Some would argue, along those same lines you used about the t-shirts, that the safe zones themselves are counter-productive, special rights and unequal. Where do we draw the line?
Esprix
So clarified. It’s just when people bring up the argument, it gives credence to it. I hate to even see it mentioned - obviously, it gets my goat. Sorry.
Esprix
It strikes me that t-shirts promote visibility, but not necessarily tolerance or safety. Safe zones do all three.
I realize that this isn’t the most coherent point ever made, but the ultimate point of every sort of gay thing is, in my mind, to say “we exist.” And in obliterating these items, it’s “straightening up” history, so to speak.
The straight pride t-shirt, on the other hand, is a slap in the face. It’s not saying “straight pride” anymore than saying “white pride” means that it’s spiffy to be caucasian. Intent has to be looked at.
I can’t help but feel that homophobia often comes from not talking about homosexuality, acknowledging that it exists, or allowing it to be mentioned.
<nitpick>
“Homosexuals” is not a class. “Sexuality” is a class. “Homosexuals” is a group of this class.
</nitpick>
Freedom I think the problem is things aren’t equal. Gay pride does not mean pride in being gay. It means pride in the fact that your dealing with a bad situation Likewise straight pride does not mean pride in being straight. It is an attack on homosexuality. So if you simply looked at both of them as words yes they are equal, however the meaning behind the words are very different. The words don’t really matter, only the meanings behind them.
Sterra and Andygirl
That might be what Gay Pride means to you, but it isn’t what it means to all conservative religous families.
To them it means an attack on their religion, morals and cherished way of life. They see it as this “trendy” fad that is eating away at the foundations of their lives. The mere act of wearing the shirt is an attempt to “recruit” their children and lure them away from a “natural” lifestyle.
I can see how when they wear a Straight Pride T-shirt they could be doing nothing more than trying to give their kids a reinforcement that being straight is “cool.” They are advertising to try and keep their children “in the fold” so to speak.
Who is right?
The only answer I can give to you, is that whoever is right, I don’t want the government being the one to decide.
Undoubtedly gays are historically the underdog in this equation. However, basic human nature is that you play to win. “Punishing” someone just because they are in the majority doesn’t work with me. Most reasonable people will be able to see that discrimination is not desirable, and will be willing to work towards tolerance and equal opportunity.
What happens is that people who would be willing to disagree with you on the details, but level the playing field on rights, feel that THEY are not being tolerated when you ban Straight Pride shirts.
IOW…
They don’t think you just want equal rights, they are afraid that you are are trying to shape how they think and believe about homosexuality.
How the rest of the country feels about homosexuality should not be the focus of legislation and court cases. Legislation and court cases need to focus on securing the same RIGHTS for everyone, not on thought control.
Esprix:
To me, drawing the line is simple. In a public oranization you have a simple litmus test.
**Is a person being treated differently based on their sexual orientation? **
That’s it. If the answer is yes, than something needs to be fixed, regardless of what side the straights or gays are on. You can take that litmus test and apply it to another other group, and my feeling stays the same. Historical bias one way or the other has no place in my litmus test.
Gay Marriage
My solution to this problem would be to just take the government out of the marriage business altogether. It is way past time to start rolling back places government has overreached. It is not their place to define marriage.
It is not the place of a southern Baptist to define marriage for Hastur, and it is not Hastur’s place to define marriage for the Baptist.
Live and let live.
I never have defined or attempted to redefine marriage. I surely have not attempted to redefine marriage for Baptists.
I think your choice of analogy is poor and can easily be misconstrued.
On the whole I agree with you, but if that litmus test is applied to the Safe Zones themselves, wouldn’t there be an imbalance? Isn’t that showing favoritism to one group?
Just playing Devil’s advocate…
Esprix
About a year ago in Virginia there was an attempt made to get the state government to overturn the “Crime Against Nature” laws. Many people addressed the government on this issue, not only homosexuals and bisexuals but heterosexuals too, including a wheelchair bound man unable to have intercourse. Despite this, the CAN laws are still on the books.
The police may not be bursting into people’s bedrooms, but these laws have hurt people. I’m sure there are other posters who will be able to give more information about this than I can, but there have been child custody cases where parents were denied custody because they were considered sex offenders under anti-sodomy laws.
The most famous case, Bowers v. Hardwick, made it all the way to the Supreme Court. It wasn’t that long ago. And IIRC, statistics show the laws, when they are used, are used overwhelmingly against gay couples. I’ll have to go to the FBI crime statistics or HRC to find out for sure, but that’s what I recall from the last time this was discussed.
Esprix
Esprix
Then change them.
Is there any reason a straight kid couldn’t also talk to one of the sponsors about pressure associated with heterosexual sex?
Are these “safe zones” meant to be a gay dating service, or are they meant to provide a safe atmosphere where a kid can talk to a sympathetic adult about shit going on in their lives? If there is a reason they HAVE to be exclusionary of hetero kids, please let me know.
Hastur
I wasn’t trying to single you out. I picked your screen name because you are the only married gay guy I know of on the board.
Consider my ananlogy withdrawn.
I was just trying to show that as it stands right now, both gays and southern baptists are competing over the SINGLE definition of marriage. The place they are competing is in the legislatures.
If you took the government out of the equation, anybody who wanted to “married” could be, according to their own moral and ethical definition of marriage.
From http://www.plastic.com/article.pl?sid=01/04/06/1932218
The Supreme Court decision: http://www.geocities.com/privacylaws/Bowers/bowers_v_hardwick.htm
Seventeen states and Puerto Rico have sodomy laws.
In five states, they are homosexual only sodomy laws.
Problem is, everything you describe is accurate - although (FWIU) it’s supposed to be a place specifically designed for gay kids, it’s open to anyone. If a straight kid isn’t getting the help he needs from the school’s guidance counselor infrastructure, by rights they should be able to go to one of these teachers and safely talk about their issues there. The safe zones (again, FWIU) are supposed to be supplemental to the school’s existing guidance offices.
Problem is, the litmus test you proposed is indeed being used by those who feel a “homosexual agenda” is being propogated to do away with them. The kid who wore the “straight pride” t-shirt is the manifestation of that mindset.
Esprix
Esprix
Ok you got me. What the heck is FWIU? I hate to ask, since I just know I’ll figure it out the second I hit the submit button.
For what it’s U_________?
Then change the focus to address ALL kids in need. Make sexual orientation a part of the training that the counselors receive, but train them to deal with hetero’s as well as gays. It has to have an opportunity for equal access in order to meet the standard.
If it is only for gays, and not for heteros, then it fails the standard.
I don’t see how this can be avoided. “They” misinterpret “your” shirts, and “you” misinterpret “their” shirts.
All the while I feel that both sides seem to forget that we are all dealing with individuals, and not some huge singular minded group.
If you want to allow Gay Pride shirts, than the correct thing to do is to allow Straight Pride shirts. If the school were to allow either shirt, and not the other, then it is taking a political stand that a public school should not be taking.
I support protecting equal rights, but I am not in favor of only allowing one(either one) viewpoint.
My personal solution would be to make every single kid in America wear a uniform. Pants for the guys, and pants for the girls.
I don’t see school as a place where this sort of issue needs to be hashed out over and over again. I want kids to be in school to learn, not show off new clothes or make a political statement.
Actually…
My personal solution revolves around ending public schooling, but I realize that is not even on the table as a possibility at this time.
You know, if you told me that this had happened without links, I probably would have laughed in your face for posting such obvious bullshit.
I didn’t think we would do that.
Don’t know what else to say.
Just another case to support expiration dates on laws.
Let them fight to pass these things every so often instead of cowering behind the lame excuse of ignorance.
Just hoping to revive this thread after a dormant weekend.