[quankanne]

Quank, your contention seems to still be 'if people are still going to keep on being prejudiced and horrible, then don't make any laws against prejudice because it won't change them'.

I'm still not sure how NOT supporting same sex marriage is being prejudiced, moimeme, especially when my contention is that this law really isn't going to make a difference to the average Joe, and that it's not going to bring about any real change except for a very small minority of a small minority.

But still everyone has a right to wedded bliss


a nice conclusion if there ever was one. Thanks, Callisto

[HokeyReligions]

yes, and therefore I feel battered as I perceive that MY right to hold a contrary opinion is shot down as non-acceptable by someone who just doesn't want to hear an opposing view.

Homosexuals and their supporters preach tolerance and acceptance. Why can't the supporters of equality for homosexuals tolerate and accept that there will always be those who believe it wrong, or bad, or a sin, etc.?

Why does the politician who makes a remark that includes the words "that gay guy is going to go straight to hell" have to make a public apology? The gay politician didn't have to apologize for saying "that straight guy is going straight to hell." (there was a similar thread to this on racism & double standards)

Slapping labels on people is an old psych manipulation technique. Calling someone a "fag" has a whole different connotation than saying "gay" or "homosexual". You get a different mental image or feeling about the person. It's about fostering respect vs. scorn.

If someone expreses their honest belief that homosexuality is "wrong" or is a "sin" and will not accept it as part of their life they are labeled a homo-phobe or some other deragatory label and their belief is disrespected and ridiculed and they are labeled "ignorant." Aren't we allowed our beliefs, and allowed to express our beliefs without losing our jobs, being shunned in civic activities, etc.? If we are to tolerate a gay person stating their feelings/beliefs, and do nothing to them - not fire them, not kick them off the team, etc. then shouldn't we be shown the same tolerance?

I quit labeling people because I can't find one label that wholly fits anyone. There are way too many aspects to every person to fit neatly under one, or even two. labels.

Same-sex marriage:

*spouse will have the legal right to say when to turn off the life-support equipment on their mate.
*alimoney
*prosecution under the law for abuse carries the same penalty (in some cases the penalty or crime is different if a man beats up a woman then what it is if two men, or two women get into a fight)
*marriage penalty in taxes (pay higher taxes)
*accountability for your spouse vs. accountability for a roommate. (there are too many legalities to go into here)

Nothing about a government "approved" same-sex marriage has anything to do with religion. But a religious community that does not accept or tolerate a same-sex marriage could make it difficult. Tolerate and accept are different things.

BTW: I am agnositc and frankly I don't give a rat's a$$ what the government accepts or doesn't here. It's none of my business. I respect gay's rights to join with whomever they want, and I respect those who believe it is a sin and are tired of having it shoved down their throats whenever they open a paper or turn on the news.

It would be nice if my friend could let his employer know that he's gay without losing his job -- but the second that it's known he will be terminated and not allowed to teach in HISD again. (He teaches middle school history and is one of the best and most popular teachers there)

[Callisto]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HokeyReligions

Why does the politician who makes a remark that includes the words "that gay guy is going to go straight to hell" have to make a public apology?

Because the politicians serve in our public interests. An elected official cannot make comments like that. You know this.

If someone expreses their honest belief that homosexuality is "wrong" or is a "sin" and will not accept it as part of their life they are labeled a homo-phobe or some other deragatory label and their belief is disrespected and ridiculed and they are labeled "ignorant." Aren't we allowed our beliefs, and allowed to express our beliefs without losing our jobs, being shunned in civic activities, etc.?

I hate to say it, but it is just like saying, "women are sinners", "asians can't drive", "Mexicans are lazy", and "Caucasions can't dance"....stating "homosexuality is "wrong" or a "sin is an unfair stereotype. Telling this to your children promotes intolerance. Men who are paranoid that a homosexual wants to jump their bones are just as bad as the people who believe that if a black man carries a boombox he must have stolen it.

[midori]

Originally posted by HokeyReligions
Why does the politician who makes a remark that includes the words "that gay guy is going to go straight to hell" have to make a public apology? The gay politician didn't have to apologize for saying "that straight guy is going straight to hell." (there was a similar thread to this on racism & double standards)

oh Hokey, I think Barney Frank would have to apologize if he ever uttered such a remark.

Now, if one of the Fab Five on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy proclaimed that one of their blundering students was going to burn in hell for owning pleated-front chinos (which is a cardinal sin, by the way), you're right. I'll bet no one would demand they apologize.

Slapping labels on people is an old psych manipulation technique. Calling someone a "fag" has a whole different connotation than saying "gay" or "homosexual". You get a different mental image or feeling about the person. It's about fostering respect vs. scorn.

sorry, but what's your point here? That a politician should be able to express his sincere opinion about a gay man's prospects in the afterlife without having to apologize? One has to wonder why said politician imagines that anyone gives a tinker's damn what he thinks about anyone's prospects in the afterlife (including his own). But yes, do let him speak. Let him speak loud and clear. So that people will see the ugliness behind the facade of pious concern and intelligence.

If someone expreses their honest belief that homosexuality is "wrong" or is a "sin" and will not accept it as part of their life they are labeled a homo-phobe or some other deragatory label and their belief is disrespected and ridiculed and they are labeled "ignorant."

That's right. Because in other people's world view, those who believe that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" that is "wrong" and a "sin" and will cause people who "choose" it to burn in hell are ignorant. It's as simple as that. One side thinks the other are sinners, or condoners of sin, the other side thinks the former is ignorant and bigoted. And since there are many flavors of bigotry, the more common ones get specific names: racist, anti-Semite, misogynist... and yes, homophobe.

Aren't we allowed our beliefs, and allowed to express our beliefs without losing our jobs, being shunned in civic activities, etc.?

Are you saying, then, that you would welcome into your social circle the head of your local KKK chapter? Eat out with him? Chat with him in the supermarket? Well of course not -- that's why they wear those hoods! They know that expressing their beliefs publicly would lead to being shunned. Because our society has largely reached the point where racism is universally condemned, at least in public. Does anyone feel any sympathy for the poor, thwarted racists who must now gnash their teeth when they see playgrounds full of black, Latino, Asian and white children playing together? I feel pity for their ignorance, but no pity at all for the fact that they must bite their tongues in almost any public setting.

If we are to tolerate a gay person stating their feelings/beliefs, and do nothing to them - not fire them, not kick them off the team, etc. then shouldn't we be shown the same tolerance?

Is this a facetious question? Do gay people typically go around announcing how much they can't STAND straight people (aka "breeders" if we wanted to use a more insulting term on a par with "fag")?

What are these "feelings/beliefs" that gay people express that must be tolerated? Or is it their existence that you feel must be tolerated?

Nothing about a government "approved" same-sex marriage has anything to do with religion. But a religious community that does not accept or tolerate a same-sex marriage could make it difficult. Tolerate and accept are different things.

Somewhere, somehow we've picked up the erroneous idea that legalization means that people must accept same sex marriages. No one has suggested that anyone has to change their minds. If all the religious organizations within 100 square miles agree that they will never perform or acknowledge same-sex unions, fine! But a gay couple can get married in the courthouse. None of the fine, upstanding, big-hearted religious folk who are offended by the notion of a gay marriage have to a) attend the wedding, b) acknowledge that Jim and Joe are married -- i.e. address invitations to them as Mr. and Mr. Joe and Jim Smith (as if they would be invited!), or c) allow Jim or Joe to darken the door of their holy place of worship.

BTW: I am agnositc and frankly I don't give a rat's a$$ what the government accepts or doesn't here. It's none of my business. I respect gay's rights to join with whomever they want, and I respect those who believe it is a sin and are tired of having it shoved down their throats whenever they open a paper or turn on the news.

So you know what those people who don't like "Will and Grace" or "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" should do? They should turn off their televisions! What a radical notion! Or watch another channel. My goodness!

I'm offended every time I see another BIG FAT GAS GUZZLING S.U.V. advertised. I think the manufacturers, advertisers, retailers and customers ought to be fined 2x's the cost of the vehicle. I think that THEY are going to burn in hell. Or I would if I believed in hell. And guess what -- they're allllll over the television.

Actually do you know what's even worse than those commericals is that evil one of the couple shot in black and white in Venice, where he shouts out "I..Love..This..Woman" and she doesn't say anything until he gives her a diamond ring for her right hand (cos she's already got a rock on her left, which he gave her, naturally). And after she puts the ring on she whispers "I love this man." Because, one is left to assume, he gave her a diamond ring.

Evil.

It would be nice if my friend could let his employer know that he's gay without losing his job -- but the second that it's known he will be terminated and not allowed to teach in HISD again. (He teaches middle school history and is one of the best and most popular teachers there)

Yes, wouldn't it be nice? And then maybe his students and the community as a whole could benefit from knowing someone who is openly gay and does a marvelous job contributing to the community. And then maybe gays wouldn't seem so scary.

[HokeyReligions]

Originally posted by moimeme
Yes, but that's the same thing. Islam doesn't say that. Some of their leaders made that one up. That's all I'm saying. The scriptures (ours, theirs, everyone's) say one thing, people who lead those churches interpret that thing in a lot of different ways, including to serve their own agendas.

I think we are talking about the same thing, but in different ways. A church or sect (whatever you want to call it) tht interprets same-sex marriage as a negative, sin, whatever, will serve their God based on their interpretation. Just because two groups interpret the same religion in different ways doesn't make either one wholly right, or wholly wrong. Those who are anti-gay may treat a couple who have married according to government law as single people and not allow them the same privileges as they would a married couple. A gay couple can walk into a church with a marriage certificate issued by the government - said certificate granting the couple the same civil rights and restrictions as a hetero couple - and not not allow them to partipate in a couples only retreat for example, because whatever laws or beliefs that govern the church does not automatically accept civil sanctions. I don't see where there is a definate right or wrong to this. People are entitled (I hate that word 'entitled' but can't think of a better one) to believe and worship the way they want as long as it does not hurt anyone else. Even if it means the church seems to 'discriminate' against a group of people. The discrimination is on a secular level - not a religious one.

I'm not saying that I think all, or a majority, or any churches do this - but an organized religion governs itself and does not have to accept the edicts of the government when the governments civil laws are in violation of the churches laws. Catholics don't believe in abortion - but the government says its okay.

That leaves out every atheist! What of all the millions of JP marriages - not to mention the Vegas ones? Golly! I mean, if that is your belief, that is fine, but surely people who don't share that belief ought not be denied the ability to marry because of it?

I was married at the JP. If there were a church that did not recognize my marriage because of that - then that is their right to do so based on their own beliefs. It would not invalidate my marriage.

Two of my friends made a vow to each other - an almost identical, word-for-word vow as what I took. To them, to their friends and family, they are married. They took their vows in a ceremony presided over by a christian minister who believes that the love and the committment are just as real, as valid, as that of a heterosexual couple. The church does not recognize it officially - but accepts and nourishes them. The government does not recognize it. The marriage certificate is not an official license, sanctioned by the government -- but stands as a written, tangible sign of their devotion and commitment.

The "right to marry" depends on who you ask. What is right in one place may not be right in another. Its a good example of the separation of church and state. I don't think it is the place of a church, any church, to dictate to any civil government what the civil laws should be. They can lobby - just as anyone can - to promote their agenda. I also don't think it is the governments place to tell a church what their laws should be.

Back to the original topic & what my opinion on gay marriage is -- I don't care. It doesn't make any difference to me. If it were on a ballot I would probably vote for it.

[HokeyReligions]

Originally posted by Callisto

Because the politicians serve in our public interests. An elected official cannot make comments like that. You know this.

So why then is the majority politician that makes a remark about a minority group of people (gay, female, etc.) punished and the minority politician who makes a remark about the majority (white, men, etc.) not punished? That is what I'm trying to say. Lets put it in a different context. A female politican makes a sweeping remark about men and remote controls. People laugh. It's funny. Its history and forgotton. A man makes a sweeping remark about women not being able to pass a shoe store without stopping. People laugh. It's funny. There's a lawsuit or a demand for a public apology. It's in the news. Then it dies down. The man has that stigma attached. Depending on the remark he might lose his job, or lose votes if he's a public official. The double standard is there - even in politics.

I hate to say it, but it is just like saying, "women are sinners", "asians can't drive", "Mexicans are lazy", and "Caucasions can't dance"....stating "homosexuality is "wrong" or a "sin is an unfair stereotype. Telling this to your children promotes intolerance. Men who are paranoid that a homosexual wants to jump their bones are just as bad as the people who believe that if a black man carries a boombox he must have stolen it.

There is a BIG distinction in what you wrote. "drive", "lazy", etc. have no religious connotations. "sinner" does. If an organized religion tells its "flock" that homosexuality is a sin and that God will punish this sin by eternity in hell (whether we believe it or not doesn't matter -- the "flock" believes it) then instructing their children to believe it is fine - we raise our children in the way we believe is best for them. If that religion teaches the homosexuals should be shunned, and not hired for jobs, or given medical treatment, etc. (all civil actions) then its crossing the line between religion and government and that is intollerance.

The religions that I am somewhat familiar with that do believe that homosexuality is a sin and that those who practice this sin will spend eternity in hell, also teach that homosexuals are equal to anyone else. The teach that ALL of their recognized sins are punishable the same way unless they are redeemed by their GOD, not their government. They also teach that we are all sinners and that no one has the power to absolve another sinner or make any guarantees about eternity.

The question of religion-based acceptance of gay marriage has no answer -- there are too many religions and practices and beliefs. Church laws do not dictate government laws.

A civil marriage - one accepted by the government as a legal and binding contract between two people, subject to the same laws, restrictions, penalties, and perks has nothing to do with religion. Those laws can be defined and enforced by a government - not by a God.

I don't know why you threw in the comment about "men who are paranoid..." but I don't see it as 'bad' or 'good'. They are not well informed, or act out of fear. We are not talking about individual prejudices here - but about government recognized marriages between homosexual couples.

[Callisto]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HokeyReligions

So why then is the majority politician that makes a remark about a minority group of people (gay, female, etc.) punished and the minority politician who makes a remark about the majority (white, men, etc.) not punished?

I understand what you are saying, I really do. My dad is a white caucasion male in a position of power at his job. Things are extremly hard for him. Many comments his employees make towards him are socially acceptable, but he would never be allowed to make those comments towards them. Also I am a petite asian girl who is seeing a muscular Mexican man. I could hit him, yet charge him of hitting me and who are they going to believe?

I think in this case, though, just because people have a different opionion about same-sex marriages doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. I don't think that if a person thinks that homosexuality is wrong they should keep it to themselves. And BEFORE YOU SAY :Oh but it's okay for the person who thinks that homosexuality is a good thing to speak THEIR opionion? I want to say that I think that if you think that A 60 year old man marrying a 20 women year old is wrong keep it to yourself. If you think your 20 year old neighbors are wrong for moving into together before marriage is wrong keep it to yourself. If you think Anita is not raising her child right, keep it to yourself. Live and let live.

If you have a different view of how someone is living their lives, deal with it. It's none of your business if no one is getting hurt.

There is a BIG distinction in what you wrote. "drive", "lazy", etc. have no religious connotations. "sinner" does.

It doesn't matter if the negative words are religious or not. It still sterotyping. I agree that religious stereotypes are probably more dangerous, but anyone can pick up a gun and start shooting people who are living lives they do not agree with, religious or not.

The question of religion-based acceptance of gay marriage has no answer -- there are too many religions and practices and beliefs. Church laws do not dictate government laws.

No, but they do sometimes dictate a persons state of mind. Consider this- A television evangelist tells his people to give him money and they will be saved, it's okay. I go on TV and say give me money and you will be saved, it's not okay. Warping the mond with the false promises of security (it has nothing to do with gay marriages it just makes me mad

I don't know why you threw in the comment about "men who are paranoid..." but I don't see it as 'bad' or 'good'.

Note-I didn't say all men or most men. I just said men as a general term as in, "some men" or "the men out there who..." But I meant the same thing for women who think other women are going to jump their bones as well.

[BadMan]

Wow!
I am from Mass. USA, and you all know about the JSC decision.
A lot of people around hear think that the gay marriage won't fly.
The govenor of the state is trying to get civil unions separated from marriage so
gay people can have the rights of married people but not really be "MARRIED".
I think thats the answer. I am against gay marriage becasue I think it makes a joke of
the real thing. I am not a homophobe. I have gay friends, but I think that they should not
get the priveledge of marriage. MArriage is for a man and a woman. I think that philosophy will prevail.
At least I hope it does.

I should add that there are tons of people that think the JSC overstepped thier bounds on this decision and
feel that they probably will be eventually eliminated from thier positions. This is what they are saying.
I hope its true but I can't be sure.

[midori]

Originally posted by BadMan
I should add that there are tons of people that think the JSC overstepped thier bounds on this decision and
feel that they probably will be eventually eliminated from thier positions. This is what they are saying.
I hope its true but I can't be sure.

Funny, I'm in Massachusetts too but I haven't heard anyone calling for the justices to resign. In fact, their ruling was worded vaguely enough that the legislature can comply in a few different ways. There's wiggle room. Romney's compromise might be the way things will go.

Also funny, I guess I'm stuck in th middle on this one. On the one hand I disagree with the premise that allowing gay couples to officially "marry" would in any way demean the marriages of heterosexual couples. I just don't see how that's possible; what a gay couple does has absolutely no bearing on what Mr. and Mrs. John Doe do. On the other hand I don't see why the gay rights movement is so adamant that they be granted the right to use the word "marriage."

I still think that the larger threat to the institution of marriage is the very high divorce rate. When Sue and John get married, I rather doubt anyone is going to say, "oh marriage is nothing special. I mean look at those two gay guys over there. Even they're married." But how many of us have been met with the news of an impending marriage and wondered (to ourselves at least) how long it will be before the couple in question divorce? Do wedding rings stop unscrupulous heterosexual men and women from coming on to a married person? We see all kinds of stories on this forum that prove that's not the case. How on earth does a gay couple's marriage in any way affect a heterosexual couple's marriage? I just don't see how. It's other trends in our society that threaten marriage. I think people are making a scapegoat of homosexuals.

What does it mean, anyway, in secular terms? In secular terms folks -- please don't start in about the sanctity of marriage, because the legislation being discussed only pertains to the non-religious aspects of marriage. NO ONE is suggesting that ANY church or religious organization will have to perform same sex marriage ceremonies or recognize them in any way. Just so we're clear. With that out of the way, what possible difference does it make if it's called a "marriage" or a "civil union"? So long as homosexual couples are afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, what is the difference?

Will using the term "marriage" make it more legitimate in the eyes of those who disapprove? As Quankanne and Hokey Religions have rightly pointed out, it won't. On the other hand, will using the term "civil union" when discussing it in official documents and news reports, etc., stop those of us who feel comfortable with same sex partnerings from viewing it as a marriage? No.

If I had to choose, I think I'd go along with "civil union." Not because I think that society should kow-tow to the religiously inspired objections of some of its citizens, but because I want to see gay couples able to have the same rights as others sooner rather than later. I'd like to pass it tomorrow. If a bit of semantics is all that's in the way of that coming to pass, I say play along with the semantic game. Who cares?

But then there is the uncomfortable fact that we will have allowed our secular government to be influenced by a narrow set of religious beliefs. What precedent does that set?

[Callisto]

How can two people wanting to committ and love each other be making a joke out of "the real thing"? I think men and women have already made a joke of "the real thing" (provided "the real thing" exists). Divorces, abuse, adultery, negligence...

[BadMan]

Originally posted by midori
Funny, I'm in Massachusetts too but I haven't heard anyone calling for the justices to resign. In fact, their ruling was worded vaguely enough that the legislature can comply in a few different ways. There's wiggle room. Romney's compromise might be the way things will go.

I'm probably not expressing it correctly.
Howie Carr said that when it comes time for re-election, they probably won't get re-elected because
of the way they voted. That is my understanding. I may be wrong.

I listen to WRKO 68.0 i think it is.
They are always talking about this which I'm gald for because it's helping me understand the whole issue,
though I have much to learn.

[midori]

Originally posted by BadMan

I listen to WRKO 68.0 i think it is.
They are always talking about this which I'm gald for because it's helping me understand the whole issue,
though I have much to learn.

Cool. Just to be sure you're getting all the information, you might want to supplement with another news source. Some of WBUR's locally produced shows (like The Connection, Here and Now, or On Point) might be good places to go.

I see where you are BadMan. I'm just a mile or so up Mass Ave. from you.

[HokeyReligions]

quote:Originally posted by HokeyReligions
Why does the politician who makes a remark that includes the words "that gay guy is going to go straight to hell" have to make a public apology? The gay politician didn't have to apologize for saying "that straight guy is going straight to hell." (there was a similar thread to this on racism & double standards)

oh Hokey, I think Barney Frank would have to apologize if he ever uttered such a remark.

Now, if one of the Fab Five on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy proclaimed that one of their blundering students was going to burn in hell for owning pleated-front chinos (which is a cardinal sin, by the way), you're right. I'll bet no one would demand they apologize.

Generally speaking: If someone speaks their mind about an issue - gay marriage - those for and against do not accept the other parties view. I don't see a right or wrong here. I don't see one side as being ignorant or bigoted either. If we back it up to women's rights - the right to vote for example - I don't see that the men who were against it were ignorant or sexist. They believed that women should not vote for many, many reasons. There were people then, I'm sure - tho I can't cite specifics, that were in some way persecuted for standing with women. Men may have been ridiculed, lost jobs, thrown out of clubs, etc. because of their belief. It didn't change the fact that women won the right to vote, and I don't see that it will change the fact that someday gay marriages will be acknowledged and accepted as any marriage.

In the gay's fight for acceptance, openness, etc. they have been bashed and lost jobs, and not allowed in certain circles. That is still going on. But the tables are turning and instead of growing as a people - we are switching sides and the backlash is hitting straight people. Not everyone, not in all jobs (civil or private sector), but its still there. As a society we are just switching which group gets blasted. It may take 100 years or more before this particular subject levels out, and then history and human nature tells us that there will be other divides in society.

quote:Slapping labels on people is an old psych manipulation technique. Calling someone a "fag" has a whole different connotation than saying "gay" or "homosexual". You get a different mental image or feeling about the person. It's about fostering respect vs. scorn.

sorry, but what's your point here? That a politician should be able to express his sincere opinion about a gay man's prospects in the afterlife without having to apologize? One has to wonder why said politician imagines that anyone gives a tinker's damn what he thinks about anyone's prospects in the afterlife (including his own). But yes, do let him speak. Let him speak loud and clear. So that people will see the ugliness behind the facade of pious concern and intelligence.

My point here was to address a previous post from someone about labels being a psychologial manipulation tool. It's one that works too. A politician talking about religion in a public forum is not I'm talking about. Certainly everyone, including politicians, have the right to believe and worship in their own way, but not to impose their beliefs as a means of governing.

quote:If someone expreses their honest belief that homosexuality is "wrong" or is a "sin" and will not accept it as part of their life they are labeled a homo-phobe or some other deragatory label and their belief is disrespected and ridiculed and they are labeled "ignorant."

That's right. Because in other people's world view, those who believe that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" that is "wrong" and a "sin" and will cause people who "choose" it to burn in hell are ignorant. It's as simple as that. One side thinks the other are sinners, or condoners of sin, the other side thinks the former is ignorant and bigoted. And since there are many flavors of bigotry, the more common ones get specific names: racist, anti-Semite, misogynist... and yes, homophobe.

How is that ignorant? Because you don't agree with it? What if they are right? I can accept that possibility. Different "sides" slap those labels on - it doesn't matter the label - they are behaving in the same way. If I don't agree with you does that make me ignorant?

Are you saying, then, that you would welcome into your social circle the head of your local KKK chapter? Eat out with him? Chat with him in the supermarket? Well of course not -- that's why they wear those hoods! They know that expressing their beliefs publicly would lead to being shunned. Because our society has largely reached the point where racism is universally condemned, at least in public. Does anyone feel any sympathy for the poor, thwarted racists who must now gnash their teeth when they see playgrounds full of black, Latino, Asian and white children playing together? I feel pity for their ignorance, but no pity at all for the fact that they must bite their tongues in almost any public setting.

Sure, why not? What if he's a really nice guy? Maybe he works to rescue animals like I do? Maybe he coaches little league. Maybe he gives to his community in a lot of ways. As a volunteer, a mentor, etc. Being a member of any organization doesn't mean that the people in it preach their beliefs in every single aspect of their lives, and shouldn't negate or devalue the contributions that they do make. Isn't that what the gay community is saying too?

I doubt if the members of the KKK, or any other group or organization, are completely "bad." Yes, if they express their beliefs they will be shunned. Why? Because most people don't agree with them? Their belief is only one part of them. When gay people first came out in the open in organized groups they were shunned too. People threw things at them, they were hurt, etc. Why shouldn't KKK be allowed the same civil rights? When a black man stood up in his neighborhood and loudly protested a white man running for office in a mostly black district he was not shunned. He had supporters. His reasoning -- how would a white man be able to accurately represent their community? He had a point.
But, if a white man stood up and protested a black man running for office in a mostly white neighborhood, for the same reasons, that man would be labeled a racist and with that label his political career would be damaged, if not destroyed. The news media would be all over him. The same holds true for the gay community and the straight community - although I believe those two sections are more blended than racial communities are right now.

I'm white, and I consider myself to be a fairly objective person, and I might be able to do some good for the people in a black or hispanic or asian community when it comes to civil matters - but can I honestly empathize with a person of another race? No. I don't know what it's like to be another race. I don't know what its like to be gay either. I can intellectually see and understand the hurdles, and I know that emotions like love and commitment, etc. are basic human feelings and needs, but I can't "feel" through the same filter. I can tell someone I understand how they feel because of outside environment, circumstances, etc. but I can't tell someone I know how they feel. A slight distinction - but a major gap. I know what strawberry tastes like to me, but I don't know what it tastes like to you

If a religious group believes that homosexuality is "wrong" and the homosexual will go to hell are they wrong? No. That is their belief and there is no proof that they are wrong, or right, and their belief doesn't make them ignorant. There is nothing that can support their belief as an absolute.

Why shouldn't a gay man be a troup leader in the boy scouts? Are all gay men child molesters? No. There are facts and figures that support it.

quote:If we are to tolerate a gay person stating their feelings/beliefs, and do nothing to them - not fire them, not kick them off the team, etc. then shouldn't we be shown the same tolerance?

Is this a facetious question? Do gay people typically go around announcing how much they can't STAND straight people (aka "breeders" if we wanted to use a more insulting term on a par with "fag")?

What are these "feelings/beliefs" that gay people express that must be tolerated? Or is it their existence that you feel must be tolerated?

There is hatred and prejudice among gays too. Above all else, sexual orientation, race, religion, we are all human. Yes, I have heard people in the gay community talk about and label the straight community as bigots, and unnecessary except for procreation. I've heard people say that they hope they are around when all babies are products of science and that straight people will fade away. They are angry and fearful too. Not all, not even the majority - but the same human failing of fearing the unknown and fearing those who have persecuted them in the past is in everyone.

As for tolerance - I speak of that on a civil level, not on a personal level. I don't tolerate or not tolerate anyone - I don't care what people believe or what their lifestyle is (chosen or not). It doesn't matter - it's not my place to tolerate or accept. But I will stand up in protest or in support of actions that have a direct impact on me. That's why I vote. That's why I rescue animals -- seeing an animal hurt or dead does have an impact on me. Gay marriage does not.

quote:Nothing about a government "approved" same-sex marriage has anything to do with religion. But a religious community that does not accept or tolerate a same-sex marriage could make it difficult. Tolerate and accept are different things.

Somewhere, somehow we've picked up the erroneous idea that legalization means that people must accept same sex marriages. No one has suggested that anyone has to change their minds. If all the religious organizations within 100 square miles agree that they will never perform or acknowledge same-sex unions, fine! But a gay couple can get married in the courthouse. None of the fine, upstanding, big-hearted religious folk who are offended by the notion of a gay marriage have to a) attend the wedding, b) acknowledge that Jim and Joe are married -- i.e. address invitations to them as Mr. and Mr. Joe and Jim Smith (as if they would be invited!), or c) allow Jim or Joe to darken the door of their holy place of worship.

I think we are tallking about the same thing. I did not mean to suggest that civil legalization of same-sex marriage meant that it must be accepted by everyone, or that there should be a forced-belief imposed on anyone. That's why I said that if my husband and I were told by a religious organization that our marriage was not accepted by them, and that if we were to join their church we would be considered single because we were married by the JP instead of a minister - it would not invalidate our marriage anyplace but that particular church. If that were the case we would not join that church or organization.

quote:BTW: I am agnositc and frankly I don't give a rat's a$$ what the government accepts or doesn't here. It's none of my business. I respect gay's rights to join with whomever they want, and I respect those who believe it is a sin and are tired of having it shoved down their throats whenever they open a paper or turn on the news.

So you know what those people who don't like "Will and Grace" or "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" should do? They should turn off their televisions! What a radical notion! Or watch another channel. My goodness!

I don't know anyone who watches a TV show that they don't like or agree with. This is rather silly. I don't know anyone who deliberately puts themself in a situation that they don't want to be in.

I'm offended every time I see another BIG FAT GAS GUZZLING S.U.V. advertised. I think the manufacturers, advertisers, retailers and customers ought to be fined 2x's the cost of the vehicle. I think that THEY are going to burn in hell. Or I would if I believed in hell. And guess what -- they're allllll over the television.

As soon as I'm solvent again - an SUV is my next purchase! I like to be able to see over the tops of the car ahead of me, and I feel safer in one. I have a minivan now - and it gets the same gas milage as a Ford Explorer, which is what I'm looking at.

Actually do you know what's even worse than those commericals is that evil one of the couple shot in black and white in Venice, where he shouts out "I..Love..This..Woman" and she doesn't say anything until he gives her a diamond ring for her right hand (cos she's already got a rock on her left, which he gave her, naturally). And after she puts the ring on she whispers "I love this man." Because, one is left to assume, he gave her a diamond ring.

Evil.

I hate that commercial -- it's like screaming "hey kids - you have to buy women expensive gifts to get their love, or if you do something stupid like cause a big scene in public and embarass her you have to apologize with diamonds"

quote:It would be nice if my friend could let his employer know that he's gay without losing his job -- but the second that it's known he will be terminated and not allowed to teach in HISD again. (He teaches middle school history and is one of the best and most popular teachers there)

Yes, wouldn't it be nice? And then maybe his students and the community as a whole could benefit from knowing someone who is openly gay and does a marvelous job contributing to the community. And then maybe gays wouldn't seem so scary.

I think fear is what has caused all the controversies in history. Fear of stepping out of the societal comfort zone. Fear that women voters would destroy the world. Fear that freed black people would destroy the world. Fear that gay couples will destroy the world. But eventually we will get past this fear too and move on to another one.

[midori]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HokeyReligions

How is that ignorant? Because you don't agree with it? What if they are right? I can accept that possibility. Different "sides" slap those labels on - it doesn't matter the label - they are behaving in the same way. If I don't agree with you does that make me ignorant?

Are you firmly grounded in any beliefs, Hokey? What if someone firmly believes, for whatever reasons, that preventing their child from being taught to read and write is the proper thing to do, and that instead of school it's better for the child to work eight hours a day in the house and yard, and to perform sexual acts that don't risk their physical well-being? Would you be willing to say that such person is wrong? The child isn't coming to any physical harm, mind you. The child is being fed and clothed. And the parents genuinely believe that they are doing the right thing.

We're all anchored in something, we all have reference points that inform our perspective on the world. Just as some folks are comfortable interpreting the external world according to guidelines that have been given to them by their religious leaders, others root themselves in science and submit their assumptions to rational examination. Some people are comfortable reaching conclusions about entire groups of people when they may never have even met one member of said group. Others require some first-hand experience before they are able to form an opinion.

So, yes, although I am a mildly religious person myself, I do think that people who think that homosexuality is a "sin" are ignorant. I know what my perspective is. I can account for my beliefs and where they come from.

midori wrote:

Are you saying, then, that you would welcome into your social circle the head of your local KKK chapter?

Hokey Religions wrote:

Sure, why not? What if he's a really nice guy? Maybe he works to rescue animals like I do? Maybe he coaches little league. Maybe he gives to his community in a lot of ways. As a volunteer, a mentor, etc. Being a member of any organization doesn't mean that the people in it preach their beliefs in every single aspect of their lives, and shouldn't negate or devalue the contributions that they do make. Isn't that what the gay community is saying too?

I doubt if the members of the KKK, or any other group or organization, are completely "bad."

I agree with you that members of the KKK might genuinely think that they are good people. And they might have some admirable qualities. But no matter how much I admired a person's environmentalism, kindness to animals, or community spirit, I would not embrace them if I knew that they were an avowed racist. Why? Because I believe that racism is a warped and malignant world view, and that a person who is trapped by it cannot be viewed as a harmless eccentric with some oddball ideas. Racism is damaging to anyone who comes into contact with it.

How do you feel about child molesters, Hokey? They're troubled souls who surely have some good in them -- but do you think they should move unfettered in society?

Yes, if they express their beliefs they will be shunned. Why? Because most people don't agree with them? Their belief is only one part of them. When gay people first came out in the open in organized groups they were shunned too. People threw things at them, they were hurt, etc. Why shouldn't KKK be allowed the same civil rights?

White supremacists are allowed the same civil rights. What they're not allowed to do is vandalize or employ terror tactics against those whose existence they find intolerable. They can march down the street shouting slogans and carrying signs. And people are free to line the streets and jeer or cheer as they see fit.

When a black man stood up in his neighborhood and loudly protested a white man running for office in a mostly black district he was not shunned. He had supporters. His reasoning -- how would a white man be able to accurately represent their community? He had a point.

He did have a point. Two in fact. The one you made, which is a good one. And also the point that poor urban minorities do not have the capital or the connections needed to enter politics. It's not just that the white candidate wouldn't represent the majority of residents. It's that the black residents have a hard if not impossible time breaching the system to try to represent themselves.

But, if a white man stood up and protested a black man running for office in a mostly white neighborhood, for the same reasons, that man would be labeled a racist and with that label his political career would be damaged, if not destroyed.

Has that ever happened? Has there ever been a black candidate for a mostly white community? I don't think you can predict what would happen; if a black person ran unopposed in a mostly white community (an extraordinary prospect that seems almost unthinkable, but I'll play along for argument's sake), my guess would be that the white community felt he represented their social, economic, etc. goals.

If a religious group believes that homosexuality is "wrong" and the homosexual will go to hell are they wrong? No. That is their belief and there is no proof that they are wrong, or right, and their belief doesn't make them ignorant. There is nothing that can support their belief as an absolute.

Yes, I think they're wrong. And I think their belief does make them ignorant -- ignorant of science at the very least. Yes, yes, nothing can be proven to an absolute Hokey. But you have to situate yourself morally somewhere: is it OK to try to oppress people for characteristics that they may or may not have control over, but which affect no one but themselves (like race or sexual orientation)? Is it OK to try to oppress people for characteristics which they do have control over, but which affect no one but themselves (like what religion they observe)? The Nazis certainly thought it was.

There is hatred and prejudice among gays too.

No one said there wasn't. That doesn't make hatred directed specifically and indiscriminately against all gays any less wrong. There are racists in every race -- but the fact that there are some black people who hate white people doesn't make it any less wrong for a white person to spew racist venom at a black person.

As for tolerance - I speak of that on a civil level, not on a personal level. I don't tolerate or not tolerate anyone - I don't care what people believe or what their lifestyle is (chosen or not). It doesn't matter - it's not my place to tolerate or accept. But I will stand up in protest or in support of actions that have a direct impact on me. That's why I vote. That's why I rescue animals -- seeing an animal hurt or dead does have an impact on me. Gay marriage does not.

I agree with you somewhat, but I will say that I will not tolerate anyone who seeks to oppress or condemn another person, or group of people, for having characteristics or taking actions that affect no one but themselves.

Look at smokers: I think they're nuts! All the health risks, and the premature aging, and the expense. And the smell! But when they're smoking outside it doesn't affect me much at all. So I have nothing to say to them.

I think we are tallking about the same thing.

I also think we agree, Hokey. Except about S.U.V.s (remember, you wouldn't be able to see over the tops of cars if everyone had an S.U.V.!). But the more important exception is that while you seem to be saying "racism or homophobia do not make a person all bad" (which I agree with) I do think that accepting someone on the basis of their good points while ignoring their glaring and toxic flaws is not right. If you think homophobia is wrong, how can you embrace someone who openly preaches it and tries to oppress homosexuals?

I don't seek to make anyone conform to my beliefs. There are lots of things that other people do that I don't agree with. If everyone followed the "live and let live" credo that says we can only know how things are for ourselves, I would have no problem with people who think that homosexuals are unnatural. It's only when they try to impose their views on other people that I will speak out against them. I'm sure I have all kinds of unexamined assumptions that are naive, biased and ignorant. I don't think I'm uniquely omniscient or infallible.

I think fear is what has caused all the controversies in history. Fear of stepping out of the societal comfort zone. Fear that women voters would destroy the world. Fear that freed black people would destroy the world. Fear that gay couples will destroy the world. But eventually we will get past this fear too and move on to another one.

It almost sounds like you're saying "I don't have a dog in this fight so I'm not going to take sides." I don't think that's what you really mean, though correct me if I'm wrong. But if the only people who had fought for women's rights, minorities' rights, and children's rights had been women, minorities and children, respectively, do you think they would have succeeded? When there are forces trying to whip up fear, or use existing fear to prevent progress, I think it's misguided to be passive about resisting them. If you believe that it's inevitable that gays will one day be accepted by society, because there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, then you are in effect saying that you think that those who are against it are wrong. You don't need to imply that they have bad intentions for believing what they believe. I don't think that people who are afraid of homosexuality are bad, either. But I do think they're wrong to be afraid. I think their ignorance comes from a lack of knowledge and/or misinformation provided by flawed sources. And I absolutely think they're wrong for trying to impose the fruits of their fear on other people.

When I first went back to grad school, one of the professors who became a mentor to me said, "what's your hypothesis? Everyone has a hypothesis, but lots of people are afraid to admit it or articulate it clearly, lest they are subsequently proved wrong. Such people write muddled papers." I think that's true in life too.

[moimeme]

If someone expreses their honest belief that homosexuality is "wrong" or is a "sin"

This is the problem. That implies that homosexuality is a choice. Which flies in the face of science. I've said it before; I'll say it again - might as well say the sun rising is a 'sin' or is 'wrong'. That sort of thinking is wrong-headed.

A church or sect (whatever you want to call it) tht interprets same-sex marriage as a negative, sin, whatever, will serve their God based on their interpretation

My whole point is that they are not serving a real God. They are serving the image of God as portrayed by HUMANS with agendas. They are serving something that does not exist. Not only that, but some of them will 'serve' these fallacious religions by harrassing and mistreating homosexuals, which is precisely what is so wrong with this preaching. It encourages hatred.

There is a BIG distinction in what you wrote. "drive", "lazy", etc. have no religious connotations. "sinner" does. If an organized religion tells its "flock" that homosexuality is a sin and that God will punish this sin by eternity in hell (whether we believe it or not doesn't matter -- the "flock" believes it) then instructing their children to believe it is fine - we raise our children in the way we believe is best for them. If that religion teaches the homosexuals should be shunned, and not hired for jobs, or given medical treatment, etc. (all civil actions) then its crossing the line between religion and government and that is intollerance

And that is precisely what happens. Never mind that another set of words in the Bible are JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED. Funny how people ignore that one blissfully, isn't it - and that's a direct order. That is the great hypocrisy of these 'religions' and the reason why they do not deserve the faith of their believers.

I've also said this before: I firmly believe that many people who come up with all these rationalizations against gay marriage - which usually fail badly in terms of logic when they are carefully picked apart, as Midori has so aptly shown - are simply throwing up whatever they can manage to construct over the truth - that they dislike the idea of gay marriage and need to create reasons to explain their dislike.

However, the reasons all collapse upon further examination - and what we are really left with is the truth underneath which boils down to 'I just don't like it'. Which is fine, and people are entitled to their likes and dislikes. However, nobody is entitled to foist their likes and dislikes upon others in order to have their own personal comfort zones.