What is "Wrong" with Homosexuality?

[Kaiserin]

Ched & Ghost good points but why not just quietly go about it like the majority of others. Fight for equality in the courtroom, but keep having "pride" parades and you antagonize the opposition. Which in turns strengthens their resolve and instigates them to rally against the cause. Lull them into over confidence though apparent in action and then they fail to oppose the legal fight with enough force.

Yeah, um... no.

Along with the above-mentioned rights campaigns having done the exact opposite and having accomplished their purpose quite effectively despite that, this also pretty much screams "I don't like it when gay people brandish their icky gay cooties because I don't want to have to look at it, so they shouldn't do it". It doesn't sound like you're trying to suggest alternatives, it sounds like you're trying to stifle them so YOU don't have to hear them.

Until they stop being assaulted/killed on the basis of their sexuality and denied simple things such as human rights, jobs, services, and other glaring examples of inequality, there needs to be an active movement and a voice able to be heard. They have as much right to silence you as you do to them. So if they just sat meekly on their hands and tried to con their opposition into pity, and instead tried to go quietly through the courts, you bet your *** they'd lose momentum so quickly that it wouldn't even matter in the long run. Nothing would change.

Piggybacking on the mention of women's rights and civil rights as similar -- imagine if either of these movements did the same thing you're telling the LGBT movement to do. At the time, it was perfectly natural for women/people of color to have few to no real rights despite the insistence that they did or they didn't need any, and the general opinion was very much parallel to the homophobes and fundamentalists of today. It was perfectly normal to them, and people like that despise change. So if they had done as you suggest back then, do you really think women would have the right to vote and hold jobs outside of the "feminine" norm? Do you think we'd have abolished the "separate but equal" concept for schools and other public venues?

Why is it any different now that people who rally for a cause of equality should have to stay quiet so they don't ~disturb the neighbors~ or some stupid reason like that? There's not many groups remaining in the United States that remain unprotected or even excluded in some fashion by state and federal law... but the LGBT community happens to be one of the last few groups that is still not fully treated as equal.

 

[randomspot555]

@Randomspot-
I don't necessarily think that every person who isn't pro-gay rights is going to always be that way.

While you might feel that way, the reality is that it's very much true.

In the US, LGBT issues are largely divided along a generational line. Older people who grew up in a pre-Stonewall Riots era, being gay wasn't often something that came in the public realm. When it did, it was highly encouraged to be hidden. These people may hold generally liberal beliefs in other areas of politics, society, and so on, but when it comes to LGBT issues, they are as they were raised. I know a political associate of mine who attended a pro-union rally in DC, he tried promoting some gay rights issues and he was met with comments like "If you believed in GOD maybe you wouldn't have these problems!"...at a very liberal rally.

People who grew up knowing gay people in their adult lives are pretty supportive of LGBT rights and issues.

Look at this Gallup poll, which shows that a majority polled support gay marriage. In about a year, support for marriage equality increases in self-identified Democrats and Independents. And separately, it increases by self-identified liberals, moderates, and just a bit with conservatives as well.

But then scroll a bit down at look at the age demos. 18-34 went from 54&% supportive to 70%. 35-54 stayed pretty much the same from 50 to 53%. 55+ went from 33 to 39%. And then breaking it down by age, 50+ males were more likely to be opposed than 50+ women (though both demos end up having a majority against marriage equality).

So generally, yes, someone who doesn't now support marriage equality, who is likely over the age of 50, is very likely set in their ways. This doesn't only pertain to LGBT issues. They aren't likely to convert to a new religion, or have different politics, or change their morning routine, and on and on and on. As humans get older, we become more resistant to change. Just the way things are.

Regardless, cheerleaders aren't an oppressed group fighting for equal rights. Arguably, they are a stereotyped group, but I've never seen parades formed by the Smart Cheerleaders Awareness Organization. ;P

PRIDE parades are generally not political. Like at all. Seriously. Go to one. It'll be just like any other number of parades and festivals cities and cultural groups hold throughout the year (usually during the spring and summer months). Politicians of all stripes are often invited, but no endorsement are given, stump speeches aren't heard, and so on.

It's just a general parade of LGBT culture and an excuse to have a good time.

 

[Simipour]

I can't be bothered reading the pages above me, so i'll just answer the question flat out.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and no-one has the right to think otherwise.

 

[Malanu]

Yeah, um... no.

Along with the above-mentioned rights campaigns having done the exact opposite and having accomplished their purpose quite effectively despite that, this also pretty much screams "I don't like it when gay people brandish their icky gay cooties because I don't want to have to look at it, so they shouldn't do it". It doesn't sound like you're trying to suggest alternatives, it sounds like you're trying to stifle them so YOU don't have to hear them.

Until they stop being assaulted/killed on the basis of their sexuality and denied simple things such as human rights, jobs, services, and other glaring examples of inequality, there needs to be an active movement and a voice able to be heard. They have as much right to silence you as you do to them. So if they just sat meekly on their hands and tried to con their opposition into pity, and instead tried to go quietly through the courts, you bet your *** they'd lose momentum so quickly that it wouldn't even matter in the long run. Nothing would change.

Piggybacking on the mention of women's rights and civil rights as similar -- imagine if either of these movements did the same thing you're telling the LGBT movement to do. At the time, it was perfectly natural for women/people of color to have few to no real rights despite the insistence that they did or they didn't need any, and the general opinion was very much parallel to the homophobes and fundamentalists of today. It was perfectly normal to them, and people like that despise change. So if they had done as you suggest back then, do you really think women would have the right to vote and hold jobs outside of the "feminine" norm? Do you think we'd have abolished the "separate but equal" concept for schools and other public venues?

Why is it any different now that people who rally for a cause of equality should have to stay quiet so they don't ~disturb the neighbors~ or some stupid reason like that? There's not many groups remaining in the United States that remain unprotected or even excluded in some fashion by state and federal law... but the LGBT community happens to be one of the last few groups that is still not fully treated as equal.

Yeah, OK just know that it's militant in your face shouting that begets the beating and the strong resistance. You misinterpret my meaning, I am not implying gays should stop fighting for their rights, just go about it in a business like manner. Really all the shouting and and in your face tactics causes more resistance.

As for disturbing the neighbors... who do you think voted against gay rights? It was those neighbors who saw a gaggle of gays parading around their town in G-stings and such. Do you think that helps their chances of getting the Jone's to vote for gay rights? Or does it make them think, 'If we give them their fair share are they going to be doing that everyday? That would ruin OUR neighborhood!"

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, But just because you are shouting doesn't make you right. A respectful well planned presentation works much better than telling those in power they must do X. Everyone should know that.

 

[Sgeckledorf Spoongeblorb]

Wait.

This thread still exists?

 

[PokeJustice]

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and no-one has the right to think otherwise.

That's an Orwellian thing to say, isn't it?

 

[THRILLHO]

I am not implying gays should stop fighting for their rights, just go about it in a business like manner. Really all the shouting and and in your face tactics causes more resistance.

the same things happens all the time , for things like pay disputes, etc

people are forced to strike because they can't just go "uh excuse me can we be paid more", they'll just get laughed off and told no; action has to be undertaken for anything to progress anywhere

as for the actual question in the title: nothing
let anyone bang whoever they want (and also marry and adopt etc)

 

[Malanu]

Yeah sorta true, but striking has a secondary purpose. It is designed to hurt the company's wallet, forcing the company to bend a little (positive for the striker). Or counter the strike with Scab workers (bad for the striker).

This isn't the same, flaunting sexuality does nothing to help the cause.

 

[THRILLHO]

it's publicity, it raises awareness, that's the point of them

anyone who watches and goes "goddamn these queers are ruining everything" need to get their bigoted heads out of their asses and just deal with it; homosexuality is a perfectly natural thing that can't (and shouldn't) be supressed and it does no harm to anyone

 

[GhostAnime]

That's definitely different from what you posted in the other thread..

 

[Malanu]

Totally valid point Moot, but those people are out there, and every time they see a gay parade they wonder 'what's after this?!?' Who's next? I understand their fear just as I understand gays desire for equality. The gays have a more valid argument, and deserve their rights, but the question still remains... who's next? And THAT scares the 'phobes to death.

 

[randomspot555]

Yeah, OK just know that it's militant in your face shouting

Have you ever been to a pride parade? Most of them, if not all, are completely non-partisan and don't promote political agendas or candidates.

And other civil rights movements have always coupled fighting within the system as well as public protests. The protests probably did very little in the way of affecting policy, but they are there not so much to affect policy as to raise awareness.

The people who see a pride parade and think "those gay fags should just keep it to themselves" are never going to be for LGBT equality. They are not the target of the message. Their point of view in the discussion and promotion of LGBT equality is irrelevant because it's immovable.

As for disturbing the neighbors... who do you think voted against gay rights? It was those neighbors who saw a gaggle of gays parading around their town in G-stings and such. Do you think that helps their chances of getting the Jone's to vote for gay rights? Or does it make them think, 'If we give them their fair share are they going to be doing that everyday? That would ruin OUR neighborhood!"

Again, this isn't how pride parades work. Pride parades and festivals, like any other parade or festival, are often held in central locations, large venues, downtown in a city, etc... They're advertised well in advance and aren't going to be in neighborhoods because those streets are too small. If you don't want to look, don't look.

And as I explained before, referring the Gallup poll, these typically older people are already set in their ways. They are not going to change their views on gays and lesbians.

Yeah sorta true, but striking has a secondary purpose. It is designed to hurt the company's wallet, forcing the company to bend a little (positive for the striker). Or counter the strike with Scab workers (bad for the striker).

And to promote the message.

This isn't the same, flaunting sexuality does nothing to help the cause.

If you consider it "flaunting sexuality", then don't look. I've seen cheerleaders from public high schools where just as revealing outfits as I've seen in pride parades, yet people don't seem to get all up in arms over that. But when gays or lesbians do it? WELL THEN HOLD ON A MINUTE!

 

[Malanu]

Have you ever been to a pride parade? Most of them, if not all, are completely non-partisan and don't promote political agendas or candidates.

No I haven't, I haven't been to a parade for over 30 years, except the one Labor Day Parade I walked in.

And other civil rights movements have always coupled fighting within the system as well as public protests. The protests probably did very little in the way of affecting policy, but they are there not so much to affect policy as to raise awareness.

I understand this. It's a bit of a double edged sword though.

The people who see a pride parade and think "those gay fags should just keep it to themselves" are never going to be for LGBT equality. They are not the target of the message. Their point of view in the discussion and promotion of LGBT equality is irrelevant because it's immovable.

And they can sway the fence huggers as easily as the gays in a parade.

Again, this isn't how pride parades work. Pride parades and festivals, like any other parade or festival, are often held in central locations, large venues, downtown in a city, etc... They're advertised well in advance and aren't going to be in neighborhoods because those streets are too small. If you don't want to look, don't look.

Remember I'm for gays getting their rights, to a phobe anywhere in "their" city is to close.

And as I explained before, referring the Gallup poll, these typically older people are already set in their ways. They are not going to change their views on gays and lesbians.

Yeah like me I'm one of those older, set in my ways folk I'm also a member of the Gallop Poll

If you consider it "flaunting sexuality", then don't look. I've seen cheerleaders from public high schools where just as revealing outfits as I've seen in pride parades, yet people don't seem to get all up in arms over that. But when gays or lesbians do it? WELL THEN HOLD ON A MINUTE!

Not to good of an example, lots of men fantasize about cheerleaders! Not to mention I haven't seen any high school cheerleader outfits that didn't cover everything important.

 

[Chris-kun]

Malanu you completely missed the point.

We need our parades and our "in-your-face" tactics as you reffered to them because if we sat behind a desk twiddling our thumbs and waiting for the legal system to listen to us in an orderly business like fashion, we'd still be in the ****in stone age.

Women had to protest and march to get their rights. African Americans did the same. If they just sat around and were "business like" we'd still have seperate-but-equal facilities and women would be stay-at-home.

 

[Pesky Persian]

While you might feel that way, the reality is that it's very much true.

In the US, LGBT issues are largely divided along a generational line. Older people who grew up in a pre-Stonewall Riots era, being gay wasn't often something that came in the public realm. When it did, it was highly encouraged to be hidden. These people may hold generally liberal beliefs in other areas of politics, society, and so on, but when it comes to LGBT issues, they are as they were raised. I know a political associate of mine who attended a pro-union rally in DC, he tried promoting some gay rights issues and he was met with comments like "If you believed in GOD maybe you wouldn't have these problems!"...at a very liberal rally.

People who grew up knowing gay people in their adult lives are pretty supportive of LGBT rights and issues.

Look at this Gallup poll, which shows that a majority polled support gay marriage. In about a year, support for marriage equality increases in self-identified Democrats and Independents. And separately, it increases by self-identified liberals, moderates, and just a bit with conservatives as well.

But then scroll a bit down at look at the age demos. 18-34 went from 54&% supportive to 70%. 35-54 stayed pretty much the same from 50 to 53%. 55+ went from 33 to 39%. And then breaking it down by age, 50+ males were more likely to be opposed than 50+ women (though both demos end up having a majority against marriage equality).

So generally, yes, someone who doesn't now support marriage equality, who is likely over the age of 50, is very likely set in their ways. This doesn't only pertain to LGBT issues. They aren't likely to convert to a new religion, or have different politics, or change their morning routine, and on and on and on. As humans get older, we become more resistant to change. Just the way things are.

I realize this, but there are still people who can change and there are still plenty of younger people who are either of voting age or are coming up on the voting age who can still change their minds. If no one's mind ever changed on any issue, what would be the point of fighting for equal rights anyway? It would be a fruitless endeavor if everyone's mindset stayed the same.

PRIDE parades are generally not political. Like at all. Seriously. Go to one. It'll be just like any other number of parades and festivals cities and cultural groups hold throughout the year (usually during the spring and summer months). Politicians of all stripes are often invited, but no endorsement are given, stump speeches aren't heard, and so on.

It's just a general parade of LGBT culture and an excuse to have a good time.

I was just making a joke about the cheerleader thing. I wasn't being serious in any way. I realize they're not political, as you've stated it already in this thread. However, you can't deny that doing something like that in the public eye can have an impact on people's political standings on the issue. Simply because the parades aren't geared toward politics doesn't mean it can't impact political viewpoints. These kinds of events are often covered by the media and when it comes to something as controversial as the LGBT culture, you can bet the media is going to be all over it. I know every time St. Louis has had a pride parade, it's made the local news. And if someone (or in some case, many people) are embodying a negative stereotype, it devalues the efforts of the entire LGBT community as a whole.

I want to make it clear that I have no issue with pride parades. I honestly don't really have a strong opinion about them at all. I'm simply saying that I can see both the negative and positive sides to such an event.

 

[Yeul]

Um, have I missed the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" abolishment convo? =P

 

[GhostAnime]

You're right, it would be fruitless if minds stayed the same; but I think randomspot's point is that they can stay the same and still "change". It would simply be done by the new generation challenging the old, etc and so forth. In other words, the change from women's rights is really just younger people with the mindset of men = women from the beginning growing up and having power over the last generation that was dying.

I guess it makes sense in a way from my experiences.

 

[randomspot555]

I realize this, but there are still people who can change and there are still plenty of younger people who are either of voting age or are coming up on the voting age who can still change their minds. If no one's mind ever changed on any issue, what would be the point of fighting for equal rights anyway? It would be a fruitless endeavor if everyone's mindset stayed the same.

Not what I said. What my analysis of the Gallup poll demonstrates is that younger minds have changed. The older minds, for the most part, are much slower at changing and really aren't likely to change. That's generally how people are. As we get older, we become more entrenched in our beliefs, traditions, norms, and customs.

 

[Sadib]

Not what I said. What my analysis of the Gallup poll demonstrates is that younger minds have changed. The older minds, for the most part, are much slower at changing and really aren't likely to change. That's generally how people are. As we get older, we become more entrenched in our beliefs, traditions, norms, and customs.

That's why the younger generation are always better, because they are progressing forwards. I can't wait until those old racists of the past die out.

 

[Butterfly]

there's actually psychological evidence to back this stuff up, too. as we get older our brains become worse at learning, remembering, etc. it has to do with parts of the brain naturally decaying like the rest of our body does. this doesn't mean we can't learn or change, it's just a lot harder. just like an old man may be able to run several miles, but it won't be as easy as it would for a young man.