Women and voting: if you consider the Constitution, from 1776 to 1920, but Seneca Falls was 1848. 1920 was the 19th Amendment.
It’s not completely anomalous, though. The women’s suffrage movement came out of many like-minded people who were abolitionists, but the women’s suffrage movement also resisted black women, and it was split.
No one doubted that women existed in a natural state. They doubted their ability to make proper decisions (this was also tied to property rights and marriage, but anywho).
Gays have it threefold: Those that deny you can be born gay (or that all gays are born as such) and those who also feel that gays can’t make proper decisions in regards to child-rearing. Finally, there are those that legitimately feel that same sex marriage will encroach upon their religious rights, e.g., the government will someday only recognize marriages where officiates agree to do it for all, or the government will strip non-profit status for those that don’t recognize same-sex marriage.
Do you know what pretty much de-segregated hospitals in the South?
Medicaid.
Hospitals that practiced segregation and discrimination wouldn’t get funding. Bazzing!
So what happens if same-sex marriage is allowed under federal law? People are worried that if the LBGT movement is unified, then they will wonder about sex change operations and God knows what.
In the 70s, people were worried that abortions would be federally funded. Well, they (indirectly) are.
Yeah, and not too far from here, a kid name Matthew Shepard suffered a poor fate. Do you really think that gay people in Texas or Alabama feel as comfortable as you?
Sounds vaguely familiar to all your [del]garbage[/del] verbiage about proper displays of deviance and gay pride.
Those sound similar to the excuses and lame arguments made for not giving other people their rights, funny how that works.
Are we playing random trivia now? Are gays demanding that the federal government fund their marriage?
Wow, you just keep pulling rabbits out of your hat - gay marriage will lead to sex change operations. Where do you get this crap?
Cite? The water you drink is federally funded (indirectly).
Since I’m a straight woman who lives in Canada, I doubt it. Was there some point to this comment? Are you really claiming that there has been no progress on gay acceptance in society during the past 50 years?
I don’t think that’s what she’s saying - I think she’s saying that people worry that increased acceptance of gays will lead to increased acceptance of transsexuals. Apparently, she views as a negative, which needless to say is all kinds of fucked up.
Okay, I can accept that that’s how most people who aren’t me think. Now, what am I supposed to do with that data point? Why did you bring it up? What action or response do you think is warranted by the knowledge that people who see a unified LGBT rights front are worried that there will be more sex changes in the future? Is this an argument for jettisoning transsexuals from the gay rights movement? If that’s not your argument, what is your argument?
Not sure why you think anyone’s claiming that transexualism and homsexuality is the same thing, when it was you who brought transexualism up.
Thing is, even if what you were saying were true - that the more outlandish people at Pride damage the movement towards more rights for gay people - what’s the solution? I mean, we’re talking men in pantomime drag, women with fake moustaches, and leather Daddies, nothing that’s against public indecency laws. The only way to stop them from participating in Pride would be to be, well, homophobic - ‘no float for you - you’re the wrong type of gay.’
The people who are more obviously gay are the ones who get more stick for it, whichever part of the country they live in. They are the ones who need gay Pride more than the ones like me who pass for straight except when having sex.
Seriously, Miller? It’s that hard for you? I hope you have no aspirations to be an attorney. If you want to fight a battle, you have to attack the other side instead of just saying, “NEENER NEENER!” Haven’t we covered this on SD already?
I was of the understanding that transsexual was different than fetishism or cross-dressing. Most transsexuals are not gay. So when someone says “transsexuals” and “gay” in the same sentence, I feel the need to point out that they the first is not always the latter.
Duh.
Please read the quoted obvious.
Why is ‘gay’ a catch-all? Didn’t we establish that drag queens aren’t gay(if you consider drag queens as queens for entertainment purposes and no other types of cross dressers)? Transvestic fetishism is not the same as a cross-dressing drag queen or a transsexual.
There is nudity and indecent exposure that happens at a lot of the big city parades and no one is prosecuted. Don’t deny it.
And I actually think that is there is no law banning boobie tassels and thongs down Madison Ave., there should be.
I kind of feel like the stereotypical flaming gay guy is somewhat endeared in today’s culture, but I see what you mean. Still, you’re grouping everyone together when it’s not the case, and I’m not just talking about effeminate voices or the ability to dress well.
You brought up transsexuals and sex change operations, so I don’t know why you are highlighting a quote of mine in red. I never said transsexuals are gay, although many of them are, I specifically grouped them under the term sexual “deviants” since that seems to be the angle you are coming at this from. Feel free to replace gay with LGBT or the new LGBTQQIA , it had nothing to do with my point. I’m coming away from this thread with the distinct impression that you don’t like anyone under the LGBTQQIA umbrella who is not exactly like you. Why you think the rest of us should give this any weight I don’t know; that you think some groups don’t deserved to be seen or heard is intolerance and that’s your problem.
Polls show that the majority of people support gay marriage, this is an important step towards changing laws and granting rights*. Someday those rights will be extended to gays, even the ones you speak disparagingly about, and hopefully those rights will extend to transsexuals as well.
That said, I’m done with this thread.
I’m not trying to fight a battle, I’m trying to get a clear answer out of you. Why can’t you just answer the question? What was your purpose in introducing transsexuals into the discussion, and what role should the popular opinion of transsexualism play in their position as part of the LGBT alliance?
But you’re the one who first linked homosexuality to transsexualism in this thread. Nobody had brought up the idea at all, until you suddenly started talking about sex change operations in connection with the gay rights movement. So I’m not entirely clear why you think it’s the other people in this thread who need to have this distinction made clear to them, when you’re the only one who has exhibited any trouble separating the two groups.
He’s not going “neener neener.” He is asking you what in the world you are trying to say, and I’m just as confused as he is (and it’s not just me and Miller). I don’t see how your comments about gay pride parades and anti-gay marriage laws add up to an argument.
This has absolutely no connection to anything you and I have discussed in this thread at all. (For the record, I think it’s going to take a while, but eventually the anti-gay marriage amendments will be seen as an embarrassment and repealed.) I think you need to pause, figure out what you’re trying to communicate, and start again.
These comparisons are about 50 percent terrible and 50 percent ridiculous. And again, the gay rights movement has made a lot of progress in spite the negative image you say is coming from gay pride parades. I get the sense at this point that you’re not interested in explaining your view and are just going to repeat yourself until everybody else gives up. Yes, I understand you think it creates a bad image. The problem with your argument is that you can’t prove any harm has come from this image, that gays have made a ton of progress in spite of the image, and that in most places people are so inured to the image of gay pride parades that they don’t provoke a reaction anymore. The core of this message is that younger people today have been raised in a pretty gay-friendly environment and parades of guys who look like they were in The Village People are not going to offend them. That stuff is seen as quaint at this point. There’s no reversing that. Some older conservatives are bitching and moaning, and in some places they have managed to get anti-gay marriage laws passed. But their views on gays are going to die with them. You can’t rebut that with “the parades are too sexual!!!”
Marley, you can’t prove any positive has come from the modern image of gay parades.
I didn’t set out to prove something that cannot be quantified (much like you can’t, either). I said imo, in the quest for same sex marriage, this shit looks bad because people judge what they see. If you put the bedroom on Main Street, some people are going to be uneasy.
There’s a reason why there aren’t pride parades in Duluth or pockets of the South.
Okay, fine it’s not your logic, you’re just explaining to us what conservatives think.
I still don’t understand why you explained it. What should we do with the knowledge about how conservatives think? What course of action are you proposing based on this knowledge? What’s the relevancy of your observation?
CitizenPained, you cannot say shit like this in a conversation on a message board. This is the internet and we have Google.
Incidentally Minneapolis, of all places, was recently voted the gayest (or most gay friendly or something) city in America. I learned about it from The Daily Show, but underneath all the jokes was an illustration of the fact that gays are now seen as another group of people who are looking for a quiet life in the suburbs, not a bunch of flaming deviants.
http://outoberfest.com/
“October 22-24 in Jackson Mississippi. Mississippi’s gay pride festival.”
Name an American city where you think nobody would ever have a gay pride parade and I’ll find a gay pride parade in it or near it. All you need to do is type [name of city] + gay pride parade into Google. This is easy. There is no reason for you to post easily falsifiable nonsense like this when you can take one minute to find out if it’s true (and if you won’t, someone else will).
> If you want to talk evidence, look at voting patterns.
The pattern is the same for polls and voting on every issue related to homosexual rights (i.e., same-sex marriage, civil unions, homosexuality not being a crime, homosexuals not being discriminated against in hiring for jobs, homosexuals being allowed to be in the armed forces, whether someone would refuse to associate with a homosexual relative, whether someone would vote for an open homosexual, etc.) in every region in the U.S. The pattern is that the movement is basically always toward more rights and acceptance for homosexuals, and the percentage on the poll increases by approximately 1% to 2% each year towards acceptance.
That doesn’t mean that in every poll the current percentage is above 50%. It means that the percentage is moving upward. This is one of those cases where it’s more useful to look at the trends than at the results of any particular poll (or any particular vote or any particular court ruling). I know some people don’t like to think like this, but this is what happens on any major issue where the opinion of the public is what’s important. Nothing ever changes fast.
To nitpick, I believe the polls have shown a somewhat sharper rise over the last year or two than previous. It’s two too early, of course, to tell if this rate will keep up, or is just a little bump.
