You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 12:10:39 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Prop 8 struck down.  (Read 18706 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Will

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #150 on: August 09, 2010, 06:19:33 PM »
Another somewhat problematic part of that argument is gays need to realize that disagreeing with allowing gay marriage isnt a sign of proven utter hate and disgust. Now certainly there are cases where it is, but its not always like that. Saying (and Im paraphrasing here) that anyone who isnt for gay marriage is a bigot is just as rediculous as saying Im racist because I dont like Obama's policies

There are plenty of reasons to be against Obama's policies that don't involve his skin color.  But I can't think of any reason to be specifically against gay marriage that doesn't involve negative feelings toward gay people.  You could be neutral towards it, or think it's not a worthwhile cause, but I wouldn't call that the same as being opposed to the principle of it.  This is all my opinion, of course; I don't mean to be dismissive of your statement.  I'm just disagreeing.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #151 on: August 09, 2010, 06:34:27 PM »
*nods* I'm curious to know how disallowing an entire demographic from enjoying the same rights as every other citizen can enjoy (again and again if they like, with impunity, for as short or as long a time as they wish, even) based on the fact that they're doing it wrong! intending to be non-traditional about it is not actually discriminatory and hurtful. I would really like to know the logic.

Offline Noelle

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #152 on: August 09, 2010, 06:39:59 PM »
You can disagree with gay marriage because you believe the context of the word is purely religious in nature, but have nothing against homosexuals themselves. This is partially a war of semantics, as I've stated before, because otherwise how would you reconcile the fact that more conservative Republicans are in favor of civil unions than marriage? If they both have equal legal standing but different titles, wouldn't that suggest that a lot of it has to do with a battle for the right to a word?

Hell, you can still have something against homosexuality and still vote in favor of striking down Prop 8 because you believe in equality regardless of your own personal distaste, but that seems to be a subject that's avoided here, and I'm not sure why. There are people supporting gay marriage who don't approve of homosexuality, but it seems to be okay to sweep them under the rug because they're on "the right side", despite their distaste and despite the fact that they may share many similar sentiments of those oppose it. I think that's really important to recognize and point out because in a way, it shows dangerous hypocrisy that you're willing to paint one side with a generalization that they all oppose it for the same reason, but yet it's ignored that your own side consists of a large spectrum of beliefs, some of which may not be entirely palatable. Writing it off as "if you're not with us, you're against us" is, once again, ignoring the moderate people that could otherwise be swayed. And what of them? Or is dialogue beyond them, too? This really doesn't look good for the gay activist cause.

Offline Brandon

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #153 on: August 09, 2010, 06:46:00 PM »
Damnit E ate my post!

Alright, I was going to go into a big philosophical discussion but screw it Im not writing four paragraphs again. Alright the jist of what I was going to say is a person does not have to be against specifically gay marriage to be labled a bigot by the LGBT community. I understand that there are people out there, I fight against them myself in my own way and I also understand that the LGBT community is hurt because they're being denied the same rights and privileges that we should all have.

but

Labeling everyone as bigots because they arent on the LGBT's side of gay marriage isnt the right way to fight for equality

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #154 on: August 09, 2010, 06:49:12 PM »
Damnit E ate my post!

Alright, I was going to go into a big philosophical discussion but screw it Im not writing four paragraphs again. Alright the jist of what I was going to say is a person does not have to be against specifically gay marriage to be labled a bigot by the LGBT community. I understand that there are people out there, I fight against them myself in my own way and I also understand that the LGBT community is hurt because they're being denied the same rights and privileges that we should all have.

but

Labeling everyone as bigots because they arent on the LGBT's side of gay marriage isnt the right way to fight for equality

How does that answer my question?

Offline Will

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #155 on: August 09, 2010, 06:50:23 PM »
If their reasoning is that it's "purely religious in nature," then why just focus on gay people?  There are atheists and agnostics getting married all over the country.  That glaring hole in their logic leads me to believe that they are, in fact, prejudiced against gay people, and are using religious semantics as a crutch in the debate.

Labeling everyone as bigots because they arent on the LGBT's side of gay marriage isnt the right way to fight for equality
That really isn't what I said.  Not being on the LGBT's side doesn't make you a bigot, of course not.  "If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem" is indeed a fallacy.  But being outright against gay marriage does, in my view.

Offline Kip

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #156 on: August 09, 2010, 07:26:54 PM »
Unfortunately, if you want your cause to push through, your options as far as initiating dialogue goes are pretty slim. You can't say you're entitled to something, that you want acceptance, and then refuse to make contact with the other side to get it. That's a one-way ticket to failure of your cause, simply because not initiating dialogue to plead for your side is not in your favor; inaction means things stay the way they are. Inaction means that the opposing side doesn't have to do much work, because your cause isn't doing enough.

A really good point - my contention is that there is a difference between initiating dialogue with the other side and initiating it with hate.  Jude said that the only real hope is to make peace with the people who hate gays.  I disagree with that.

I also think that reliance on dialogue only is not the way to go - definitely it is a necessary element but progression cannot be limited to a singular path forward.  Being yourself, being proud of who you are and disproving the stereotypes, labels and assumptions is important.  Visibility - either in the small scale within your own workplace, circle of friends, family, etc. or in the larger scale through media, movies, social events (such as pride parades, film festivals), etc - allows people to understand that gays and lesbians are as diverse a community as anyone else. Legal challenges where appropriate, such as this one, advance things in a difference fashion.

To be brutally honest - if the GLBT community did what was acceptable to the other side then the legal challenge wouldn't exist, pride parades wouldn't exist, PDAs wouldn't be allowed, the sexual orientation would be ignored.


Offline Lyell

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #157 on: August 09, 2010, 08:05:33 PM »
If this were simply about equal rights, I would argue that the government has, once again, made this mess by essentially subsidizing marriages (joint income taxes, for example), when they should really just butt out of everything other than the social contract aspects. But it's more than this: there is a social stigma associated with not being allowed to marry. That is why many are not satisfied with the "civil union" compromise. As far as I'm concerned, the government should only look at it from the perspective of "person A and person B agree to join their assets under this contract." From a public policy perspective call heterosexual marriages unions, and leave the term marriage where it originated: in the churches.

To be brutally honest - if the GLBT community did what was acceptable to the other side then the legal challenge wouldn't exist, pride parades wouldn't exist, PDAs wouldn't be allowed, the sexual orientation would be ignored.

To be honest (I would include brutally but I don't know any other speed) it weirds me out when any couple, straight or gay goes beyond holding hands and hugging in public places. Semi-private and private places are ofcourse, entirely up to the participants as those places tend to promote that atmosphere or activity. Nor does the media and what happens in it matter to me as my television has multiple channels and a handy off switch. I usually know what to expect in a movie when I pay to go see it.

Offline Astragalus

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #158 on: August 09, 2010, 08:15:03 PM »
I should also point out that the 'well, just let gay folks get civil unions, they're the same thing right?' argument doesn't really fly because a civil union isn't a marriage. It's entirely possible to get screwed out of being on your partner's health plan (among other things) if you aren't actual-factual married. See this New York Times article for more.

So, when you hear Republicans touting civil unions they're not being anywhere near as charitable as you might think.

Offline Florence

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #159 on: August 09, 2010, 08:21:19 PM »
I'm guessing you don't know anything about the Stonewall Riots.

Actually I know quite a bit, but I hardly see how that means a thing. That was when they STOPPED being all modest and polite about it. The Stonewall Riots pretty much sparked the gay rights movement as we know it today.

Also, I suppose this is only semi-related, but I honestly don't understand how people can get squicked out by seeing people be affectionate. I mean, I get when it ceases to be cute and starts being steamy passionate kinda stuff, yeah, that can be uncomfortable, I get it. But I don't get how seeing a couple be all cute and holding hands or kissing (not making out) can do that to people, for me it just makes me go "Awwww". For me, I think love is the sweetest, most redeeming quality mankind has to offer, it just seems odd to be uncomfortable because of it. But that's not really here nor there, just something I felt like expressing.

I should also point out that the 'well, just let gay folks get civil unions, they're the same thing right?' argument doesn't really fly because a civil union isn't a marriage. It's entirely possible to get screwed out of being on your partner's health plan (among other things) if you aren't actual-factual married. See this New York Times article for more.

So, when you hear Republicans touting civil unions they're not being anywhere near as charitable as you might think.

Even if it was, and I know someone tried suggesting this wasn't a valid argument a while back, but I didn't see any real basis for saying that, since it seems to me to be a VERY valid point, but separate but equal is NOT equal. "We'll keep 'marriage' and you guys can have 'parriage'" isn't exactly fair, as it inherently implies that same-sex couples are not worthy of being "married".

Offline Noelle

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #160 on: August 09, 2010, 08:45:08 PM »
Labeling everyone as bigots because they arent on the LGBT's side of gay marriage isnt the right way to fight for equality

This, exactly. "If you're not with us, you're against us" is a poor mentality to take (and I do believe a certain former president many of us dislike used a similar wording...), it alienates anyone in the middle who you might have been able to persuade and judging the entire group by the extreme is never a productive thing -- anything from extremism in religion to extremism in politics such as this, it's always a bad thing.

I also believe I addressed the subject of those who oppose gay marriage but aren't necessarily bigots and homophobes, but either that got skipped over or it apparently wasn't a relevant answer?

A really good point - my contention is that there is a difference between initiating dialogue with the other side and initiating it with hate.  Jude said that the only real hope is to make peace with the people who hate gays.  I disagree with that.

I also think that reliance on dialogue only is not the way to go - definitely it is a necessary element but progression cannot be limited to a singular path forward.  Being yourself, being proud of who you are and disproving the stereotypes, labels and assumptions is important.  Visibility - either in the small scale within your own workplace, circle of friends, family, etc. or in the larger scale through media, movies, social events (such as pride parades, film festivals), etc - allows people to understand that gays and lesbians are as diverse a community as anyone else. Legal challenges where appropriate, such as this one, advance things in a difference fashion.

I agree with you here. I think living your life productively and positively is the best revenge you could possibly get on naysayers and I would encourage more people to aspire to make themselves living examples of how to peacefully show that they can still succeed in spite of what they're given. There's just part of your post here that I have to contend...

Visibility is important, yes, but you have to consider what you're making visible. To me, comparing something like a pride parade to the actions during the civil rights movement is laughable -- in fact, coming from, for all intents and purposes, a bisexual woman, even my own support for the gay community begins to falter because I think pride parades are making an absolute mockery of it all. It takes a group of people who are fighting equality and turns them into a spectacle; how do you think the average, moderately uninformed American reacts when they see a bunch of dudes in rainbow thongs making out in the street? How do you think that affects how seriously they take the community and the message they're trying to promote? It's not to say you need to be hit with water cannons and tear gas in order to be taken seriously, but I think it's an interesting contrast to make in terms of just how serious people were taking one issue compared to the other. It's to a point where I don't even want to be associated with it -- any publicity is not good publicity, especially when you're fighting for something as serious as rights and trying to gain acceptance in the country at the same time. Regardless of whether the community thinks what they're doing is harmless or not, you can't ignore what everybody around you is thinking, because those are the people you're trying to convince. Preaching to the choir is easy -- preaching to the jury is not.

I also agree with you that the GLBT community needs to take steps that may be uncomfortable for other people, but they also need to tread carefully and evaluate what kind of messages their actions are sending. Using a gay judge to pass legislation that benefits gay people is dubious, to say the very least. Making out at protests to send a point proves nothing -- in fact, I'd venture to say the shock factor is likely to drive even more away. When you try and introduce someone to something new, you typically ease them in somehow, dipping a toe in the water, if you will. It's not to say that gay people should sit and suffer for a few more decades, but there also has to be a level of understanding that change doesn't happen overnight and that you don't change hearts or minds when you don't treat them like individual people.

Truthfully, if I had to recommend one thing to the gay community, it's to cut the theatrics and show that they are as diverse as they say -- that is to say that sexual orientation is not a defining trait of who they are and it's not the only thing about them. That they are doctors and mothers and teachers, etc., so they do have something in common with "the ordinary man". The average heterosexual person cannot sympathize or relate to someone who says "I'm just like you," and then dresses and acts outlandishly at a parade devoted to pride for something they were genetically born with and had no say in acquiring. Yes, visibility is key. I'd argue visibility is extremely important in order to make the gay community's presence felt and to say, "Hey, I could be your neighbor, your friend, your boss," but there also needs to be outreach instead of perpetuating the same stereotypes that the GLBT community abhors. Yes, I agree that things like legal challenges can be a good way of making your voice heard on a governmental scale, but again, that legal challenge needs to be justice that was fairly served in order to make it more binding, and there needs to be understanding that a legal ruling does not make the other half of the country magically like you. Patience, careful exposure, and a serious attitude are so important.


I should also point out that the 'well, just let gay folks get civil unions, they're the same thing right?' argument doesn't really fly because a civil union isn't a marriage. It's entirely possible to get screwed out of being on your partner's health plan (among other things) if you aren't actual-factual married. See this New York Times article for more.

So, when you hear Republicans touting civil unions they're not being anywhere near as charitable as you might think.

No, but when you're trying to win people over, you take small steps. The fact that they'd be willing to let homosexual couples legally join in another fashion is beginning to push in the right direction, but from the attitudes I get on this issue, nobody seems to really care about the moderate people who are so vital to winning more support unless they get it their way right now.

Actually I know quite a bit, but I hardly see how that means a thing. That was when they STOPPED being all modest and polite about it. The Stonewall Riots pretty much sparked the gay rights movement as we know it today.

Except there really were no significant gay rights movement before then, to my knowledge. It existed somewhat, but was not active, which doesn't automatically mean "polite" and "modest", it means they were inactive and did not protest. The gay rights movement is not that old, especially not the most prominent portions.

Quote
Also, I suppose this is only semi-related, but I honestly don't understand how people can get squicked out by seeing people be affectionate.

Because not everyone is you.

Quote
Even if it was, and I know someone tried suggesting this wasn't a valid argument a while back, but I didn't see any real basis for saying that, since it seems to me to be a VERY valid point, but separate but equal is NOT equal. "We'll keep 'marriage' and you guys can have 'parriage'" isn't exactly fair, as it inherently implies that same-sex couples are not worthy of being "married".

Ironically, it also implies that people, heterosexual or no, who choose not to marry are not worthy of the same benefits of married people. That's not exactly fair, either, but nobody's really fighting for that. The law isn't fair towards a lot of people, not just homosexuals.

Besides, if you ask me, we should just let the religious nuts take 'marriage' and strip it of its legal benefits (a la separation of church/state) and elevate civil unions to where marriages used to be. I'd prefer a civil union to a marriage anyway, given I'm not religious and don't really want to be affiliated as such. If religion wants 'marriage' to be their definition, then by all means give it to them and they can be as exclusive a club as they'd like to be, but as for the rest of us, I think civil unions would be the better option for hetero and homosexuals alike.

Offline Will

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #161 on: August 09, 2010, 08:48:20 PM »
This, exactly. "If you're not with us, you're against us" is a poor mentality to take (and I do believe a certain former president many of us dislike used a similar wording...), it alienates anyone in the middle who you might have been able to persuade and judging the entire group by the extreme is never a productive thing -- anything from extremism in religion to extremism in politics such as this, it's always a bad thing.

I also believe I addressed the subject of those who oppose gay marriage but aren't necessarily bigots and homophobes, but either that got skipped over or it apparently wasn't a relevant answer?

I already clarified my point.  Did you skip it over it, or was it not a relevant answer?
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 08:49:43 PM by Will »

Offline Lyell

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #162 on: August 09, 2010, 09:01:58 PM »
Seems to me a lot of the problems revolving around this issue would be gone if someone went back in time, used white out on whatever document made marriage a legal contract and wrote in 'civil union.'

I already clarified my point.  Did you skip it over it, or was it not a relevant answer?

Saying 'those who oppose gay marriage outright are bigots' is just restating the same point you've been making. And it's exactly what Noelle is pointing out: if you're not with us, you're against us mentality.

Offline Will

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #163 on: August 09, 2010, 09:05:39 PM »
Not true.  Those who actively oppose it are bigots, yeah, but that doesn't include everyone who's "not with us." :P

Offline Florence

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #164 on: August 09, 2010, 09:11:41 PM »
First, they did very much exist and WERE active. But they were quiet, they were meek, they were modest. They dressed in nice, conservative clothing, and protested very peacefully. As a result the movement went nowhere until the Stonewall Riots broke out, and they decided that it was time to make a stand, and starting all this flashy, in your face protesting, and look how far things have come. Back then, gay rights wasn't a debate, it was a punchline.

Also, I was never implying that everyone was me, I was merely stating my inability to understand people being squicked out by affection. I believe I stressed that point in my post.

Alsooo, when it comes right down to it, there's only so many reasons one can vote against gay marriage. They're not all homophobes, I'm sure, but they are not acting logically, and whatever does drive their action is not a positive attribute. At best they're simply misinformed, at worst they're hate-filled bigots. I suppose some may see religious motivation as being a good cause, I suppose, but I generally don't like law being made simply on religious doctrine and misinformation.

Offline Jude

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #165 on: August 09, 2010, 09:16:56 PM »
I also think that reliance on dialogue only is not the way to go - definitely it is a necessary element but progression cannot be limited to a singular path forward.  Being yourself, being proud of who you are and disproving the stereotypes, labels and assumptions is important.
I agree that being yourself, disproving stereotypes, and labels is important:  it's the pride factor that mystifies me.  If you believe that homosexuality is not a choice (and I do), then why would you be proud of it?  It's an innate condition that you had nothing to do with.  Now, I'm not saying you should be proud of being straight and not gay, because that's equally as senseless.  I cannot for the life of me understand the pride component.  If being gay is not wrong or right, why be proud?  Pride is not the opposite of shame, indifference is.  And indifference is the goal:  a world where no one cares what sort of people you like to have sex with.
Visibility - either in the small scale within your own workplace, circle of friends, family, etc. or in the larger scale through media, movies, social events (such as pride parades, film festivals), etc - allows people to understand that gays and lesbians are as diverse a community as anyone else. Legal challenges where appropriate, such as this one, advance things in a difference fashion.
I don't agree that pride parades and film festivals show how diverse gays and lesbians are at all.  Every time I look at media covering of pride parades all I see is an endless parade of over the top nonsense that wouldn't belong in the public sphere even if it was straight people marking down the street wearing lingerie.  It's an eyesore that hurts the cause far more than anything else that LGBT advocates do, by putting on display all of the ways that they differ from straight people.

If you're trying to foster understanding, acceptance, and tolerance you don't do it by highlighting points of divergence.  You do it by showing people how we are the same.  The only piece of media coverage that's adequately done that (which I suppose might actually even be an argument in favor of forcing gay marriage through and seeing how society reacts in the aftermath now that I think about it) in my opinion is the pictures of gay couples getting married on the courthouse steps.  You don't see the faux-lesbians that have inundated the porn sphere, shirtless guys with oiled hairless bodies in speedos, or fashion-chic queer-eye-for-the-straight-guy bitchy drama queens:  typically there's two middle-aged normal looking people holding the hand of the person they love with an expression of bliss that, even I have to admit, is touching.

Pride sets us back.  Pride divides us.  The Black Pride movement and Black Panthers and all of that garbage threatened to dismantle and destroy the racial equality movement more than helped it.  It created fear and mistrust that lingers on today (look at the recent media coverage of the New Black Panther Party).  I truly don't believe Pride Parades are helping things either, if you look at the statistics that I provided earlier yes, it's true, support for gay marriage has increased--but so has opposition.  The number of people who didn't care has rapidly declined since the new Gay Advocacy began with the Stonewall Riots, resulting in some serious polarization.

As things are now, homosexuals may never enjoy societal integration and total approval if trends continue.  Short-term victories don't mean much, when American Society has a history of the pendulum swinging back the other direction in a very violent, forceful way (1920-30s, 1950-1960s, etc.).  I truly believe that unless Gay Activists think about the way they're pushing the issue and find a more sympathetic approach, this could easily become an entrenched issue in American politics that doesn't go away, and serves as yet another point of divisiveness stopping our country from coming together when it's really important.
First, they did very much exist and WERE active. But they were quiet, they were meek, they were modest. They dressed in nice, conservative clothing, and protested very peacefully. As a result the movement went nowhere until the Stonewall Riots broke out, and they decided that it was time to make a stand, and starting all this flashy, in your face protesting, and look how far things have come. Back then, gay rights wasn't a debate, it was a punchline.
You're confusing causation with correlation:  yes, it's true, the style of popular protest has changed and rights have also been advanced, but that doesn't necessarily mean the two are related casually.  Society has liberalized in a lot of ways thanks to the anti-war and civil rights movement, to the point that these issues were unearthed for debate even allowing the argument to make an impact.

The quiet and meek protests you were referring to happened from 1950-1970, when the country was trying so hard to reinstate a more conservative social focus.  Of course they didn't make any progress then.  It is true that as the protests became increasingly aggressive there was more media attention, but don't mistake media attention for sympathy for their case:  remember that the percent of people who disapprove of gay marriage has skyrocketed since then as well (in the last 12 years alone over 1/8 of the country has sided with the anti-Gay Marriage crowd).
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 09:23:06 PM by Jude »

Offline Lyell

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #166 on: August 09, 2010, 09:26:14 PM »
Not true.  Those who actively oppose it are bigots, yeah, but that doesn't include everyone who's "not with us." :P

Just so that there's no confusion later and to further clarify what I'm getting at, it seems as though you think only those who support your position or those who doubt why they don't support your position aren't bigots.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 10:27:07 PM by Lyell »

Offline Florence

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #167 on: August 09, 2010, 09:32:26 PM »
More media attention means more coverage, means more people thinking of gay rights as more than just a handful of perverts and weirdos wanting to turn everyone gay. Granted the extremeness may not have helped their image in many cases, the fact is they went from a completely ignored cause to a well known and publicized, if not always in a pleasant way, cause. Media attention, sympathetic or not, tends to help get the ball rolling.

Offline Caeli

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #168 on: August 09, 2010, 09:42:11 PM »
I agree that being yourself, disproving stereotypes, and labels is important:  it's the pride factor that mystifies me.  If you believe that homosexuality is not a choice (and I do), then why would you be proud of it?  It's an innate condition that you had nothing to do with.  Now, I'm not saying you should be proud of being straight and not gay, because that's equally as senseless.  I cannot for the life of me understand the pride component.  If being gay is not wrong or right, why be proud?  Pride is not the opposite of shame, indifference is.  And indifference is the goal:  a world where no one cares what sort of people you like to have sex with.I don't agree that pride parades and film festivals show how diverse gays and lesbians are at all.  Every time I look at media covering of pride parades all I see is an endless parade of over the top nonsense that wouldn't belong in the public sphere even if it was straight people marking down the street wearing lingerie.  It's an eyesore that hurts the cause far more than anything else that LGBT advocates do, by putting on display all of the ways that they differ from straight people.

It's a slightly different analogy, but in a similar vein, my ethnicity is not a choice, but that is also something I am proud of. I don't see why you can't also be proud of something that is not a choice (using your example, sexuality; or my example, ethnicity), just as much as you could be proud of something that is a choice (such as your nationality).

That's an aside, though, and not entirely relevant to the discussion. I just wanted to note that it's not impossible to be proud of who you are, even if that aspect of you isn't something that is a conscious choice.

Offline Brandon

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #169 on: August 09, 2010, 09:53:41 PM »
Also I have to disagree with you a bit there Jude. Im a man and Im proud to be one. Im also an American, born as one and will be one no matter where I go and Im proud to call myself an American whether Im standing on my front lawn or in front of the Sphinx

Both aspects of myself give me a form of personal power. Sexual orientation could fall within that as well as religion or really any personal aspect of the self.

Offline Noelle

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #170 on: August 09, 2010, 09:55:23 PM »
Not true.  Those who actively oppose it are bigots, yeah, but that doesn't include everyone who's "not with us." :P

I didn't ignore your point, I actually just didn't see it, heh. I wasn't responding to anyone directly when quoting Brandon, was just a thought I happened to have. It's what happens when there's a deluge of responses while I'm writing my walls o' text, heh :P

Anyway, bigotry means total intolerance of ideas (and race/religion/creed/etc) other than your own. I would argue that by that standard, the gay community is chock full of bigots who are quick to condemn anyone who doesn't support gay marriage to the label of 'homophobe', or, ironically, 'bigot'. People who sit and ask "why don't they think the way I do?" and even worse, use that condescending, "let me educate you" mentality to try and get their point across. And more ironically, as I've pointed out repeatedly, there is a population of people who support gay marriage that are disapproving of the gay community, but not enough to deny them equal rights. The only thing that prevents them from being targeted by the gay community is the fact that they voted the "right" way, which is likely to change if/when gay marriage becomes legal on a national scale and then the GLBT advocates move on to trying to push acceptance more.

Not everybody who voted against gay marriage is completely intolerant to different ideas just as not every person who voted for it is the totally open-minded progressive.

You can't prove that every single person who votes against gay marriage is doing so out of complete and utter hatred towards gays. Some do, yes, but I've already explained the other logistics behind why someone might vote against it before, so unless there's something that I should further clarify or provide an additional explanation for, I thought that seemed to be a sufficient answer.

More media attention means more coverage, means more people thinking of gay rights as more than just a handful of perverts and weirdos wanting to turn everyone gay. Granted the extremeness may not have helped their image in many cases, the fact is they went from a completely ignored cause to a well known and publicized, if not always in a pleasant way, cause. Media attention, sympathetic or not, tends to help get the ball rolling.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm getting out of this is "I don't care if you make me and my organization look like a bunch of over-the-top idiots on national TV as long as people see us". It gets the ball rolling, alright, but probably not in the direction you want it to go. "Any publicity is good publicity" works for movie stars and musicians, but it makes for very, very ugly politics. In fact, I'd venture to say when the average American sees scantily-clad men in leather kissing each other on TV, it doesn't really do much to dispel the "I'm not a pervert" plea. It's much harder to earn a good reputation after you've fallen than it is to start off on the right foot and maintain.

Online Serephino

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #171 on: August 09, 2010, 10:47:57 PM »
On the judge thing, was it known he was gay when he took the case?  I admit I don't know exactly how the court thing works, but I seriously doubt anyone purposefully sought out a gay judge for this.  Now whether or not he tried to get himself put on the case, I don't know.  I still agree with his ruling though.

My cousin is getting married in two weeks.  There will be a ceremony and celebration afterward.  How is it demanding special treatment if I want the same thing?  Prop 8 is discrimination plain and simple.  Civil unions are like when schools were built for black kids to attend.  They were schools, but nowhere near equal to white schools.  It was something almost as good.

And no, marriage isn't a religious thing anymore.  There are the aforementioned tax benefits, so on and so forth....  A marriage isn't considered legal unless a marriage license is filed with the state.  Last but not least, two Atheists can go down to their county court house and be married by a judge.  My oldest cousin was married on a cruise ship by the captain.  How is that religious?

But if you still want to make the argument that it is, you can't just focus on the three major monotheistic religions.  You'd have to include ALL of them in that.  That means Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Satanists, and all non traditional forms of Paganism should be able to marry homosexuals then right?  After all, the majority of people in these religions I've met aren't against gay marriage.  In fact, I know a handful of prist/ess  who quite happily performed gay marriages when it became legal in their state. 

I'm not against Pride Parades, but rather the behavior of some.  I agree that prancing around in a rainbow thong playing tonsil hockey with a guy in leather isn't helping.  It is easier for people to relate to others when they share things in common.  I can't tell you how many people are shocked to learn I'm gay.  I'm too normal, whatever the hell that means.  They don't know unless I say something.  Not everyone is accepting, but I bet it makes them think.     

Offline Jude

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #172 on: August 09, 2010, 11:13:17 PM »
The judge was assigned the case randomly from what I read, meaning he didn't actively seek it out.  His being gay is somewhat well-known semi-secret in San Francisco, he's not quite open about it but he doesn't deny it either.  He probably should've excused himself from the case, though, because now that this is out it seriously diminishes the impartiality of the verdict and it's definitely going to be appealed and heard at a higher court.

I'm mystified; being gay isn't right or wrong, good or bad; it's neutral.  It's sexual preference.  Pride is an emotion attributed to positive qualities you possess like intelligence, strength, bravery, patience, wisdom; why would anyone possibly consider being gay, straight, female, or male to be another thing to add to that list?  Being prideful for having a particular trait is basically saying that trait is preferable, so if you're proud to be an American, you believe that is a good thing, and that being a citizen of this country is better than say... being a citizen of Liberia.

Apply the same logic to something that's assigned at random by birth, such as race, sex, or sexual orientation, and how is that not bigoted?  It's belief in superiority and preference.

EDIT:  For the sake of clarity I'd like to point out that I'm not calling anyone a bigot here.  That is not what I am intending to do.  Merely trying to explain the way a lot of people feel about 'gay pride.'
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 12:39:52 AM by Jude »

Offline Caeli

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #173 on: August 09, 2010, 11:53:32 PM »
The judge was assigned the case randomly from what I read, meaning he didn't actively seek it out.  His being gay is somewhat well-known semi-secret in San Francisco, he's not quite open about it but he doesn't deny it either.  He probably should've excused himself from the case, though, because now that this is out it seriously diminishes the impartiality of the verdict and it's definitely going to be appealed and heard at a higher court.

It's rather unfortunate that people feel that the judge would put a personal agenda over his own career, though; having read through and heard some legal analyses about Judge Walker's handling of the case, he was very detailed in giving his finding of facts and gave some very strong factual arguments regarding society, sexual orientation, and the social definition of marriage as the basis for his decision. I think it would be impossible to say that any judge could be entirely impartial to this particular issue, though.

Saying that the judge "should have" recused himself from the case is a bit of a moot point, anyway, since we can neither turn back time, nor know exactly why the judge didn't do so.

Apply the same logic to something that's assigned at random by birth, such as race, sex, or sexual orientation, and how is that not bigoted?  It's belief in superiority and preference.

We'll agree to disagree, then, because pride is not defined as being an emotion attributed to positive qualities that are possessed - at least, not in any dictionary I've seen.

I honestly feel that someone can be proud of some trait or characteristic that they have without thinking that it's something "superior". It's something that suits you best; it's self-respect, and being happy with that part of yourself. It can carry the implication of superiority, but it doesn't have to.

Since this is your personal take on the word, please refrain from reflecting your own views onto others; your way is not the only right way. I'd like as not be falsely called a bigot, thanks.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 11:54:43 PM by Caeli »

Offline Jude

Re: Prop 8 struck down.
« Reply #174 on: August 09, 2010, 11:54:29 PM »
a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc.

pleasure or satisfaction taken in something done by or belonging to oneself or believed to reflect credit upon oneself: civic pride.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pride

Hey, I have a better idea, why don't you give me a definition that reflects better if you don't like the fact that superiority is in all of these.

EDIT:  So it's okay to cast people who are against prop 8 as bigots, but if the word is turned around it's okay to condescend and proclaim offense in response?
« Last Edit: August 10, 2010, 12:06:21 AM by Jude »