Well said, GOBEAR.
I should have been clearer.
I was agreeing with Jodi’s point that sexual orientation is not currently included in the list of classes that cannot be discriminated against. Nor are gays allowed to marry in the eyes of the state.
To bring about either of these would involve a change in existing laws. lissener’s apparent unwillingness to engage in civil debate is not going to make such a change more likely.
Whether or not you agree that changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions is “equal rights”, or whether or not you agree that “homophobia” should be addressed by adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes (such as race or religion), this seems to be the approach that is being advocated. And, that seems to be the way that the laws are written.
Even if you define gay marriage as “equal rights”, you are still advocating a change in existing law and existing mores. Which people offended by hysterical accusations of homophobia instead of convinced by rational debate are less likely to support.
As I said in another thread, simply saying that gay marriage is an equal right doesn’t establish that it is. But even if you think that it does, you are advocating a change to the status quo - and such a change is less likely to be granted if you simply rant hysterically at anyone who questions you.
Regards,
Shodan
Depends on where you are, but Minnesota for one has anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation:
[Quote]
(http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/states/record?record=23#State)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Shodan *
I should have been clearer.
I was agreeing with Jodi’s point that sexual orientation is not currently included in the list of classes that cannot be discriminated against. Nor are gays allowed to marry in the eyes of the state.
[quote]
Well, yes, that’s the point of this whole debate.
Allowing same-sex marriage requires the repeal of DOMA, which is nowhere near as extensive a change in American mores as recongizing the legal and social equality of blacks and women.
[quote]
Even if you define gay marriage as “equal rights”, you are still advocating a change in existing law and existing mores. Which people offended by hysterical accusations of homophobia instead of convinced by rational debate are less likely to support.
[quote]
That’s two points, not one. I already addressed the first point, and I agree with the second, that people are more likely to be swayed by rational debate than by hysterical ranting.
Now the question is, are you willing to be persuaded that gay marriage ought to be legal, or is your mind permanently closed to the idea? What would you require to sway your opinion?
[quote]
I have to agree with this. Gay rights, one way or another, is a rational issue, that should not be decided by how you feel about one particular gay guy.
OTOH, what makes someone like myself more suspicious is the hostility towards religion and religious people that is frequently exhibited by some of the more militant gays here (& elsewhere) - this kind of makes me a bit apprehensive of the impact of this group attaining more political power and acceptability. But the mere fact that some gay guy adopts a strident tone means nothing at all.
I would disagree here. Actually the thing with lissener is if you look past all his insults he actually does have some serious substance. In this he compares quite favorably with a lot of the other visible gay activists here, many of whom are simpleminded drive-by nitwits.
Personally I would prefer a guy who actually has something to say, even if he also chooses to toss in some obnoxious jive along the way, over someone who has nothing other than some glib slogans.
But that could just be me. Others may have different tastes. Still, I figured I’d toss that out as one guy’s opinion.
There is a great deal of merit in the preceding posts (although I no longer even bother to read Shodan’s or Tars’s posts, so I’ll except them from that judgment).
IRL, I am not the kind of “militant activist” that these threads distill my attitudes into. I work with gay youth, in a very positive and supportive manner, and deal politely–if perhaps coldly–with the Salvation Army drones who donate food to the house as a way to get their foot in the door and Kill a Soul for Jesus. My activism, in that setting, extends no further than to making sure never to leave a spiritualizer alone in the room with a vulnerable kid, or to telling a kid who’s struggling with his het peers that he or she may need to focus on their own needs for a while and not worry so much about what others think (an age-appropriate version of my own “fuckem, move on” philosophy). When I encounter someone whose worldview does not include an equal place for me—or the kids I work with—I tend generally to simply shut down around them; boycott them, kind of; they’ll get none of me (beyond minimal social niceties) because they don’t deserve me.
In here, however—again in deference to the Board as a community—if I’m turning away from someone, I feel obliged to explain why I’m turning away.
In a situation where, IRL, I’d simply make a mental note not to go there with this or that person, IDL (In Dope Life?), I usually feel I must serve notice of that fact. If that Doper—or another Doper—challenges me on this, I usually lack the sense to take my own advice, and I continue to “debate” with them. Then these threads deteriorate into a kind of “last man standing” pissing contest, in which I find myself indulging in equal parts last-wordism and dutiful engagement. Along the way, the occasional supporter who chimes in on my “side” shows more sense than me and finds a more rewarding thread in which to participate. And I, rather than let a dying fire just goddamn die, can’t resist the urge to feed it just enough more fuel to keep it from going peacefully out.
Needless to say, this can lead nowhere but to a kind of Moebius waltz of hollower and hollower inanities. I am an idiot enabler.
I apologize for ignoring my own advice and continuing the dance after all the serious dancers have gone home.
I apologize to those whose beliefs on this topic are similar to mine, but whose approach to it is different, to the extent that they believe I harm their “cause.” I cannot believe that I can have that kind of impact on ANYONE’s thinking, so this is not a very sincere apology.
I apologize to those who just want to poke the beast and see him snarl, for snarling on command and reinforcing your behavior. This is not a very sincere apology either.
The only sincere apology I can offer is to those gay kids I work with, for failing—despite trying very hard to be true to myself and my experiences—to make any difference in the larger world into which they must take their struggle. I hope, however, I can at least show them how not to be personally defeated by the Shodans, Tars Tarkases, Svt4Hims, and—despite his apparently sincere wish to examine, but ultimately indulge, his prejudices—Res Ipsa Loquitors of the world. (How dare you cavalierly debate whether you “approve” of my existence? My existence is not open to debate.)
I’m glad there are people like gobear to teach these kids some of the other tools they’ll need; I’ve got none of that left.
Well said
Well, given the negative attitude of many Christians toward gay folks, you can’t really blame gay folk for feeling negative towrd the church in response. Bear in mind, though, that there just as many gay Christians, Jews, and Muslims as there are gay atheists. Moreover, the “militant gays” you describe (and what a 70s-sounding phrase that is) are most definitely a minority. Many gay folks are indifferent to the issue and the two leading gay lobby groups, the NGLTF and the HRC, are way too accomodating to the status quo.
So much for civility.
And just who do you believe to be “simpleminded drive-by nitwits”? Names, please?
[Squiggy] Hello! [/Squiggy] 
I accept your apology.
Come on, man, you’re like the Ceausescu of Gay Rights. You are not even civil to strangers (unless, of course, they themselves become militant against homophobia, right?) In retrospect, perhaps I should have hurled some spittle at Res Ipsa Loquitur, just to get on your good side…
lissener, food for thought:
Act uprightly, and despise Calumny; Dirt may stick to a Mud Wall, but not to polish’d Marble. - Benjamin Franklin
I am willing to listen to the arguments on both sides.
But I don’t think that is going to happen in the Pit.
Regards,
Shodan
I am by default civil to strangers, Mr. B. And I am acting, as far as my understanding goes, uprightly, though a more appropriate chestnut might be: “I’m rubber, you’re glue; whatever you say bounce off me and sticks to you.” A similar sentiment to Mr. Franklin’s, but with the implication that I consciously refuse to allow flung mud to stick to me, and that the flinging of mud is more likely to stain the flinger than me.
And B, why won’t anybody get this:
I am not the Ceausescu of Gay Rights; nor am I the MLK or the Malcolm X, nor the Ghandi, nor the Abbie Hoffman, nor the Ralph Nader of Gay Rights. I am simply the lissener of Gay Rights; as I am the lissener of everything else in my life. No more, no less.
I think you may have missed Mr. B.'s preposition “like”. Of course, I almost missed it laughing at the Squiggy reference. 
OK, but the reason is not as relevant as the fact.
Quite likely. Many of the gay people, on and off this board, are regular people with regular interests, like anyone else. Thing is, that this tends to make them and their less militant attitude less visible on gay issues. (One of the finest posters on this board is gay, but I was unaware of this fact until he made some chance post on the subject. But for the very reason that this guy is not in the middle of every gay thread yelling and screaming about his humanity, he does not reflect the image of gays to the extent that the more aggressive ones do.)
Still, I seem to recall one of the leading gay publications (Outweek?) calling the death of Cardinal O’Conner the best event of whatever year it was that he died in. And similar such.
No need for this. My opinion is a subjective one, based on my readings of multiple posts by these guys - it’s not something that can be debated with links to a few quotes. And my point here is not to attack any specific posters - it was brought up by those who suggest that lissener’s approach is to be compared unfavorably with that of other posters who support the same cause - my point is I prefer the former type. (And in any event, I referred to “visible” gay activists. Due to their very visibility, everyone knows who they are, and can form their own opinion, without my input.)
Who’s debating your existence? I like people, even the gay ones. On some level, I even like you, lissener, although you’re making it really, really, really hard to do so. What I have are open questions about a particular aspect of your behavior and/or beliefs. I’m from a different upbringing than you. I approach things from a different perspective. Why can’t you do for me what I’m trying to do for you?
Or would you–quite honestly–prefer to see me loaded onto a truck and driven someplace far, far away merely because, due to a number of factors, I have a different outlook than you? I can’t give you an unconditional acceptance of homosexuality, which, when it all boils down, is what you want. I do not have the capacity to honestly give you this right now. In the alternative, what is it you want???
Nice of you to continue to shove words or–from your quote above, thoughts–onto me. Sigh.
I’m scared of everyone, personally… homo sapien phobe?
What you refuse to understand, Res, is that, yes, in fact, you ARE debating my existance. This is what I cannot get across to you. You think that you’re just discussing “a particular aspect of my behavior and/or beliefs,” but what I and others are trying to tell you is that you are wrong if you think that’s what you’re debating. Quite simply, no gray area, wrong, Res. Until you grasp that you must undergo a total paradigm change, that you must approach this whole issue from an entirely new perspective, you’re simply not understanding what you’re talking about.
Gobear? somebody? Please?
A), this is hysterical bullshit. Trucks? and B) you must understand that you don’t have a different outlook from me, you have a different outlook from reality. You are not yet prepared to enter this discussion, because you have yet to gain a real grasp of the terms and the issues. If we were going to have a debate about art, but first you wanted to discuss your strong personal belief that the color red is immoral, I would judge you ill-prepared for a serious discussion on the subject. Your approach, your perspective, your paradigm is just as wrong as this example. You want to debate, first, seriously, the morality of red, before we discuss art. I don’t have to do that. Or rather, I’ve done ENOUGH of that. You go get your basic tools ready, and then we can discuss. Sorry for the transparent arrogance, but I’m tired—tired tired TIRED—of Homosexuality 101, especially if you’re gonna argue with me when I tell you that “red is immoral” is an utterly nonsensical position. This course has prerequisites. (Esprix? We need a link here.)
No I don’t. I could care less. YOU’LL need to learn to “unconditionally accept” it—to accept reality—for your own good, out in the big bad world. To believe that it’s something that it’s up to YOU to decide whether to accept it or not is LUDICROUS, and naïve and solipsistic. It’s YOU who needs to “accept” it; not me who wants you to.
Nothing; you’re on your own.
Sorry; should have made it clearer that the REASON you’re on your own as far as I’m concerned is that I am simply personally tired of feeling responsible for the gaps in your education. Your parents, your church, your society, have taught you wrong, and I’m just tired of it, that’s all.
So I limit my exchanges on this topic. I’ve grown extremely lazy. If I’m talking to someone, even if they start from the same position you’re stuck in, Res, and they respond, as you have, basically, “Sorry, I’m not convinced of your fully equal, morally neutral existance as a fellow human being and creation of god; please try harder to get through to me, while I push harder in resistance,” my lazy reaction is, “No, sorry, I got laundry. Talk to Esprix.”
If however, you go, “Really? Hm. Never thought about it from that perspective,” I’ll remain engaged, for the moment. I’m just not interested in convincing anybody of anything anymore is all. I’ll share, I’ll explain, I’ll OVERshare, and OVERexplain. But I will not argue, and I will not FIGHT you to acknowledge my humanity, because I don’t NEED your acknowledgment.
I always find these things so late (can’t you people drop my name earlier next time?). This is gonna be a read, isn’t it? 
Esprix
Yes, but parts of it will be FASKinatin.
Hey, I’ve never blamed anybody for this: indeed, since I’m working from the perspective that I don’t have any gaps in my education, it’d be funny if I sought to blame someone for that. All I ask for is an acknowledgement that I have a perspective. I’m told that I must extend this courtesy to gays; I just wish the feeling was reciprocal.
I thought I was doing the latter. Maybe I haven’t been doing that clearly enough, but I’d hoped that my mere prescence on the SDMB and the fact that I was actively engaging these issues was enough. The common battle cry around here is that we’re in a fight against ignorance. The difficulty around here is that, like it or not, everyone around here has different ideas about what “ignorance,” and conversely “knowledge,” are. I realize that various perspectives around here will clash, and this will hit home in many cases. But, we’re still working towards that shared goal of fighting ignorance, and my initial impression of this place was that we’d all help each other along to whatever degree necessary.
Your second post seemed considerably calmer and more patient, and I thank you for that. In the interest of extending the olive branch and getting on with our lives, I’m again prepared to 1) ask a Moderator to close this thread, and 2) get back to debating elsewhere. I hate the ongoing bitching. I see the Christian and gay cultures as on an inevitable collision course, and I’m loathe to think of the long-term consequences if a happy medium is never reached. (This is almost certainly an oxymoron. I’m naively hoping it isn’t.) Part of my purpose of this thread was to express that effort needs to be extended from BOTH sides, not just mine. Maybe this thread has made things worse, I don’t know.
So, close the thread?