Gays in society (split from Boy Scouts thread)

[mikeymikec]

If you get on a bus do you announce to everyone your sexual orientation? If you go to a restaurant do you announce to everyone your sexual orientation? If you apply for a loan do you announce your sexual orientation?

Its not so much you have to hide it as you have to not shove it in everyone's face.

I think sexual orientation can be rather obvious if you're in public with your partner, just due to the familiar way you are with each other, without doing anything remotely sexual. Holding hands, for example.

I am not hiding anything or I wouldn't post my feelings on it. I think the gay community, and those who are advocates, are segmenting themselves from society

You know if someone says "the white community are doing xyz" or "ginger-haired people do xyz", it sounds really silly? Yup, that's what you just did.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I am not hiding anything or I wouldn't post my feelings on it. I think the gay community, and those who are advocates, are segmenting themselves from society when they equate not giving a crap about what someone is doing in their bed with hatred for the person.

I find your position confusing, because you don't seem to realize that your negative views about homosexuals, which are shared by many others, are the reason why this exiling happens in the first place. Most people don't like to be around others who dislike them, especially when they are disliked due to a minority characteristic.

As in the case of my nephew, the family member I am speaking of -- does it suprise you that we had a talk about this, and though we live our separate lives, he's called me for assistance with transportation and financial issues? Well, how can he, knowing I "hate" him, dare do something like that?

I never said you hated him. But again, ask yourself: why would someone want to keep themselves apart? It's not done for no reason.

If he is okay still being friends with you despite your views, then good for both of you. Some people can do that, but most cannot.

We all can co-exist, truthfully, if gays and those supporting them grow and let people make up their own minds. Why can't you let us make up our own minds? Why do you expect... DEMAND... that everyone be clapping and applauding after a gay wedding?

Why is it okay for you to "make up your own mind" about whether you accept gay marriages, but not okay for them to "make up their own minds" about whether they accept your refusal to accept gay marriages?

If you applaud at a straight wedding and not at a gay wedding, then you are making a negative statement about gays, whether you intend to or not. You can make that choice if you wish, but that doesn't mean other people have to respect it.

 

[nehalem256]

If you applaud at a straight wedding and not at a gay wedding, then you are making a negative statement about gays, whether you intend to or not. You can make that choice if you wish, but that doesn't mean other people have to respect it.

No. You are making a statement that opposite-sex relationships are more important to society than same-sex relationships are.

A wedding is about making a positive statement about a relationship. Failing to make a positive statement is not a negative statement.

If someone decides to have a "Best-friending ceremony" and you do not applaud like at a straight wedding are you making a negative statement about best-friends? Or are you saying that opposite-sex relationships are more important to society than best-friends?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

We all can co-exist, truthfully, if gays and those supporting them grow and let people make up their own minds. Why can't you let us make up our own minds? Why do you expect... DEMAND... that everyone be clapping and applauding after a gay wedding?

You guys are not intolerant of bigotry, you're intolerant of different opinions.

We can all co-exist when people stop letting their personal bigotry influence public policy. Let's go with a personal example.

I was raised by lesbian parents. I was adopted by one of my mothers when I was born. I wasn't able to be legally adopted by my other mother for nearly a decade afterwards because, at the time, gay adoption was not legal in my state. Even when gay adoption was legalized, it was done so under "judicial discretion," so my mothers had to find a judge who was willing to go along with it. If anything had happened to my legal adoptive parent during those first ten years of my life (death or something that would have made her unable to care for a child), I would have been taken away from my other mother and placed into foster care because she had no legal claim to me according to the law. And while gays were struggling to get adoption rights recognized, there were multiple measures brought forward on state ballots to ban gays from serving in public office, teaching, being a government employee, make it legal to fire someone on the basis of sexual orientation, etc. And this was in one of the bluer states in the country.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I may disagree with yours, but that's not really a problem. But when people who share your opinion want to make it law that a certain group no longer has any rights? That's a problem. If, God forbid, something had happened to one of my mothers in my early years, I could have found myself being raised in foster care instead of by a loving family, all because people who share your view of homosexuality decided they wanted to invoke the power of the law to restrict it. That's the disconnect. Everyone has their prejudices; when you try to codify your prejudice as law at the expense of people who aren't harming you or anyone else, you are doing an evil deed, and people should call you on it. We aren't intolerant of different opinions, we're intolerant of people trying to legislate away a lifestyle we have no problem with (even if we don't personally live it).

 

[Pulsar]

I am not hiding anything or I wouldn't post my feelings on it. I think the gay community, and those who are advocates, are segmenting themselves from society when they equate not giving a crap about what someone is doing in their bed with hatred for the person. You back people into an all or nothing ultimatum, they're going to say screw you, especially if you want to involve their religious beliefs. Yet, you and many others still want to blame them for YOUR bigotry when you're trying to make them change what they privately believe to appease you.

1. You shouldn't give a crap about what someone does in their bed.
2. This is an ultimatum. Accept that people are gay, just like people are black.
3. Religious beliefs should be thrown out when they support repression or hatred toward any group.
4. If someone privately wants to believe that gays are second class citizens, then they're perfectly welcome to be bigoted and naive. But that's not what this thread is about.

Laws need to be passed in this country that you cannot discriminate against sexual preference any more than you can race, color or creed.

I'm not sure you understood what Charles meant when he said 'palpably'. Nearly every post you've made has been hostile and defensive. It's fairly clear the topic in general offends you. For someone who waxes eloquent and talks in circles on religious topics, your conduct in this thread has been 100% the opposite. I believe that's what Charles was trying to politely point out to you (not to put words in his mouth).

No one, even once in this thread, suggested that gays should be walking around trumpeting 'I'm gay'. Yet religious people do this on a regular basis - be it with their church signs, their crosses on the lawns to signify abortion. I find that offensive - but I don't complain about it because they have their right to trumpet their beliefs about their religion.

It appears you have more tolerance for religion being 'in your face' than you do gays.

 

[nanette1985]

Actually, it didn't.



I'm not that close to the history, but I've had a taste and some exposure to parts.
.................

I could list all kinds of little milestones - and there has been an active political movement intentionally building towards this. It's not a 'gay agenda' in the sense that the right-wing bigots likes to say, some sort of evil design against America and taking all kinds of 'special rights' and restricting yours. It's just an agenda for overcoming discrimination.

You can find little bits here and there that most clearly start that I'm aware of in the 1970's. In part the political organization was helped by there being a concentration of gay people in San Francisco - which not many people know started when veterans returning from WWII, disembarking in San Francisco, found a good number of them who were secretly gay stayed there forming some community. In the 1970's, we had the first openly gay elected person in California, Harvey Milk - though he was assassinated.

Various things were started - like gay pride parades, starting to have people doing what had not really ever been done before - say they're gay.

Ever hear the slogan "We're here, we're queer, get used to it"? That was a statement saying start adapting to the idea that gay people don't have to hide or go to jail.

I won't try to summarize all the cultural progress - all the firsts - first movie star, first whatever - but Bill Clinton was a small amount of help. He wanted to legalize gays in the military, but Colin Powell was more popular than he was, basically and resisted him, and they compromises on "don't ask, don't tell" which was seen as progress for gays at the time, but led to the expulsion of thousands of military members. Clinton also signed the federal defense of marriage act, with great popular support. The country wasn't ready.

Then in 2003 IIRC, the Supreme Court struck down all sodomy laws - basically 'jail the gays' laws - further 'legitimizing' gays by removing that legal stigma. While a large majority still opposed gay marriage, opposition was softening; and the Massachussets Supreme Court was the first state to strike down laws against gay marriage.

Very liberal Massachussetts reacted with a large majority opposing the ruling and supporting a movement to ban gay marriage again when they could in a couple years.

A funny thing happened on the way to that - gay marriage didn't actually hurt anyone, and they got used to it, and the poll numbers shifted towards support for gay marriage.

As of 2004, Republicans were still playing the game of putting anti-gay ballot measures on ballots to bring out Republican voters - but that was the last time it worked much.

Public opinion was just continuing to shift away from bigotry, slowly and gradually. By 2008 no major presidential candidate was for gay marriage, but they were for more equality.

Another significant milestone came when Joe Biden let slip he was for gay marriage. That Vice-President had more impact than the previous, Cheney, because it was based more on principle while Cheney's was seen as driven by having a gay daughter. Biden's action created pressure on President Obama - who was sort of pushed into switching from his anti-stance to a pro-stance. After he did, members (nearly all Democrats) in Congress followed; nearly every Democratic Senator came out for it.

Every Democratic nominess for President followed, all for it now.

This all followed a poll where public support for gay marriage topped 50% for the first time - politicians switched quickly.
. . . . .

It's a decades-long effort to win over public opinion - it's just sped up a lot after public opinion going over 50% and Biden and Obama supporting it.

Interesting, but it doesn't answer my question. I think this is a much better list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots I'm well into my 50's and I was around for everything you mention, and I was living on Christopher Street in 1969, which is what made me look up Stonewall.
I'm also curious that there's no mention of the politics of the AIDS epidemic, all the work to convince the country that it wasn't the fault of gays.

My question about other causes of the gay movement stems from my involvement with the anti-war movement of the 60's, which was a small group of concerned people in the beginning but was also controlled by the CIA (drugs) and a lot of other interested parties as it went on. The war did end, but I doubt that it was because of the little anti-war activist movement.

Who benefits by gay marriage? Is the wedding industry really that powerful?

 

[woolfe9998]

If you get on a bus do you announce to everyone your sexual orientation? If you go to a restaurant do you announce to everyone your sexual orientation? If you apply for a loan do you announce your sexual orientation?

Its not so much you have to hide it as you have to not shove it in everyone's face.

Uhm, you're saying it's a cakewalk to pretend you're straight to your family and friends, especially your parents? I'm thinking you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about.

So far as going out in public, what if you have an effeminate manner? Is it OK that you might just get the crapped kicked out of you?

 

[nehalem256]

Uhm, you're saying it's a cakewalk to pretend you're straight to your family and friends, especially your parents? I'm thinking you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about.

I believe we were talking about publicly. Which is what the Black Civil Rights movement was about.

You want to know how many times I have discussed dating life at work? None, because there is absolutely no need to talk about it.

The same can be said for applying for loans, getting an apartment, riding the bus, drinking water from a fountain.

Really the only time it might be an issue is at a restaurant if you were on a date with your gay bf.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I believe we were talking about publicly. Which is what the Black Civil Rights movement was about.

You want to know how many times I have discussed dating life at work? None, because there is absolutely no need to talk about it.

The same can be said for applying for loans, getting an apartment, riding the bus, drinking water from a fountain.

Really the only time it might be an issue is at a restaurant if you were on a date with your gay bf.

Actually, most rentals require you to list all occupants. So, 2 men and a 1-bedroom apartment would make their orientation obvious.

Back when it was considered OK to treat blacks like some still want to treat gays, some light-skinned mixed-race people "passed" as white. Did they hide their black ancestry for no reason? Or did they do it because they would be treated much better if they were taken to be white?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

A wedding is about making a positive statement about a relationship. Failing to make a positive statement is not a negative statement.

That's not how it works. There are societal norms, and statements are made by inference even when they aren't said out loud.

Going to a wedding involves certain norms. Disrespecting those norms sends a negative message. So does declining an invitation to a wedding under circumstances that make it clear that it is the wedding party that is at issue.

If someone decides to have a "Best-friending ceremony" and you do not applaud like at a straight wedding are you making a negative statement about best-friends?

When society regularly has "best-friending ceremonies", let me know. Until then, perhaps you could find an actually-relevant analogy to use.

 

[nehalem256]

Actually, most rentals require you to list all occupants. So, 2 men and a 1-bedroom apartment would make their orientation obvious.

Maybe they are just poor?

Back when it was considered OK to treat blacks like some still want to treat gays, some light-skinned mixed-race people "passed" as white. Did they hide their black ancestry for no reason? Or did they do it because they would be treated much better if they were taken to be white?

Maybe they just kept their mouth shut?

If things like race and sexual orientation don't matter there should be no need to tell people about it.

 

[Retro Rob]

1. You shouldn't give a crap about what someone does in their bed.
2. This is an ultimatum. Accept that people are gay, just like people are black.
3. Religious beliefs should be thrown out when they support repression or hatred toward any group.
4. If someone privately wants to believe that gays are second class citizens, then they're perfectly welcome to be bigoted and naive. But that's not what this thread is about.

Accept that people are gay? You think I live in a bubble or something? I've acknowledge this, in many threads, GAYS HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR CENTURIES!

That's why it surprises me, personally, how/why people fall all over someone coming out on radio/TV, etc. Sure, I get the bravery aspect, but gays aren't new to this world.

Laws need to be passed in this country that you cannot discriminate against sexual preference any more than you can race, color or creed.

Of course, I never made an argument against this.

I'm not sure you understood what Charles meant when he said 'palpably'. Nearly every post you've made has been hostile and defensive. It's fairly clear the topic in general offends you. For someone who waxes eloquent and talks in circles on religious topics, your conduct in this thread has been 100% the opposite. I believe that's what Charles was trying to politely point out to you (not to put words in his mouth).

The topic doesn't offend me... the "passing of blame" is what does. I've acknowledge that society has an effect on people, but ramdomrouge made a point to exaggerate this as if we're (heterosexuals) are the reason why gays decided to live a lie. No, that's not acceptable. Playing the victim offends me and isn't acceptable. It's too easy in this world to shirk responsibility, blacks can no longer blame the "man" (though racism is more than alive in this world) and neither should gays be able to blame us.

I still deal with racism as a black man and stereotypes associated with being between a certain age-range, yet, I'm not looking to put the blame on anyone if I make the choice to give up on certain things and start lying to myself as if I am not worthy of a decent life because of racist white people.

No one, even once in this thread, suggested that gays should be walking around trumpeting 'I'm gay'. Yet religious people do this on a regular basis - be it with their church signs, their crosses on the lawns to signify abortion. I find that offensive - but I don't complain about it because they have their right to trumpet their beliefs about their religion.

I don't want to suppress their freedom to do that, however, are religious people being put on front page "BREAKING NEWS" headlines because they came out with their religious beliefs? If they did, you'd probably feel the way I feel about someone's sexuality being plastered over all national news stations.

Religion has been around a long time, so has homosexuality -- nothing new in either case nor worth making a big announcement about.

It appears you have more tolerance for religion being 'in your face' than you do gays.

Religions aren't in my face, honestly. Its something I no longer take note of because it's a regular part of life. It's there and I don't pay much attention to it.

I thought I felt the same way about homosexuality, until every time someone came out as gay, especially a male, it made front page news. To me, homosexuality is just a part of life as heterosexuality is.

 

[nehalem256]

That's not how it works. There are societal norms, and statements are made by inference even when they aren't said out loud.

Going to a wedding involves certain norms. Disrespecting those norms sends a negative message. So does declining an invitation to a wedding under circumstances that make it clear that it is the wedding party that is at issue.

When society regularly has "best-friending ceremonies", let me know. Until then, perhaps you could find an actually-relevant analogy to use.

And what if I start calling "best-friending ceremonies" weddings? Does that change any essential facts?

I believe this article shows a lot of what is going on:

That so many people find this claim credible or even self-evident is a small but potent example of exactly the two phenemona that my column’s conclusion discussed: First, the way that gay marriage inevitably has widening cultural ripple effects, in this case revising not only the law itself but also the stories people tell about where those laws came from and what they’re meant to do; and second, the way that some of these ripple effects are making it almost impossible for liberals to show magnanimity in victory, and accept the continued existence of people and institutions that still take the older view of what marriage is and means. After all, if that supposedly “older” view was just invented by Clinton or Bush-era homophobes when their Bible-thumping stopped working, then what’s to respect or even tolerate? Once you’ve rewritten the past to make your opponents look worse, then you’re well on your way to justifying writing them out of the future entirely.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/marriage-procreation-and-historical-amnesia/

In essence you want to pretend that there is no difference between an opposite-sex and same-sex relationship. If you accept that then obviously anyone who treats such relationships differently must be a bigot.

I was trying to point out that if you view relationships as different ,such as an opposite-sex and bff relationship, that you see nothing wrong with treating these relationships differently.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

And what if I start calling "best-friending ceremonies" weddings? Does that change any essential facts?

I'm really not interested in playing these sorts of games. Gay weddings are not "best-friending ceremonies", and I don't really care what you label things that don't exist.

I was trying to point out that if you view relationships as different ,such as an opposite-sex and bff relationship, that you see nothing wrong with treating these relationships differently.

That's tautological. Obviously if you view them as different there's nothing wrong to you with treating them differently.

But the comment I took issue with was this: "Failing to make a positive statement is not a negative statement." That's categorically false -- there are many situations in which failing to make a positive statement is a negative statement. And most of them have to do with societal norms.

If you behave in a dour manner at a wedding, you most definitely are making a negative statement. Ask a father what happens if he gets a hideous tie for Father's Day and "fails to make a positive statement".

 

[Retro Rob]

We can all co-exist when people stop letting their personal bigotry influence public policy. Let's go with a personal example.

I was raised by lesbian parents. I was adopted by one of my mothers when I was born. I wasn't able to be legally adopted by my other mother for nearly a decade afterwards because, at the time, gay adoption was not legal in my state. Even when gay adoption was legalized, it was done so under "judicial discretion," so my mothers had to find a judge who was willing to go along with it. If anything had happened to my legal adoptive parent during those first ten years of my life (death or something that would have made her unable to care for a child), I would have been taken away from my other mother and placed into foster care because she had no legal claim to me according to the law. And while gays were struggling to get adoption rights recognized, there were multiple measures brought forward on state ballots to ban gays from serving in public office, teaching, being a government employee, make it legal to fire someone on the basis of sexual orientation, etc. And this was in one of the bluer states in the country.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I may disagree with yours, but that's not really a problem. But when people who share your opinion want to make it law that a certain group no longer has any rights? That's a problem. If, God forbid, something had happened to one of my mothers in my early years, I could have found myself being raised in foster care instead of by a loving family, all because people who share your view of homosexuality decided they wanted to invoke the power of the law to restrict it. That's the disconnect. Everyone has their prejudices; when you try to codify your prejudice as law at the expense of people who aren't harming you or anyone else, you are doing an evil deed, and people should call you on it. We aren't intolerant of different opinions, we're intolerant of people trying to legislate away a lifestyle we have no problem with (even if we don't personally live it).

I feel you. if you are familiar with my posting on the matter, mixing religion and politics has been something I've always spoken against, and while religious people can and should be able to run for office, that is not the avenue to invoke your religious beliefs. Look at all the problems that has arisen because of this.

Sure, they can do their preaching outside of government office -- this way, you have the option to not accept it and don't have to worry about it being forced on you.

 

[nehalem256]

But the comment I took issue with was this: "Failing to make a positive statement is not a negative statement." That's categorically false -- there are many situations in which failing to make a positive statement is a negative statement. And most of them have to do with societal norms.

That sounds like something George W. Bush would say. "You are either with us or against us".

If you behave in a dour manner at a wedding, you most definitely are making a negative statement. Ask a father what happens if he gets a hideous tie for Father's Day and "fails to make a positive statement".

You analogy seems a bit flawed because you don't normally have a neutral opinion on hideous things. Having a neutral or "I don't care" opinion about gay relationships is perfectly compatible with opposing same-sex marriage.

Marriage is about having others recognize(care about) your relationship.

And I think that the response would depend on how old his kid is. Hopefully a 20 year old can stand having his father tell him that he didn't pick the best tie. Marriage is suppose to be for adults so hopefully they can stand having someone say that their relationship is not worth the same as an opposite-sex one.

 

[Retro Rob]

I never said you hated him. But again, ask yourself: why would someone want to keep themselves apart? It's not done for no reason.

This needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis, meaning, that everyone isn't the same, and if you know the person(s), these generalities you're making go out of the window.

If he is okay still being friends with you despite your views, then good for both of you. Some people can do that, but most cannot.

So what? We're family and always will be despite his sexuality. I don't like bringing this sort of thing to the fore, but you guys need to learn that people can be loving and accepting of an individual regardless of the persons sexuality/preference, while not caring about who they decide to be in a relationship with. His choice of sex partner, not mine.

Why is it okay for you to "make up your own mind" about whether you accept gay marriages, but not okay for them to "make up their own minds" about whether they accept your refusal to accept gay marriages?

They can. The problem is that it seems that any person who doesn't accept gay marriages FOR ANY REASON can't have a reasonable discussion with gays because they (gays) seem to ignore the reason, and go right to name calling and labeling.

Whether or not you believe God is real doesn't make him less real to anyone else, and some people think what God says about the issue trumps what YOU think, and I'm sure you feel the exact same way that what the Bible says doesn't matter. My point has nothing to do with the legality of the issue. If gay marriage is law, then religion shouldn't have anything to say about it. But they still can believe and practice how they wish (outside of persecuting gays etc).

This is how we can co-exist. We have to because nothing will ever be 100% accepted and agreed upon.

Be careful though, because anti-religious zealotry can indeed lead to them being harassed, etc.

If you applaud at a straight wedding and not at a gay wedding, then you are making a negative statement about gays, whether you intend to or not. You can make that choice if you wish, but that doesn't mean other people have to respect it.

Why would I applaud at something I don't agree with? I don't expect people to respect my beliefs and frankly, I don't need them to. On the same token, I wouldn't dare fight against gay marriages, either. The can do what they want. I don't have to applaud nor frown on it.

EDIT: I won't attend a gay wedding, fyi.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That sounds like something George W. Bush would say. "You are either with us or against us".

No, actually, it's absolutely nothing like it whatsoever. This is not politics or terrorism or war, it's a social event. Social events have established norms.

You analogy seems a bit flawed because you don't normally have a neutral opinion on hideous things. Having a neutral or "I don't care" opinion about gay relationships is perfectly compatible with opposing same-sex marriage.

When people have a neutral opinion on something, and they are in a social setting, they generally do what is polite. That's my entire point. Going to a wedding and not acting happy about the event stands out as a negative specifically because only someone unhappy about it would behave in that manner.

Marriage is suppose to be for adults so hopefully they can stand having someone say that their relationship is not worth the same as an opposite-sex one.

You're either being deliberately obtuse, or you have little experience with social situations. It's not that people "can't stand" having someone denigrate the value of their relationship. It's that they wouldn't want such people to express such views at their wedding.

You responded to my comment to Rob. The scenario he mentioned was someone going to a wedding and remaining silent when others are applauding. That's a specific action not comparable to someone the party doesn't know simply disapproving from afar.

Please stay on topic.

 

[Retro Rob]

Charles, didn't mean the "so what" in the above post.

Thanks for the kind discussion...

 

[nehalem256]

When people have a neutral opinion on something, and they are in a social setting, they generally do what is polite. That's my entire point. Going to a wedding and not acting happy about the event stands out as a negative specifically because only someone unhappy about it would behave in that manner.

You're either being deliberately obtuse, or you have little experience with social situations. It's not that people "can't stand" having someone denigrate the value of their relationship. It's that they wouldn't want such people to express such views at their wedding.

But yet they wanted them to attend? I would say that the polite thing to do would be to decline the invitation but then...

So does declining an invitation to a wedding under circumstances that make it clear that it is the wedding party that is at issue.

You responded to my comment to Rob. The scenario he mentioned was someone going to a wedding and remaining silent when others are applauding. That's a specific action not comparable to someone the party doesn't know simply disapproving from afar.

Please stay on topic.

And you claimed that constituted:

then you are making a negative statement about gays.

It may be making a negative statement about same-sex marriage, but it is an assumption to say it is making a negative statement about gays.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

We're family and always will be despite his sexuality. I don't like bringing this sort of thing to the fore, but you guys need to learn that people can be loving and accepting of an individual regardless of the persons sexuality/preference, while not caring about who they decide to be in a relationship with. His choice of sex partner, not mine.

Let's recall that the larger question was why gay people often stay to themselves or hide their identities. What I'm trying to tell you is that your willingness to accept this person regardless of your overall views of his orientation is atypical. Gays have traditionally hid their orientation for the simple reason that revealing it risked them being shunned, disowned or worse.

They can. The problem is that it seems that any person who doesn't accept gay marriages FOR ANY REASON can't have a reasonable discussion with gays because they (gays) seem to ignore the reason, and go right to name calling and labeling.

I don't understand why this surprises you. You are telling these people that, because of who they are, you believe they should not have the same rights as the majority. This isn't like saying you prefer tea over coffee -- it's a very strong and personal position. What's there to have a "reasonable discussion" about, when they consider your position inherently unreasonable?

This is how we can co-exist. We have to because nothing will ever be 100% accepted and agreed upon.

Gays are increasingly not interest in coexisting in this manner. And I don't blame them. I think you're being unrealistic in thinking that other people will quietly choose to accept your non-acceptance.

EDIT: I won't attend a gay wedding, fyi.

Fine, that's at least a little more sensible. But unless you have a good excuse, you'll still be sending a message.

But yet they wanted them to attend?

What should they do, put on the invitation instructions telling people "please decline this invitation if you don't approve of gay marriage"? :whiste:

It may be making a negative statement about same-sex marriage, but it is an assumption to say it is making a negative statement about gays.

It's not an assumption, it is logical inference. If the only substantive difference between this marriage and others is that the participants are gay, then it is making a statement about gays. Society does not operate based on mental gymnastics.

 

[Craig234]

Interesting, but it doesn't answer my question. I think this is a much better list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots I'm well into my 50's and I was around for everything you mention, and I was living on Christopher Street in 1969, which is what made me look up Stonewall.
I'm also curious that there's no mention of the politics of the AIDS epidemic, all the work to convince the country that it wasn't the fault of gays.

My question about other causes of the gay movement stems from my involvement with the anti-war movement of the 60's, which was a small group of concerned people in the beginning but was also controlled by the CIA (drugs) and a lot of other interested parties as it went on. The war did end, but I doubt that it was because of the little anti-war activist movement.

Who benefits by gay marriage? Is the wedding industry really that powerful?

Well, I think it answerdd your question, but you aren't liking the answer.

I don't think that anyone 'benefiting from gay marriage' is behind the shift.

That is a factor - the advertising actively wants to tap into a reported $800 billion gay market more with its acceptance and having gay spokespeople for ads - but I think that is a secondary effect helping the push in the direction of tolerance, not the primary thing behind the shift.

I'll stick with my answer about gradual cumulative effect, as one wall of bigotry falls, another is put under more pressure, and so on, and I listed some milestones.

Smaller groups organizaing earlier in a movement can be important to it as well.

The American colonies didn't erupt into revolution for democracy for hundreds of years. Women's suffrage didn't get passed for over our first hundred years. Black equality was not advanced much for a hundred years. The American people supported the Vietnam War early on. All of these can point to those 'small groups' who organized.

Unfortunately, a lot of that processs has now been co-opted by big money organizations serving interests to propagandize public opinion - but that's the history on other issues.

 

[Craig234]

Just a note that there remains some extreme bigotry in the US:

In New York this month, a gay man was shot and killed by a man who approached him shouting gay slurs.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/05/201352122951321457.html

 

[Black Octagon]

Gays are not a marginalised minority. Homophobes are. The way it should be. Seriously, being gay has been decreasing on controversy for years and years now. Just because meat head football players might scream the loudest in the classroom doesn't mean they represent the majority view

 

[Craig234]

Gays are not a marginalised minority. Homophobes are. The way it should be. Seriously, being gay has been decreasing on controversy for years and years now. Just because meat head football players might scream the loudest in the classroom doesn't mean they represent the majority view

See the post just above yours. Things have greatly improved, though.