Sterra, please define equality, 'cause I can’t even come close to agreeing with that. We have rich people and poor, fat and skinny, beautiful and ugly, smart and dumb, need I go on? Add all the possible variations and the benefits (or lack thereof) accrued as a result, and I can’t reasonably conclude that people are equal in more than just the fact that we’re bipedal hominids with oppposable thumbs. I can stay up here on my soapbox and scream to the high heavens that I’m worth every bit as much as Charlize and I want what she has, and will I get it? Not only no, but HELL NO! And if by chance, someone comes along, pats me on the head and says, “there, there, you’re validated, too”, will that help? HA. Life sucks for all but a select few.
First off, thanks for the blessing. I need all the help from all the deities I can get.
I don’t feel the need to be accepted. If I did, I wouldn’t be the geek I am; I’d much rather be happy with who I am.
The question of tolerance versus acceptance is one of definition. Basically, I don’t care if you don’t like me, as long as you treat me fairly, based on the same criteria that you apply to everybody else. So, if your definition of tolerance includes not getting the crap beaten out of me for who I am, being fired for who I am, or being judged in any way for a sexual orientation that I had no part in choosing, I’ll happily settle for being tolerated.
And equality under the law, from my understanding, is the goal of the gay rights movement.
In my state, Arizona, consensual oral or anal sex between adults was illegal until just months ago. That effectively made it illegal for gay people to have a sex life, which some of us, I’ve heard, do have. (Just a rumor, mind you. I don’t have any empirical evidence of late. Prospective research subjects may email me at will.) This sort of legislative discrimination is, in my opinion, despicable; the state is legitimizing one form of sex, and criminalizing others, thus turning gay people into a criminal class.
That’s the sort of thing we’re working to correct. Does that sound objectionable to you?
I just noticed… iampunha thinks I’m a fine man! Hear that, y’all? He said I’m fine!
[sub]MrV goes off and finds a mirror… Wow. Hey. I am fine. How’m I doin’? Fine![/sup]
You have an extremely skewed view of equality.
Theoretically, in the USA, rich people have the same rights as poor people. Fat people have the same rights as skinny people, etc, etc. Need I go on?
Being fat does not make a person unequal to a thin person. It makes them different from one another. There are no extra rights afforded to any one of those groups of people you mentioned. We’re talking about being equal in the eyes of the law and being afforded the same rights and privileges as anyone else under the law. We’re not talking about any special benefits that may come from one’s physical appearance.
**
This is totally away from the point. You are talking aobut special privleges and benefits coming from being a celebrity. What does that have to doing with equal rights? Nobody just handed Charlize Theron what she has. She set out to be a successful actress and got it herself. Again though, this is beside the point, since according to the law, you ARE entitled to the same sort of things Charlize Theron has. You just have to work to get it.
You do not have the right to be rich and famous. You do not have the right to live in luxury and have whatever you desire hadned to you on a silver platter. That is NOT what gays are asking for. They want the basic rights other people in the USA have. They want to be able to work without being fired just for being gay. They want to get married. They want discrimination against them to be illegal, just as discrimination against blacks or women is illegal.
Would making it illegal end it? No, just as it hasn’t ended discrimination against women and blacks and other minorities. But it would help them to be equal in the eyes of the law, which is all they are asking. Not for anything special, just the same as every other human being in the USA.
How is this anywhere near the same as comparing wanting to have the same luxuries as a celebrity? That is one of the most childish comparisons I’ve seen. How old are you anyway?
**
And, just it case it hasn’t sunk in, gays aren’t asking people to make their lives not suck. They just want it to suck on the same level as other citizens.
As a straight woman myself, this is the thing that really bothers me about your post, NaSultainne. Women have been discriminated against for centuries. Couldn’t own property, couldn’t vote, were allowed to be beaten by their husbands, even called defective and divorced if they didn’t produce sons.
There are still countries where all of the above are true for women (even though science proves otherwise on the last point). Should that continue? I mean hell, there are alots of people that are “merely tolerated”. Why should women be any different, right?
This is no different. I didn’t elect to be a woman, Mr. Visible didn’t elect to be gay. It’s simply Who We Are. Why should either of us be granted less than, oh say, Joe Straight, simply because we were are not straight men?
As members of the recently opressed*, I would think that we would be more understanding of this injustice and do what we can to, at the very least, not perpetuate it further.
*it was very hard not to put a winkey smiley there.
I think the main goal is equality in the eys of the law.
It’s not illegal to hate women, or blacks, or them damned forriners. If you get caught firing them or injuring them because they are <fill in blank> you get in trouble.
This is what gays and their supporters are trying to accomplish. Not child molestation, not special privledges, not converts to the “gay lifestyle”, just the legal rights given to any straight human being under the law.
I hanestly don’t see how this can be objectionable to anyone with the ability to reason.
“Let’s treat people fairly!”
“No! Some people are icky!”
Its a silly position.
Of course I’m one of those “Equal Pay for Equal Work” idiots as well. Me and my shiny ideals.
So you’re in agreement with me that someone’s sexual behavior should have no bearing on whether or not they can be a Scoutmaster. Cool, 'cause that point was getting a bit lost in your other homophobic ramblings.
Have you ever been one of those people whose life doesen’t suck and one whose does? Life sucks for everyone. Whatever you do your life is only defined by what you perceive. Tangible things do not matter as much as your perspective on them.
-
-
- You are all abortions of shoebags. - MC
-
It’s official, MC has nothing more to add to the conversation and is resorting to outright childishness.
Thanks for bringing up such a valid and interesting point MC. That will truly cause me to reevaluate my point of view and my life in general as I have never seen such a wonderful, thought out, and generally all around great post. My life’s goal is to live up to the words of that post and try to find out what the hell a “shoebag” is and why it should be insulting. All my shoes have always come in boxes.
Well, it seems like this thread is about to carom off on another interesting tangent.
NaSultainne, I think you have some legitimate questions, and you deserve good answers. If you’re open to a polite discussion on the topic at hand, this forum is probably not the best place to work things out.
What I’d suggest doing is starting a thread in IMHO, entitled something like “I’d like to learn more about gay people”. Ask your questions carefully, phrase them well, don’t accuse anyone of anything, and keep your mind open to the answers.
A lot of people have questions about gay people. There’s a long-running thread in Great Debates, currently in its fourth incarnation, called Ask The Gay Guy. In it, Esprix and others answer questions about homosexuality in general; if you take the time to read all four, first off you get the Persistence Prize, and secondly you’ll find it’s an excellent foundation for a lot of knowledge about gay issues.
If you’re willing to learn, this is a great place to do so. There are a lot of good people around who are here, specifically, to help. Treat people with respect, and you’ll get respect in return.
I look forward to seeing more of your posts.
-
-
- Some of you are freely picking examples of oppression not quite relevant: as I pointed out, the BSA is a social organization, not a governmental or commercial organization. The point being, a social group conveys nothing that you can’t obtain otherwise, but a government certainly does and a commercial organization might. - MC
-
Thanks to whomever for signing me up for gay e-mails.
You’re hilarious, and mighty small where it counts.
Umm… ouch? Feel the burn?
Yeesh.
Some people need to go through flame school. “Abortions of shoebags”? What the hell is that?!?
Band Name of the Week. What else?
-
-
- Well, yes they are, in my example: I was using the example of a drug dealer as “someone you would probably have a generally low attitude about”, not as if being gay was equatable morally with dealing drugs. The discussion here was over prejudices, those being one’s opinion of others, not any actual assessment of those others by themselves.
~
-Try to understand: the basis of a prejudice is of opinions, not facts. An opinion is a future estimate based on past experience, and a fact is a past event that is already known. You cannot “prove” an opinion to be right or wrong in the future any more than you can predict a fact that you already know to be true in the past.
~
- Well, yes they are, in my example: I was using the example of a drug dealer as “someone you would probably have a generally low attitude about”, not as if being gay was equatable morally with dealing drugs. The discussion here was over prejudices, those being one’s opinion of others, not any actual assessment of those others by themselves.
-
- I refuse to elaborate on the “abortions of shoebags” issue any further. - MC
From the United States Code, Title 36, “Patriotic Socities and Observances,” Chapter 2, “Boy Scouts of America”:
36 USC 522: The name of the corporation created by this chapter shall be ‘‘Boy Scouts of America’’, and by that name it shall have perpetual succession, with power to sue and be sued in courts of law and equity within the jurisdiction of the United States; to hold such real and personal estate as shall be necessary for corporate purposes, and to receive real and personal property by gift, devise, or bequest; to adopt a seal, and the same to alter and destroy at pleasure; to have offices and conduct its business and affairs within and without the District of Columbia and in the several States and Territories of the United States; to make and adopt by-laws, rules, and regulations not inconsistent with the laws of the United States of America, or any State thereof, and generally to do all such acts and things (including the establishment of regulations for the election of associates and successors) as may be necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this chapter and promote the purposes of said corporation.
36 USC 5504: For purposes of training and competition, the Corporation may issue or loan, with or without charges to recover administrative costs, caliber .22 rimfire and caliber .30 surplus rifles, caliber .22 and .30 ammunition, air rifles, targets, and other supplies and appliances necessary for activities related to the Civilian Marksmanship Program to the following:
(1) Organizations affiliated with the Corporation that provide
training in the use of firearms to youth.
**(2) The Boy Scouts of America. **
(3) 4-H Clubs.
(4) Future Farmers of America.
(5) Other youth-oriented organizations.
10 U.S.C. 2544 – The Secretary of Defense is hereby authorized, under such regulations as he may prescribe, to lend to the Boy Scouts of America, for the use and accommodation of Scouts, Scouters, and officials who attend any national or world Boy Scout Jamboree, such cots, blankets, commissary equipment, flags, refrigerators, and other equipment and without reimbursement, furnish services and expendable medical supplies, as may be necessary or useful to the extent that items are in stock and items or services are available…
16 U.S.C. 539f – Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to waive annually without charge all or a portion of payment or rental fees required under terms of a permit for use of certain lands of the National Forest System as organization camps by local units of the Boy Scouts of America or such other nonprofit organization when such local units of the Boy Scouts of America or such nonprofit organization are willing to perform services, as the Secretary prescribes and determines will yield a valuable benefit to the public and to the program of the Secretary of such lands. If the Secretary determines that a local unit of the Boy Scouts of America or such other nonprofit organization has not fully performed such services, such organization shall not be entitled in the subsequent year to waiver under the provisions of this section.
There are several more very specific references in U.S. law to priveleges given to the BSA. That’s an awful lot of government imprimatur given to an organization, especially one that’s allowed to violate anti-discrimination laws.
But go back to ignoring facts.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
First, to NaSultainne it seems you are making an effort to not be a total dickhead, so I guess I should make the same effort. But I must say, “homosexuality is a biological mistake” is bound get danders up, and it doesn’t really set you up as the most open-minded person on the planet. But, at least it seems you are earnestly seeking answers, as we all are, so I don’t need to be screaming and stamping my feet in the face of it.
Now … onto MC
If you don’t want to equate homosexuality to drug-dealers, why the hell, do you keep doing it? You’re like Dom Irera - “- I don’t mean that in a bad way.”
And why, exactly would you have a “generally low attitude” (whatever that means) toward a person because he is gay?
In fact let me put it this way - let’s say you meet a new friend, you enjoy each other’s company, you share interests, and have fun together. One day he tells you he’s gay - now he is no longer your friend, just because he isn’t attracted to the same people you are?
**
How do you separate the two? How do you have an opinion of others, and not assess them, by themselves (forgive me grammar mavens, I’m just trying to keep up with MC)
~
Ow, ow, ow, my head. Will you please stop writing sentences like that last one. They hurt.
You need to try to understand that prejudice is the holding of an opinion without the benefit of facts. And bigotry is holding that opinion in the face of facts.
So stop trying to hide your prejudice and bigotry behind, “That’s just my opinion,”, mkay.
Thank Buddha for small miracles.
(This is a continuation of my previous post.)
When it comes right down to it, the reason I do not accept the homosexual lifestyle is because I believe it is a sin. It is a behavior my faith find reprehensible. (I’m Catholic.)
Now some people love to argue about whether a homosexual is “born that way” or if it’s a “learned behavior.” When it comes right down to it, it really doesn’t matter. Think about it… do we ask if rapists are “born that way”? No, because it doesn’t matter. Do we ask if pedophiles are “born that way”? No, because it doesn’t matter. Do we ask if thieves and murderers are “born that way”? No, because it doesn’t matter; we simply declare that the behavior is wrong, and dole out the consequences accordingly. Now I understand homosexuality is not illegal, and is many orders of magnitude less deviant than thievery, murder, and pedophilia, but my point is still the same: Why do liberals insist some behaviors are determined “in the womb” (e.g. homosexuality), and others are not (e.g. pedophilia)?
To recapitulate, I don’t ask if a person with an unacceptable behavior (i.e. any behavior I find evil, immoral, or sinful) is “born that way or not”; it’s a stupid question to ask. It doesn’t matter. I simply look at it as a sin, and respond accordingly. This includes helping people change. Which brings me to my last point… many homosexuals have changed with the help of one-on-one counseling. I have read interviews with some of these people; they admit their behavior was immoral, and admit it was ultimately their own decision. Not surprisingly, the gay-rights crowd has attacked this treatment, saying either 1) Those individuals weren’t really gay to begin with (ha!), or 2) Those individuals are still gay, but are now living in denial (ha!).