I put this in the great debates because it contains enough humble opinions not to be a general question, and too many questions to be a humble opinion. Mods move it somewhere else if you think it is needed, though I’m not sure where. I’ve looked around through Google and in the SDMB search for information on this topic, but did not find much. What I am trying to learn is how can being gay be similar or the same as being of another race. Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but I have always wondered this. I believe that a gay man or woman should be able to say so publicly and not be treated any different. What you like to do and who you do it with is not my concern, unless its me ;).
Do we really need special rights for this? Do gays need to be classified as a race minority? I really don’t see the necessity. Time is all that is needed. People have come a long way in a short time in accepting the gay community. Same sex marriage will come in do time. I read a thread on someone complaining that Bush didn’t support Gay Pride Month, so what? You need the president to support you to be proud? Be gay and be proud, don’t expect everyone to agree with it. Gay history month might be alright, but still unlikely to go over well with conservatives. I’m sure there were some famous gay black men that are included in Black History Month or some gay Irish in Irish Heritage month, Native Americans, Asians…etc.
Homosexuality transcends race. Every race has homosexuals that have done extraordinary things. Can’t we celebrate their lives during those particular memorial months? Do we need a gay month? I have only minimal and fairly uniformed opinion on this, so I am not looking for anyone to refute what little opinion I’ve shown here, I just have questions that were too many to “ask the gay guy”. Esprix has a lot of more important work to do as it is, than to deal with these questions. Excuse the lengthy post.
Well, firstly, we don’t have the same rights that straight people enjoy. You see, to have special rights, we’d have to have MORE rights than someone else. We have LESS rights than straight people.
Except in Vermont, gay people cannot marry or have a civil union. In some states, it is illegal for us to have consentual sex.
Regarding jobs… many of us have been fired in the past for the simple fact that we are gay. I was fired three times when they found out I was gay.
As we are every race, visibility is an issue as well. See, there is this little concept called hegemonic heterosexuality that presupposes everyone is straight until proven otherwise. People have seen my wedding ring, asked about my wife, and been at times aghast that I have a husband.
People have come a distance about gays and lesbians, but I personally don’t consider it to be a giant leap. I think we have taken steps forward, and many more need to be taken over time.
As long as people use gay, homo, faggot, and other slurs in regular conversation to slur and make fun of people, there is an obvious climate of intolerance, IMHO. Furthermore, as long as there are people like Fred Phelps, the American Family Association, Focus on the Family, et al, who dehumanize us and attempt to reduce our image to being pedophilic sexual compulsives who are going to hell, tolerance is severely lacking.
Special rights. There’s that phrase again…
Who exactly is asking for special rights? Nobody I know of. All that is being asked for is equal rights. I’d say a better example would be religion, instead of race, but the effects are the same; Both have the right to be protected from discrimination and harassment. So do gays. Unfortunatly, that isn’t quite the case, yet, and every little bit of support or percieved support (Gay Pride month or the like) helps with that, in my opinion…
The term “special rights” seems to be propogated by the same people who call “pro-choice” folks, “pro-abortion.”
I don’t think I’ve ever met a single person who thought abortion is a wonderful thing that should be used in the majority of pregnancies.
I don’t see the members of the gay community asking for special rights, just protection of those rights that we all enjoy. In other words, all of those laws that (are supposed to) allow people of every race, creed and color to be treated equally, should be extended to include sexual orientation. In a perfect world, they wouldn’t even need to be asking for this; too bad we don’t live in that world.
Indeed, I always have time for these kinds of things.
I think equating sexual orientation to religious beliefs pretty much answers much of the OP.
Additionally, the New York City St. Patrick’s Day parade coordinators very famously refused to let a gay Irish contingent march in their parade, and several courts agreed they had the right to do so, so there are certainly many, many problems with having any kind of focus on “famous gay {insert ethnic group here}” during their particular pride and/or history month.
Esprix
[pee wee herman]
paging mr. collunsbury…
mr. collunsbury you have a telephone call in Great Debates…
[/pee wee herman]
Non-heterosexuals (this way I get to include myself:)) are a minority in this country, and as far as I know in every other country in the world. By “another race” do you mean “not caucasian”? If you do, then the analogy seems simple enough to me: both are minorities.
Such as? The rights non-hets are fighting for are the same rights, in very many cases (as Hastur said), that heterosexual people have taken for granted for years.
Imagine, if you will, that you’re in your own home, having sex quietly with your wife. The police bust into your home and arrest you for having sex,and void your marriage.
See, heterosexual sex is legal. In some states, homosexual sex is not. And in every state BUT Vermont, one man cannot enter into a civil union with another man. Same for woman-woman. We aren’t asking for anything more than hets have.
Yet he supported African-American pride month, Latino-American pride month, Irish-American pride month (or heritage, or awareness, or what-have-you). So why not honor another demographic minority?
So what?
Just because a conservative doesn’t like the idea of me being able to marry Esprix doesn’t mean it isn’t a valid notion.
Black/African-American History month has always been, in my mind, a month to celebrate the achievements of African Americans regardless of whether they liked men, women, trees or LA Dodgers baseball games. Singling someone out specifically for a reason other than the one being celebrated detracts a bit, IMO, from the focus of the month.
Similarly, if during Gay Pride month we singled out a lesbian because she was black, that would be detracting from the point (which is to celebrate the achievements and lives of non-heterosexuals).
Do we need a month to celebrate any minority group? No. But is it a nice gesture to have one, and does it draw negative attention to someone who doesn’t continue the tradition? Yes and yes.
Um, no. You should know better than to phrase something so clumsily. While the net effect may be the selective targeting of homosexuals, in the state in which you and I both live (Virginia, for everyone else’s benefit), anal and oral sex are illegal whether one has them with a member of the same sex or a member of the opposite sex. Legally speaking, I am no more permitted to get a blowjob from my wife than I am from you.
“Heterosexual sex” and “homosexual sex” are determined by the genders of the participants, not what type of genital stimulation is going on.
Yes, it’s nice in a way, but it’s dehumanizing in a way. And it lends itself to political manipulation.
It’s dehumanizing because the focus on people’s skin color or sexual preference takes away from their character and achievements. E.g., is David Blackwell a great Arican-American or a great mathematician? Is Tommy Tune a great performer or a great gay?
It can be political, because the group with the power to determine who gets celebrated can promte their agenda. E.g. I doubt that Black History Month ever mentions Thomas Sowell – an intellectual leader of modern-day conservatism, because the people in charge of Black History month tend to be liberals, who disagre with his preference for smaller government. I would guess that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas may get short shrift for the same reason. (Does anyone know?)
In a sense, the people most impacted by Black History Month may be Whites, who are thereby encouraged to be more accepting and more respectful. For this reason, I think BHM contributes to tolerance.
Similarly, straight folk may indeed be more impacted by gay pride. I’ve met more than one person who was shocked - shocked, I say! - to find out that, say, Walt Whitman was gay. “Wow, I never knew…” To paraphrase, the more “they” are like “us,” the less there is to be fearful of. And I can only imagine that hearing of huge gay pride celebrations across the country might give some modicum of hope to the lonely, isolated, closeted and/or harassed gay kid in some small town somewhere with no other resources to turn to.
It’s way too easy to be gay and invisible in this country.
Esprix
Just some nitpicking:
Hastur said:
Actually, I thought this over, and I don’t think it’s true. See below. The rights are equal.
A gay man has the same right to marry, as does a straight man. Both are free to marry a woman. Neither is free to marry another man.
No surprise here. My wife and I do many of those same things. They’re illegal for us, too. I’d be surprised if somebody has been cited recently for breaking those laws.
It’s still illegal to tie an alligator to a Fire Hydrant in Louisiana as well. I would think that these obsolete laws are still on the books because they are so stupid nobody’s bothered to remove them. But I don’t think that they’re really hurting anybody (which is not to say they shouldn’t be removed,) and in this day in age they’re targetting everybody that experiments beyond the missionary position. So the laws are stupid, agreed.
Which is a violation of rights that you do have (except of course for the intolerable military situation.)
Which is not a legal issue, but a social one. Rights are not involved, just social conveniance. Most people being straight, I think it’s a reasonable assumption. How people react to you when they learn otherwise is an entirely different matter. I think people oughtta deal with sexuality in social situations the same way they deal with food.
I’ll assume you like chocolate cake if you come to my dinner party because lots, even most people do, but if you don’t it’s no big deal, We’ll get you some ice cream or apple pie.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the assumption itself, though.
Well, until I came to this message board, I had no idea that gay couples would desire marriage. It just never occured to me.
A wedding ring on a guy is still, in the vast, vast majority, a safe assumption of heterosexual marriage. I’d hope you wouldn’t take offense that it takes people by surprise at first when they learn differently, and I would hope that it wouldn’t be used as a weapon against peoplw who may be surprised but wish you know ill will.
Yes. I think it’s worth distinguishing between calling a person a “faggot,” because he’s gay, and saying that the latest Pokemon movie was “pretty gay,” though. One is an intentional insult, the other a faux pas.
[quote]
Furthermore, as long as there are people like Fred Phelps, the American Family Association, Focus on the Family, et al, who dehumanize us and attempt to reduce our image to being pedophilic sexual compulsives who are going to hell, tolerance is severely lacking.
[quote]
I’m not familiar with the organization or the man. What is it that they’re doing specifically?
To the OP
Until and unless gayness breeds true, considering gay a race is probably fallacious. Nor is it a religion. Sexual preference is it’s own category.
This one’s tough. Clearly Bush has religious problems with homosexuality. It’s a free world. He’s entitled. He doesn’t have to support actions that he thinks are wrong. It’s not that simple though, because he’s the President of the United States, and he’s supposed to represent everybody. Gay Pride month has precedent. By not recognizing that precedent he’s making an active negative statement concerning gay folk, and it’s quite deliberate.
Probably. I’m still thinking about this one. I think marriage is traditionally an institution that served to facilitate the having and raising of children within the social whole. With the flexibility of roles in modern society the institution has changed, though children remain a significant part of it. A couple that’s been married a while and doesn’t have kids has to put up with some societal disaproval.
Just because I don’t know how gay families, or gay marriage would work, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t. Despite the relative newness of the idea, if marriage is something desirable to gay couples, I can’t see what threat it offers to a benevolent society. Quite the contrary actually.
The religious right, many of whom identify themselves as conservatives, have a problem with many gay issues. Their problem is one of religion, not conservative thought. Conservative political philosophy certainly encompasses and recognizes the rights of gay people. It’s a shame to conservatives such as myself that these idiots operate under the conservative banner (but PETA and the ecofreaks are mostly liberal, so I guess it takes all kinds to make a party.)
Need? No. Nor do we need any of these other months, IMO. To unfairly exclude one group is wrong though. It’s the purpose of these months to raise awareness and consideration for groups that to some degree have been disenfranchised, or to otherwise recognize their unique circumstances or contributions.
Personally, I think doing it in a month is all wrong. It gets to diffused and nobody notices.
Us Irishmen have it figured out. Do it in a day. Turn into a party. Make everybody want to come. …and bagpipes. Lots of bagpipes.
:rolleyes: I would normally be surprised that someone would say something so innane, but you, Scylla? I know you’re a conservative, but this surprises me. As my dear matt once quoted to me (paraphrasing), “The law, in its infinite equality, forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges.” There are tangible benefits to being legally wed under the law that gay couples cannot get that straight couples can. If the government is going to, in effect, sanction coupled relationships, it ought to be a little broader in its definitions or it ought to do away with the practice, IMHO.
Esprix
You know, Scylla, that position has some merit – the law does require only that all persons be treated equally.
So, here’s the proposition: Only heterosexual marriages will be permitted – but marriages will be arranged and decided by the High Court of Polycarpitude. Esprix will marry Jeri Ryan. And you will marry Elizabeth the Queen Mother. Do you have a problem with this?
I think the distinction needs to be made that people deserve to contract marriages with people they love and wish to spend the remainder of their life in a loving committed relationship with.
And there, the distinction in sexuality comes into play. Because on those grounds, heterosexuals can choose to do so, and gay people cannot.
In thinking about the benefits of gay marriage to society, please take into account the possibility of adoption. While gay male couples may not be biologically equipped to have babies, there are many out there who are well prepared to be parents.
There are couples of all orientations who choose to remain childless. However, what does it serve to deny an additional level of financial benefit and societal acceptance to loving couples and prospective parents? Why shouldn’t gay people be allowed to marry, and encouraged to adopt? There’s no shortage of kids out there in need of caring parents.
In the recent pit thread stemming from the T-shirt arguement, I saw several posters assert that EVEN IF Gay Pride shirts were allowed and Straight Pride Shirts were not, then that would be OK.
[sub]Disclaimer: The actual facts about the T-shirt issue are not up for debate in this post, it’s the attitude that surrounds them.[/sub]
The reasoning was that certain groups needed “extra” privileges to make up for prior discrimination.
I’m not exactly sure that privilege=rights, although it seems to get thrown around alot in this topic.
While I certainly agree that the whole marriage thing is a place where our government is stepping on the rights of gays, I see smaller things like this T-shirt issue as being counter-productive.
If it is allright for a student to wear a Gay Pride T-Shirt, then I see nothing wrong with a student wearing a Straight Pride T-Shirt.
Any other standard, IMHO, smacks of condescension towards the “sheltered” group. Both shirts can be worn with good intentions, and both shirts can be worn in order to cause trouble. When you make a blanket policy that takes common sense out of the equation, you end up firing up the “other” side.
I’ll fight for EQUAL RIGHTS for anybody, anyday. To me, that means that we have the EXACT SAME standard. The rest of the world may be slanted against someone, but I think the highest compliment I can pay someone is to treat them like an equal.
I find that is more than most people expect, and ends up being more than enough for the people I respect.
So, why bring it up?
I do not see talking about the issue as counterproductive. I see setting two seperate standards for T-shirts to be counterproductive.
If oyu read the begining of this thread, you will find at least three seperate people who claimed that the issue was entirely about equal rights, and not about special rights.
My point is that seperate standards for t-shirts (while a minor issue) is a special right.
Esprix:
Oh man, how could you?
As I said, it was a nitpick. I didn’t say that it was fair or right. Just that is was equal.
Look at my context, please.
I don’t think that the current status quo is because society has intentionally discriminated against gays, but because, up to recently, gay marriage under law hasn’t been an issue.
As I said though, the roles and society have changed. I think that gay people who want to be married should be recognized under law just as straight people are.
Marriage should be redefined as a union between two people instead of just between a man and a woman.
I think it is wrong that Hastur’s union is not recognized, and I feel badly that our government has the audacity to say that his commitment isn’t every bit as strong and valid as that between my wife and myself.
My dilemma isn’t with whether gay folks shouldn’t be allowed to participate in marriage. They should. My dilemma is with how marriage is being redefined in modern society. A married couple of certain income level receives benefits from society though they are childless. These benefits are leftovers from the “start a new household and have kids” roots of the marriage institution. Marriage isn’t always about that anymore.
Perhaps recognizing the roles of both modern couples who defer or pass on having children, and the roles of gay couples who may or may not wish to have children, it would be best if we redefined the tax standing of married but childless couples. Also, at the very least, a nonworking spouse of any sex should be eligible to be covered under their spouses benefit plan, as a matter of law.
Gay couples who adopt should be afforded the same benefits as Heterosexual couples are.
My dilemma lies merely in trying to work out the logistics in a fair and reasonable way. I don’t think it’s a serious dilemma.
As I see it, any couple where one spouse works and the other raises a child deserves certain benefits.
In making gay marriage a legal reality, I hope we don’t lose those benefits.
The reeligious right will undoubtedly seek to limit the benefits of gay marriage under the concept that “they don’t have children very often.” Though it’s unfair it doesn’t mean they won’t try.
The rational response is “Not all Hetero married couples have kids either. Why do they get the benefits?”
One scenario is that the benefits to a starting family are rescinded.
I’d like not to see that happen. In order to do that we have to redefine the role of marriage within society and how it is treated from a benefits/taxation standpoint.
I hope that clarifies my stance, and I apologize sincerely for any misconception.
To repeat, I am in favor of gay marriage. I’m optimistic that most people are as well, and I hope it becomes a federally mandated option, soon.
The fact that it doesn’t exist in that fashion now though, is not really an issue of equality, but of oversight. Hopefully that is being rectified.
As a staunch conservative I was very disapointed in our President’s behavior concerning Gay Pride Month. It’s an unprovoked slap in the face, and IMO the first thing he’s done as President that I find reprehensible.
I mentioned that in my above post, and from the context of my remark, I would have hoped to receive the benefit of the doubt concerning my nitpick between equality and fairness.
From the same job? Wow, you must be really gay!
[sub]Okay, sorry, I shouldn’t make light of such a crappy situation[/sub]
Hastur:
Scylla:
It is only a violation of his philosophical or moral or ethical rights in the U.S. It is not a violation of his legal rights unless he lives in the handful of states and municipalities where they have passed anti-discrimination laws that include homosexuals as a class.
The U.S. has no Federal protection regarding employment that addresses homosexuality. In any “hire at will” state (which I believe is the norm), nothing but a signed contract will protect an employee from being discharged for sexual orientation.
(If discrimination against homosexuals was recognized in U.S. law, there would be no need for the various states and municipalities to enact their own rules.)