it out like the gay/lesbian person is a friend of yours that is tagging along for the outing.. after wards ask of their oopinion of the new person, and tell them that they are gay. this would come as a shock to them.. but they will come around...

[Freedom]

Right-Wing Christians on the other hand want their views to effect me. For the good of the nation. So I am far more jutified in bringing up the fact that I find them repugnant.

The problem is, this does not apply to anything that has been said in this thread.

Commish has said that he thinks homosexuality is a sin, but that he doesn't think people shoudl be treated differently because of it. There are plenty of people who feel this way.


If Goboy can be naturally gay, then I see no reason why Commish can't naturally believe that homosexuality is a sin.

Tolerance means accepting things that DIFFER from what you believe.

[betenoir]

Originally posted by Freedom2

The problem is, this does not apply to anything that has been said in this thread.

Ah. But you didn't say Commish, you said Right-Wing Christians, so I assumed you meant it generally.

And it seems to me goboy was also talking about RWCs in general, as he has experienced the in the real world.

He defended Commish's right to post. As do I.

[Freedom]

He defended Commish's right to post. As do I.

I probably erred in trying not to use Commish directly in my example (and possibly dragging him somewhere he didn't want to go). I used the generic "right wing christian" label instead.

Please allow me to backtrack and get more specific.

I was very specifically talking about Goboy calling Comish's views "repugnant."

That to me is not tolerance.

[TWTCommish]

Well, perhaps it's not - I'm not going to make a big stink over it, though. I was hoping he'd be a little more open to the other point of view (he seemed rather ticked off in one of the earlier posts), but I'm not going to hold a grudge.

Hopefully he'll come around.

[Duck Duck Goose]

[painfully wrenching hijacked thread back onto rails]

Well, yes, I'd agree that the peer group has a lot to do with it.

But.

When my kids come home and express an anti-gay sentiment, they get immediate "gays are people, too" feedback from Mom and Dad. "Um, you did know that the word 'faggot' is a kind of a cuss word, like 'nigger'? We don't use words like that."

Or when they're watching something on TV that's making jokes about gays, if Mom or Dad hears something particularly outrageous, we put our two cents' worth in. "You did know that that's a stereotype? Gays don't all wear women's clothes and sashay around the room." The most recent instance of this was the other night, when Bonzo (age 13) and I were watching The Producers on tape from the library, you know, the part with the flamboyantly gay director who comes out from behind the screen wearing an evening gown. Bonzo watched this with me a few years ago, and he totally didn't get it. "Mom, why is he wearing a dress?" But now, oh baby, he got it, because he knew all about "fags" from his friends, although he remained somewhat puzzled by the sidekick, Carmen Ghia (?), the little one with the pointy beard. He still didn't "get" the whole joke about squabbling gay couples sounded just like old married people, but overall, the scene worked for him this time around. And he learned all that from his buddies at school. But he had Mom sitting there to remind him, "You know this is a stereotype, a joke."

So Blondie's little friend may be getting anti-gay influences from her peer group, but dollars will get you donuts that when she comes home and tries these ideas out on her parents, she gets reinforcement, not gentle correction.

[andros]

but dollars will get you donuts that when she comes home and tries these ideas out on her parents, she gets reinforcement, not gentle correction.

OK, DDG. I'll buy that, providing we understand that the "reinforcement" might be passive. Parents do not have to actively agree with or encourage hatred, they simply have to not respond.

That said, while I'd prefer that all parents go out of their way to install all the values I think they should have, it is systemic. As long as filth like Eminem is popular, kids will continue to receive the messaage from their peers. And sometimes no amount of gentle correction will offset that.


As to the OP, I don't remember much in the way of specifics in middle school. As near as I remember, "gay," queer," and "fag" were just pretty ubiquitous. In high school, the silly, childish stuff receeded, and the more "adult" bashing took its place. I was friends with my (private) school's first open homosexual (in its 50 year history), and spent a lot of time with him. He did receive the occasional threatening phone call; less frequently his friends did as well. Once in a while I had things like "faglover" scrawled on my locker. And I was with M--- when he discovered his windshield smashed in by a baseball bat in the school parking lot (they were kind enough to leave the bat, and he carried it in his car from then on).

I guess it seems to me that by high school, kids either don't care or are full-on assholes. Hopefully, Blondie, your friend's daughter will be among the former.

[Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Freedom2
Hey Goboy,

I graduated HS in '91. I grew up in NJ (close to the city) but practically lived in Greenwich Village. I remember tons of gay bashing stories. It was a huge concern. I even remember posters plastered all over by gay vigilante groups threatening those who had bashed. I recall thinking that it was like a war over there.

Years have gone by since I hung out in the Village.

With the exception of Matthew Shepard, has the tension dropped since the early 90's? It seems to me that it has, but I would be interested in hearing a better informed opinion on it. [/b]

Tensions have increased. We are considered and treated as second class citizens and worse. The gay people who are born in this country have to fight for basic rights that are a given for any heterosexual. I'm not just talking the right to marry either.

Statistics from 1999:

242% increase in incidents reported committed by hate groups

103% increase in incidents occurring at or near LGBT events

Police response deteriorated.

155% of verbal harassment and abuse of victims by police

866% rise in physical abuse by police

http://www.lambda.org/1998_RPT.PDF

You seem to think that tolerance encompasses accepting and tolerating the intolerant. I think that they require education to see that they have no right to use their relgion as a cudgel to try and change or force gay men and women to be something they are not.

[Jodi]

HASTUR, with respect, you quote from a study that clearly says "There was a modest decline in 1998 in the total number of reported anti-gay incidents, from 2,665 in 1997 to 2,552 in 1998 (minus 4%). Comparable reductions were noted in the total reported numbers of victims, offenders, and crime/offense comprising each incident."

Moreover, it seems clear that while the number of total reports declined, the number of certain particular types of reports must have increased significantly, as there is no other way to explain such statistics as an 866% increase in the number of physical assaults on GLBT people by police in a one-year period. In other words, if the number of actual assaults, as opposed to reports of assaults, had increased by 866%, it would represent an epidemic of state-sponsored violence of such magnitude that there's no way it would have gone undetected or unreported. In other other words, these statistics may represent not more of such assaults but more people reporting such assaults, which, while itself a good thing, means the statistics cannot be taken at face-value.

I'm not trying to pick nits, but it seems to me that we must be rigorously honest in presenting statistics in order to avoid the accusation that we are "spinning" them as part of a political agenda.

[Mockingbird]

Reporting anti-gay hate crimes is always lower than the actual occurrence. Sometimes this is because of the victim's fear of further hate crimes, and sometimes it is because those in power don't report them correctly.

I was attacked in 1997. The police did their job. The local paper wouldn't cover it, even though I ran a local business, was on my way home from a business meeting, and was attacked in broad daylight in front of 12 witnesses.

They didn't think it was newsworthy. They didn't cover it until pressure was applied by a gay rights group.

I stand by my assertion that anti-gay hate crimes are underreported. And do not think they have decreased in frequency. I think they have become more violent and prolific.

[Jodi]

Reporting anti-gay hate crimes is always lower than the actual occurrence. Sometimes this is because of the victim's fear of further hate crimes, and sometimes it is because those in power don't report them correctly.

I think we can safely assume that the reported incidence of most crimes is lower than the actual incidence.

I stand by my assertion that anti-gay hate crimes are underreported. And do not think they have decreased in frequency. I think they have become more violent and prolific.

I never said that they were not or could not be under-reported. But the survey you cited only deals with reported ones, obviously -- you can't include the unreported in the survey. Your first assertion -- that such crimes have become more frequent -- apparently is not borne out by the survey you cite, though your second assertion -- that they have become more violent -- arguably is.

[Freedom]

. I think that they require education to see that they have no right to use their relgion as a cudgel to try and change or force gay men and women to be something they are not.

They want to change gay men because they find homosexual behavior abhorent.

You don't like their opinions.

You want to change them because you find their opinions abhorent.

They don't like your opinion.





This is not tolerance. On either side.

[Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Freedom2

They want to change gay men because they find homosexual behavior abhorent.

You don't like their opinions.

You want to change them because you find their opinions abhorent.

They don't like your opinion.


This is not tolerance. On either side.

Wrong. I want them to leave us alone and to cease and desist harassment. BIG DIFFERENCE. You don't see gay people running around killing straight people.

You do see self identified Christians running around and killing gay men, lesbians, and the transgendered. Tolerance is the fact that we don't do the same in return.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by Hastur
I stand by my assertion that anti-gay hate crimes are underreported. And do not think they have decreased in frequency. I think they have become more violent and prolific.

You may be right, although of course it is unprovable - how do we count unreported incidents?
I think, however, there may be a different way to interpret this - any increase in attacks, etc., may be a sign of desperation on the part of homophobes, not a sign of increased homophobia out there. To my mind, the bastards are losing.

Freedom2 I understand and appreciate your point, but I cannot agree. When we die, we may learn that David Duke or Louis Farrakhan or Hit (oops, no invoking Godwin's Law here ) were right. Even at that point, I don't have to respect a god that believes what I, in accordance with the free will this god gave me, think is wrong, and I would rather burn in hell then spend eternity worshipping such a deity.

Sua

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Freedom2
This is not tolerance. On either side.

I say the opposite. Neither side is being intolerant. Each has the right to hold and express the belief - one, that homosexuality is wrong, and the other, that such a belief is repugnant. What would be intolerent is if one side tried to stop the other from expressing or acting in accordance with their particular belief. That has not happened in this thread.

[DrMatrix]

Originally posted by IzzyR
What would be intolerent is if one side tried to stop the other from expressing or acting in accordance with their particular belief. That has not happened in this thread.

(bolding mine)

There is tolerence in this thread. However, I don't live in this thread. IRL, gays are being taunted, injured, and killed just for being what they are. Hastur said it very well. I would like to ask Freedom2 if (s)he can't see the difference between an unprovoked attack and saying that an unprovoked attack is wrong.

[Polycarp]

To Hastur and Jodi:

I do find it encouraging that statistics show a decline, and I think we're in agreement that statistics are underrepresentative of what actually happens.

But knowing both of you, I think you'd agree that

One hate crime is too many.

Which is the final point here.

I see a very strong shift in public attitude in the last 25 years -- gays have a choice whether to come out or stay in the closet now, depending on circumstances. And I see a long way to go yet.

[Freedom]

IzzyR:

What would be intolerent is if one side tried to stop the other from expressing or acting in accordance with their particular belief. That has not happened in this thread.

Hastur:

. I think that they require education to see that they have no right to use their relgion as a cudgel to try and change or force gay men and women to be something they are not.

Wrong. I want them to leave us alone and to cease and desist harassment. BIG DIFFERENCE. You don't see gay people running around killing straight people.

You do see self identified Christians running around and killing gay men, lesbians, and the transgendered. Tolerance is the fact that we don't do the same in return.

(insert equally misguided retort about child molestation here)

Commish:
(the only self-identified Christian on this thread so far)

I've been fortunate to have my parents teach me things while making sure I remain respectful to other points of view. The result, for me, on this subject at least, is that I think homosexuality is a sin, but I know several homosexuals who are very nice people. I don't hate them - I consider it a sin the same as losing your temper in most respects.

I think tolerance is where the problem lies. We can get along just fine despite disagreement, so long as we remain open to another's point of view and always respectful.

Goboy:

I am a First Amendment absolutist, and I defend free speech, no matter how repugnant.

Sorry about the quote fest, but I just wanted to make sure we were all reading from the same thread. The way I see this thread, Commish seems to have exhibited the most tolerant views so far. (besides me)_sorry


You can take all the examples you want from the extreme fringe, but that doesn't change what tolerance is all about when dealing with people like Commish and me. I think it is perfectly reasonable to have religous doubts about homosexuality, and not let it effect the way you treat others.

IOW...

I am not sure how I feel about the way you are living your life, but I accept that it is your life to live. I wish you the best and harbor no grudes against you.

That is not the same feeling I get from (self-identified) homosexuals on the board. I seem to get this feeling that they think they are in possesion of a "universal truth" and will not rest easy or respect others until they are in lockstep with the "proper" view on homosexuality.


SuaSponte

You brought up a point that had been kicking around in the back of my head. Are there certain points of view that are so repugnant that we should shun people who even think them? You hit my sensitive spot by citing race as your example. I guess there probably are, but the problem becomes identifying them without becoming thought police. I'm sure that your list of unacceptable thoughts and mine would signifigantly differ.(although not on all counts)


Cannabalism, Socialism and child sacrifice are probably my top three.

[Freedom]

I would like to ask Freedom2 if (s)he can't see the difference between an unprovoked attack and saying that an unprovoked attack is wrong.

Whatever are you talking about?




[sub]It's he, BTW[/b]

[IzzyR]

freedom

I'm not sure what you meant by your quotes. But you don't seem to have clarified just what you think is "intolerant" about anyone (in this case, goboy) expressing their opinion that a certain view of homosexuality is repugnant.

[DrMatrix]

Originally posted by Freedom2

Whatever are you talking about?

The intolerant attitudes towards homosexuals leads to unprovoked physical attacks. What you call the intolerant attitudes of homosexuals does not lead physical attacks, but it is just saying their intolerance is unacceptable because it provides justification for physical violence.

Can you not see the difference?

[Freedom]

The intolerant attitudes towards homosexuals leads to unprovoked physical attacks.

Which intolerant views? Do you consider Commish's views to be intolerant?

What you call the intolerant attitudes of homosexuals does not lead physical attacks, but it is just saying their intolerance is unacceptable because it provides justification for physical violence.

I have read that a bunch of times, and I'm not sure if I am reading your point correctly.

Are you saying that I am claiming that homosexuals are to blame for "gay-bashing."

I'm going to let you come back and clarify that before I go off half-cocked.

IzzyR


I think both Gogoy's and Hastur's views expressed in this thread at least border on intolerance. I understand that there are tons of people who are intolerant towards homosexuals, but that does not justify their feelings in return towards people with moderate beliefs.

I don't see Goboy expressing tolerance when he calls the views of Commish "repugnant." Nor do I see Hastur's call for re-education of Commish (and me) to be an example of tolerance.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Freedom2
I don't see Goboy expressing tolerance when he calls the views of Commish "repugnant." Nor do I see Hastur's call for re-education of Commish (and me) to be an example of tolerance.

Why not? They seem to be tolerating you. They are merely expressing their opinion (in goboy's case), and wishing you would change your's (in Hastur's)

[DrMatrix]

Originally posted by Freedom2

Which intolerant views? Do you consider Commish's views to be intolerant?

I dont want to drag TWTCommish's views into this. He seems to have accepted that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That's not an easy thing to do.

I have read that a bunch of times, and I'm not sure if I am reading your point correctly.

Are you saying that I am claiming that homosexuals are to blame for "gay-bashing."

NO, I was responding to:

Originally posted by Freedom2
They want to change gay men because they find homosexual behavior abhorent.

You don't like their opinions.

You want to change them because you find their opinions abhorent.

They don't like your opinion.





This is not tolerance. On either side.

If they find homosexual behavior abhorent, they should not practice homosexual behavior. But it's not their opinions that really bother me, it's the actions that result.

Hastur said it better than I:
Wrong. I want them to leave us alone and to cease and desist harassment. BIG DIFFERENCE. You don't see
gay people running around killing straight people.

You do see self identified Christians running around and killing gay men, lesbians, and the transgendered.
Tolerance is the fact that we don't do the same in return.

[gobear]

Freedom2 says I am being intolerant because I find Commish's views repugnant. He apparently thinks tolerance means an unqualified and total acceptance of other's views. There are many opinions I find appalling; for example, the beleif of white supremacists that blacks are an inferior race. I would be the first to defend the rights of racists to publish their views, but at the same time, I would also do my best to persuade them that their opinions are wrong.

The same goes for Commish. When he calls my sexual orientation, my capacity to love and be loved, or even have wild monkey sex, with same-sex partners a sin, he is branding me as inferior. I defend his right to publish his beliefs, but I will also do my best to show him that he is dead wrong.

What particularly gets under my skin is the idea that
Commish's and mine are equivalent. I don't tell Christians that their emotions, their love, and the poeple they care for are evil. When you call homosexuality a sin,
you're calling it intrinsically wrong. I don't support legislation that would deny Right-wing Christians [RWCs) equal protection under the law, but that's what RWCs do to us. I don't contribute to an atmosphere of intolerance that makes it unsafe to be visibly Christian, but that's what RWC pastors do when they denounce homosexuals as ungodly ad inferior.

[Mockingbird]

Originally posted by Freedom2

I don't see Goboy expressing tolerance when he calls the views of Commish "repugnant." Nor do I see Hastur's call for re-education of Commish (and me) to be an example of tolerance.

I never said you and the Commish needed reeducation. You chose to read that in to what I said. But, you seem to do that quite often, especially when people disagree with you or use a word that is more than three syllables.

I do think that you are intolerant in forcing your specific brand of tolerance. In fact, I find you a ludicrous spokesperson for tolerance when you are critical and at times hostile towards anyone who disagrees with your staunch Republican views and hero worship of the Shrub.

I find straight people preaching to gay people about tolerance about as accurate as white people trying to tell black people that they need to be more tolerant of the bigotry they have to deal with.

[Polycarp]

Goboy:

When he calls my sexual orientation, my capacity to love and be loved, or even have wild monkey sex, with same-sex partners a sin, he is branding me as inferior.

Hi. I ask you, and others reading this post, to read it very carefully, attribute nothing to me that is not explicit in it, and then react in a debaterly manner, rather than in anger.

It is possible to make statements regarding what the Bible has to say about homosexual activity that class it as "sinful" without therefore targeting you and other gay people as "inferior" -- but those who do such things are few and far between.

In the Christian view, "we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." I know I have: I do not love each and every other person as I love myself all the time. There are some judgmental jerks out there that tick me off, and I have a hard time dealing with them.

I personally don't have any problem with your sexuality -- not that my opinion matters; it's between you and God, not me, Jerry Falwell, Troy Perry, or anybody else having any say in the subject. And I think you can love another man in accord with what He has to say about it. Though every time I try to debate a conservative Christian on the subject, one of two things happens: either he quits posting to the thread, or he quotes the Scripture as though how he reads it is the only possible way to understand it.

However, be that as it may, it is possible to say, "Hey, goboy, having wild monkey sex with a different partner every night is sinful, not what God gave you a sex drive for -- which is to physically express your love for your life mate, be that man or woman" and not be saying "you as a gay man are an inferior and not fully human person."

Typically, of course, people who are expressing this sort of view are pulling down the verses of Scripture we both know as proof-texts against "homosexuality" -- nobody ever draws the line between orientation, act, person, and abstract concept in these cases! -- and will carefully explain to you that you're bound for Hell unless you give up that aspect of your self. (Of course, for them to give up heterosexuality and live celibately is not necessary; God approves of that, on their POV!) The fact that Jesus was inclined to forgive any sexual peccadillo and judge harshly those who sat in judgment over others -- especially if they were guilty of the same thing -- seems to escape them.

But I just wanted to stress that a good Christian could say, "I'm a sinner; so are you; and only through Jesus are we entitled to God's grace," and not be putting you down in particular for your so-called " gay lifestyle" -- another word that it seems hard to pin down a conservative Christian about the meaning of.

This is not my particular cup of tea; the God I serve is more interested in love than in earmarking sins and checking out whether you've gone through the proper process for conversion. But I felt it deserved the case being made for it -- since I know there are some good Christians who think like that and are not judging you (or at least not as harshly as they judge themselves).

OK? Did I avoid sounding recriminatory on anybody?

[Freedom]

You do see self identified Christians running around and killing gay men, lesbians, and the transgendered.

Let me say this another way. I think this is as worthless and relevant an arguement as someone throwing around cites about child molestation to prove homosexuals are evil.

You chose to read that in to what I said. But, you seem to do that quite often, especially when people disagree with you or use a word that is more than three syllables.

While I can't say for sure if you would lump me in to the group you label as "intolerant," you surely did say that you think intolerant people require re-education. You also think I "force" my brand of tolerance upon others.

You seem to think that tolerance encompasses accepting and tolerating the intolerant. I think that they require education to see that they have no right to use their relgion as a cudgel to try and change or force gay men and women to be something they are not.

I admit that I tend to use hyperbole and exaggeration in my posts, but then, you may recognize the style from your own replies.


Current example being:

. In fact, I find you a ludicrous spokesperson for tolerance when you are critical and at times hostile towards anyone who disagrees with your staunch Republican views and hero worship of the Shrub.

You may be surprised to find out I do not worship the shrub, I do not readily self-identify with Republicans and the only person I can remember being openly hostile to was Stoidela, and that was not because she merely "disagreed" with my views.

Hopefully Polycarp, being a much less polarizing figure on the board, will have better luck expressing the idea I was trying to get across.

Taking my personality out of it, do you have any specific complaints with the scenario he presented?