Gays in society (split from Boy Scouts thread)

[Retro Rob]

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.

True, it may be atypical, but not non-existent. And it isn't just because he's a family member, either -- in my eyes, people are people and at the core of the matter, we're all fellow humans.

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?

I think the point I am making is that we can't make people change how they feel about a matter. What..is labeling me, for instance, is going to change my mind?

Not likely. It won't change mine. If anything, I would be more likely to shut my ears to you because you're personally attacking me and passing judgment before I have a change to explain myself. This isn't a way to get through to people.

Gays should understand better than anyone how name-calling and labeling makes someone feel, and can make someone hardened. I can't understand how a group victimized by such behavior turns right around and does the same thing to others.

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.

Well, too bad, and I don't mean that hand-wavingly. I say this because, really... what are you going to do? Legislate what people can think and accept? Force them to accept you?

You HAVE to tolerate stupid people because they're just going to always be here -- you don't have to respect them, you don't have to acknowledge them, but what can you really do about it? I think tolerance is about just simply dealing with differences whether we agree with them or not, while minding our own business. The racists in this world, I just put on ignore. But I am not interested in trying to make them change, and I am not saying you are either.

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

I hope you understand why people think gays are trying to force us to recognize and appreciate their relationship - statements like this. Who makes you (generic) arbiter or gatekeeper of what's an acceptable reason to NOT attend a gay wedding?

Who put them in charge of what I can or cannot object to, or more importantly, WHY I'm objecting to it?

Do I still have the right to say no, and still have the ability to earn a living in this country, IF my reason is good enough for them?

 

[Craig234]

I think the point I am making is that we can't make people change how they feel about a matter. What..is labeling me, for instance, is going to change my mind?

Not likely. It won't change mine. If anything, I would be more likely to shut my ears to you because you're personally attacking me and passing judgment before I have a change to explain myself. This isn't a way to get through to people.

Gays should understand better than anyone how name-calling and labeling makes someone feel, and can make someone hardened. I can't understand how a group victimized by such behavior turns right around and does the same thing to others.

I want to be sympathetic to your sincere comment. But I think an analogy will help you see how it looks.

Decades ago, a white person says he's against inter-racial couples having the right to marry. It's not natural and that's his opinion.

Some tells the person that they are denying others equal rights, and after hearing their reasons like 'it's just not natural' says they think the cause is bigotry.

The white person says 'why are you calling me names? Don't you understand that's the same sort of hostility you are complaining about'?

Another way this comes up a lot is with the idea of 'bigoted against bigots'. Opposing unjust discrimination is not more unjust discrimination.

The denying of gays equal rights in this case can be discussing more gently, in terms of 'a lack of rational basis' or such, but we have a word for where it generally comes from.

Bigotry is a real thing in many areas. The thing is, a lot of - most - bigots don't realize they're bigots. So they react to the word like it's an offensive name-calling.

It's a fair point you make that it's especially persuasive to a bigot to say they are one.

If you list other errors people make, it doesn't help persuade them much either. Can you think of some examples?

How about telling someone 'you're being narrow-minded'. Say it's true - how many people react to that with 'oh, you're right, thanks'?

So it's not great for persuading people. That doesn't make it wrong. And it's not the same thing as calling gays names. They didn't choose to be gay; you choose your opinions.

Being gay and being opposed to gays are not two similar and equal things deserving of the same treatment.

A person who is fighting against same-sex marriage might not even think they are denying anyone equality - they might think they're just 'defending religion' or 'defending marriage'.

One of the better attempts I can think of at trying to talk to people who are bigoted to persuade them is John Kennedy's speech which appealed to their patriotism and asked them to consider how they would feel if they were facing discrimination. He avoids criticisms like bigotry.

The other ways it seems change comes is soft of by force - your employers tells you you had better behave the way they want - and that as society changes, is affects many.

But the views bigotry is based on generally don't change easily or quickly.

Bigotry doesn't have to be 'name-calling' even though it often is. It's a problem that probably affects all of us in some way.

Well, too bad, and I don't mean that hand-wavingly. I say this because, really... what are you going to do? Legislate what people can think and accept? Force them to accept you?

The Kennedy speech answered that - saying that the only solution is in the hearts of the people, not anything the government can do.

You HAVE to tolerate stupid people because they're just going to always be here -- you don't have to respect them, you don't have to acknowledge them, but what can you really do about it? I think tolerance is about just simply dealing with differences whether we agree with them or not, while minding our own business. The racists in this world, I just put on ignore. But I am not interested in trying to make them change, and I am not saying you are either.

Well, it's a society - laws affect others, customs affect others. When there is hate, it affects others. So these are not just individual issues.

I hope you understand why people think gays are trying to force us to recognize and appreciate their relationship - statements like this. Who makes you (generic) arbiter or gatekeeper of what's an acceptable reason to NOT attend a gay wedding?

It's just common sense. Of course you send a message.

Who put them in charge of what I can or cannot object to, or more importantly, WHY I'm objecting to it?

You're not the victim here, you're reversing who is initiating the discrimination.

On the one hand it's fair for you to ask for discussion to be respectful to you. On the other, you need to understand that some criticism is valid for unjustified discrimination.

No one is questioning your political right to your opinion - it's the right and wrong of that opinion that's being questioned, like any case of discrimination.

Check the Kennedy speech on race, and substitute gays for blacks.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/LH8F_0Mzv0e6Ro1yEm74Ng.aspx

 

[Whiskey16]

He deliberately hid it because he was ashamed due to his abnormality. Had nothing to do with us. He sought out other gay men and people who'd approve of his relationship, and that's what he does to this day.

We don't talk much now. He's grown and free to do what he wants. This lie, in my experience, is largely due to shame -- so the hell with you trying to lie this at our feet.

Bigots are the ones responsible for maligning, 'shaming', and ostracising those deemed unworthy. Those expressing as you do are responsible for perpetuating an environment that fosters fear on through to moral inclination and support into the extremes of violent hate crimes.

Prejudicial supremacists hold the fault for such social instability and retarding the maturing of civil rights and respect in that society.

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

Many of us have been through this with you before. This is a forum for discussion. Opinions are expressions that not all may share. How dare you so expect us all to tolerate (deter from reacting against) distasteful and hateful ideas?

Rob M. to the forum -- 'DAMNIT! TOLERATE MY INTOLERANCE!!!'

Do you not recognise the irony of your arguments?

This isn't an echo chamber.

Thankfully, you are within the losing and dwindling segment of prejudicial regressives. That maturing change is relatively occurring is wonderful to the health of civilisation.

 

[alzan]

True, it may be atypical, but not non-existent. And it isn't just because he's a family member, either -- in my eyes, people are people and at the core of the matter, we're all fellow humans.



I think the point I am making is that we can't make people change how they feel about a matter. What..is labeling me, for instance, is going to change my mind?

Not likely. It won't change mine. If anything, I would be more likely to shut my ears to you because you're personally attacking me and passing judgment before I have a change to explain myself. This isn't a way to get through to people.

Gays should understand better than anyone how name-calling and labeling makes someone feel, and can make someone hardened. I can't understand how a group victimized by such behavior turns right around and does the same thing to others.



Well, too bad, and I don't mean that hand-wavingly. I say this because, really... what are you going to do? Legislate what people can think and accept? Force them to accept you?

You HAVE to tolerate stupid people because they're just going to always be here -- you don't have to respect them, you don't have to acknowledge them, but what can you really do about it? I think tolerance is about just simply dealing with differences whether we agree with them or not, while minding our own business. The racists in this world, I just put on ignore. But I am not interested in trying to make them change, and I am not saying you are either.




I hope you understand why people think gays are trying to force us to recognize and appreciate their relationship - statements like this. Who makes you (generic) arbiter or gatekeeper of what's an acceptable reason to NOT attend a gay wedding?

Who put them in charge of what I can or cannot object to, or more importantly, WHY I'm objecting to it?

Do I still have the right to say no, and still have the ability to earn a living in this country, IF my reason is good enough for them?

True, we all are humans. Why we feel a need to separate ourselves or other people into various groupings is beyond me.

People who are or think they are being attacked, verbally or otherwise, will sometimes respond with the same "tactics" as are being used against them. It makes sense in a twisted way but it is not conducive to either stopping the attack or having reasonable discussion.

Your welcome to not meet racism, bigotry or intolerance face on; just remember that the more they are perpetrated and not fought, they diminish us all as a race, as fellow human beings.

I think some people think that they are being "forced" to accept homosexuality and SS relationships; the generic religious among us for the most part. My own personal hypothesis is that they want to feel persecuted so that they can convince themselves that they are suffering just as their alleged saviour suffered.

Question: If your nephew was going to be SS married would you attend? And if not, what reason would you give him?

 

[Retro Rob]

Decades ago, a white person says he's against inter-racial couples having the right to marry. It's not natural and that's his opinion.

It's his opinion, and that's basically the end of the conversation.

Some tells the person that they are denying others equal rights, and after hearing their reasons like 'it's just not natural' says they think the cause is bigotry.

It may not be bigotry -- he may sincerely believe this. This is the point I think I would like to make; no.. I am not defending a person with such views, however, its important to see why he feels like this. He may have never seen interracial couples and assumed its not natural. I am don't believe this personally, but assuming he's a bigot is probably the last thing to do.... and you wonder why we can't get along. Too much prejudgment is passed.

The white person says 'why are you calling me names? Don't you understand that's the same sort of hostility you are complaining about'?

No, I don't because I am not fighting against SS rights, I just have my personal views. If a person says that interracial marriages is unnatural, he can have that opinion, but its a whole different thing to make it illegal.

Now the line is blurred... I can't have personal views to thecontrary, or can I?

You tell me?

Another way this comes up a lot is with the idea of 'bigoted against bigots'. Opposing unjust discrimination is not more unjust discrimination.

When someone wishes to outlaw personal opinion, then it is bigotry. Guess what... everyone against SSM isn't trying to keep it illegal -- they just have their opinions as I do. You don't agree with them, you say it's a bigoted mindset.

So we can't win with you. Why even bother?

The denying of gays equal rights in this case can be discussing more gently, in terms of 'a lack of rational basis' or such, but we have a word for where it generally comes from.

Homosexuality, if you haven't noticed, has been a moral issue for many people. Sexual conduct is a moral issue whether is gay/straight/bi or whatever. It's the relationship and marriage part people have issues with, not the person in some cases. Whether or not gays should act of sexual impulses is totally up to them and not ANYONE else... but I am just saying, this lies more on moral grounds than orientation which is outside of anyone's control.

It's not about denying a person something they're entitled too -- we have people who feel same sex relationships are immoral. This is basically the whole argument.

Bigotry is a real thing in many areas. The thing is, a lot of - most - bigots don't realize they're bigots. So they react to the word like it's an offensive name-calling.

Goes both ways.

So it's not great for persuading people. That doesn't make it wrong. And it's not the same thing as calling gays names. They didn't choose to be gay; you choose your opinions

Name calling is never justified period, though we (myself too) do it.

A person who is fighting against same-sex marriage might not even think they are denying anyone equality - they might think they're just 'defending religion' or 'defending marriage'.

Don't fight it.

You're not the victim here, you're reversing who is initiating the discrimination.

On the one hand it's fair for you to ask for discussion to be respectful to you. On the other, you need to understand that some criticism is valid for unjustified discrimination.

Not playing the victim, but I should be able to not attend a gay wedding for whatever reason without being criticized for it.

What you call discrimination is what some call obeying a Higher Power, and if they have biblical means to deem homosexual behavior as immoral, they should NOT be in office...period. Religious beliefs are not compatible with secular ones for the most part.

It's just the way it is. Someone has to lose -- someone will yell "discrimination" always,.. and people of faith have every right to believe as they wish, not making their opinions knows via political avenues, though.

No one is questioning your political right to your opinion - it's the right and wrong of that opinion that's being questioned, like any case of discrimination.

Who decides whether my opinion is wrong? Society? Hardly, if at all. I decide for myself ultimately. Sorry, I don't "go with the times", Craig... nor with popular opinion... never have, never will.

Or are you proposing letting the government legislate morality, or what someone can or can't believe?

 

[Retro Rob]

True, we all are humans. Why we feel a need to separate ourselves or other people into various groupings is beyond me.

People who are or think they are being attacked, verbally or otherwise, will sometimes respond with the same "tactics" as are being used against them. It makes sense in a twisted way but it is not conducive to either stopping the attack or having reasonable discussion.

Your welcome to not meet racism, bigotry or intolerance face on; just remember that the more they are perpetrated and not fought, they diminish us all as a race, as fellow human beings.

I think some people think that they are being "forced" to accept homosexuality and SS relationships; the generic religious among us for the most part. My own personal hypothesis is that they want to feel persecuted so that they can convince themselves that they are suffering just as their alleged saviour suffered.

Question: If your nephew was going to be SS married would you attend? And if not, what reason would you give him?

I love my nephew, but I won't support a SS wedding at all. While he's free to marry who he wants, I am actually disgusted at the sight of two persons of the same-sex marrying.

Since I have no attraction to other men, I can't see myself watching two guys walk down the isle and get married. But I won't deny them that right to do it, though.

I don't feel persecuted, FYI -- but I DO know how people feel about religion these days. The facts are, to your point, Jesus was persecuted.... and if fellow believers are also, this isn't a sheer coincidence or framing of the mind.

And it's also true, to your point, that some are indeed deluding themselves and I am in full agreement with you on that.

 

[Whiskey16]

I love my nephew, but I won't support a SS wedding at all. While he's free to marry who he wants, I am actually disgusted at the sight of two persons of the same-sex marrying.

Since I have no attraction to other men, I can't see myself watching two guys walk down the isle and get married.

All out of supremacist, ostracizing and shunning disrespect upon your part. Negative harm hypothetically inflicted by you upon your own family members.

You are responsible for your actions, and the greater the numbers who share your sentiments, the more horrid society is. As said, thankfully, you are among a dwindling segment of offensive regressives who are a detriment to a healthy civilisation.

 

[Whiskey16]

.. and people of faith have every right to believe as they wish, not making their opinions knows via political avenues, though.

Legislation -- or the lack of it -- often reflects the views of the electoral society.

The impediment to civil rights always has and remains those in society who project and perpetuate prejudicial discrimination and marginalisation against targeted groups.

Rob M., you have no rational argument to deny that the expression of your prejudicial views and those who share them do not have an effect upon society. In an anti-social stance, you state not to care, but chances are assured that many who do interact with you, do.

You wish to speak out against homosexuality, but you decry for 'tolerance' if a rebuttal is returned against that. None live isolated in a bubble. You posting in this forum is an expression as a social being -- as we all are. As such, there are consequences to our interactions.

 

[Craig234]

Laws are based on morality, in theory (nevermind the corruption of money etc.)

 

[Vaux]

I am with Rob on this. I am against gay marriage also. For me, it's not about religion, because I don't believe in it. I just don't think it's right.

I feel a person certainly has the right to be gay if they wish, but it's not something people should always be celebrating. It's not natural. It's just not the way it's supposed to be. I mean if the human population decided to be gay it would cease to exist. It goes against one of the most basic instincts; survival. People of the same sex were just not made to come together as one. Allowing gay marriage just puts a big stamp of approval on it, and that's why I have been against it.

And don't substitute gays for blacks, because being black is perfectly natural. Being gay is not.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think the point I am making is that we can't make people change how they feel about a matter. What..is labeling me, for instance, is going to change my mind?

You asked why gay people can't have "reasonable discussions" with people who oppose gay marriage, and the answer is because that position is inherently unreasonable and it implies a lack of acceptance that gays increasingly don't want to deal with.

It's not about changing your mind. It's about making clear that your views are no longer considered acceptable by the mainstream of society.

Gays should understand better than anyone how name-calling and labeling makes someone feel, and can make someone hardened. I can't understand how a group victimized by such behavior turns right around and does the same thing to others.

I don't know what "name-calling" you are referring to here. If you mean words like "bigot", well, sorry, but your position towards homosexuals qualifies.

Well, too bad, and I don't mean that hand-wavingly. I say this because, really... what are you going to do? Legislate what people can think and accept? Force them to accept you?

No, they can't do any of that.

They can choose not to associate with people who view them as not being worthy of having the same rights as heterosexuals. And straights who support their rights can and will marginalize people with your viewpoint.

I hope you understand why people think gays are trying to force us to recognize and appreciate their relationship - statements like this. Who makes you (generic) arbiter or gatekeeper of what's an acceptable reason to NOT attend a gay wedding?

I'm not "in charge" of anything. I'm describing social norms. You can do whatever you wish -- I am explaining how those actions are viewed.

Suppose I am friends with three brothers, and we all live in the same city. The first two get married to women and I attend their weddings happily. The last one is gay and I choose not to attend his wedding. This sends a clear message, whether I want it to or not. In fact, it sends such a message so clearly that, if it turned out I couldn't attend but wanted to, I would feel compelled to explain to the third brother why I wasn't able to be there.

Who put them in charge of what I can or cannot object to, or more importantly, WHY I'm objecting to it?

Do I still have the right to say no, and still have the ability to earn a living in this country, IF my reason is good enough for them?

Methinks thou doth protest too much. Nobody said anything about what you can or cannot object to. You can do whatever the hell you want -- you just should understand that people will draw conclusions from it.

This is the problem with your constant protestations about your "right" to object to gay marriage. You seem to think that your decision to be unaccepting of gay marriage should be respected, but the rights of others to not accept your viewpoint should not. Whenever someone says they don't like your viewpoint, you immediately start acting like someone is going to force you to change your mind or force you to not say how you feel.

Nobody is doing that. You can do what you like, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to respect it.

 

[Retro Rob]

You asked why gay people can't have "reasonable discussions" with people who oppose gay marriage, and the answer is because that position is inherently unreasonable and it implies a lack of acceptance that gays increasingly don't want to deal with.

It's not about changing your mind. It's about making clear that your views are no longer considered acceptable by the mainstream of society.

You're kind making my point earlier that nothing will be 100% accepted and agreed upon in our society really at all. Even the vote to allow gays was a 60-40 split. Yet I bet they all are still working together.

This is simple reality -- and I know you want everyone to be all happy and accepting that gays are marrying, but reality knows better. Again, too bad if gays "don't want to deal" with other people and their objections -- they still HAVE to co-exist with us. I guarantee you there are people who employ gays that don't agree with gay marriage, doctors who help gays that may not be in agreement with gay marriage, but they still have to "deal with them".

FWIW, if I were a business owner and a gay man met my hiring criteria, you're darn skippy I'd hire him.. WITH my views on gay marriage.

..and so what if my views are not accepted by the mainstream... I am sure that interracial marriage wasn't in line with mainstream views either, and one point in time -- and I am more than sure that interracial marriage proponents were being told the same thing "your views are not accepted by mainstream society".

They can choose not to associate with people who view them as not being worthy of having the same rights as heterosexuals. And straights who support their rights can and will marginalize people with your viewpoint

Yeah, well...so what? I'm a religious person -- "marginalization" isn't something I didn't expect to happen or am worried about, quite honestly.

And you can stop with the "not worthy of the same rights" stuff because my position isn't of that nature, or I'd be enthralled in political battles trying to keep laws banning it in place. I let the law decide for itself either way.

Society gives me no reason to change my views -- what's wrong today could be right tomorrow and visa versa. People are carried by the wind and go wherever the current takes them.

Suppose I am friends with three brothers, and we all live in the same city. The first two get married to women and I attend their weddings happily. The last one is gay and I choose not to attend his wedding. This sends a clear message, whether I want it to or not. In fact, it sends such a message so clearly that, if it turned out I couldn't attend but wanted to, I would feel compelled to explain to the third brother why I wasn't able to be there.

If it sends a message, it sends the message that I can't go to a straight wedding if I decline a gay wedding invitation, or if I accept a straight wedding, I am indirectly forced to attend a gay marriage.


Your problem is with the word "forced", I think -- but that's exactly what you're doing. Likely, the gay brother probably isn't going to deal with you after not attending his wedding, so you are indeed forced (for the sake of saving the relationship) to either abandon your personal objections, or hold fast to them.

Either way you're going to lose one of them. You'd have to choose which one is worth holding on to. But if he decides to not deal with you and you keep hold of your objection, that's his choice and no one can lay the blame on you -- he decided to no longer deal with you, you didn't end the relationship.

This is the problem with your constant protestations about your "right" to object to gay marriage. You seem to think that your decision to be unaccepting of gay marriage should be respected

Respected? No, left alone... yes... I expect to be left alone with my decision.

 

[Whiskey16]

Your problem is with the word "forced", I think -- but that's exactly what you're doing. Likely, the gay brother probably isn't going to deal with you after not attending his wedding, so you are indeed forced (for the sake of saving the relationship) to either abandon your personal objections, or hold fast to them.

Either way you're going to lose one of them. You'd have to choose which one is worth holding on to. But if he decides to not deal with you and you keep hold of your objection, that's his choice and no one can lay the blame on you -- he decided to no longer deal with you, you didn't end the relationship.



Respected? No, left alone... yes... I expect to be left alone with my decision.

You are wrong and out of touch to remove responsibility from yourself out of your prejudicial bigotry in choosing to shamefully disrespect a family member all the while finding sole, incredulous fault in them for an understandably reasonable reaction to your ostracizing insult. :$

You indeed may be left alone -- quite lonely.. As you ostracize yourself from society with immoral and offensive actions that perpetuate an environment that can go so far as to enable crimes.

Please tone it down. You can express your viewpoints without such obvious personal attacks. And that goes especially for the insinuation that Rob is responsible for "crimes" because of his views. He's not. --ck

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Your problem is with the word "forced", I think -- but that's exactly what you're doing. Likely, the gay brother probably isn't going to deal with you after not attending his wedding, so you are indeed forced (for the sake of saving the relationship) to either abandon your personal objections, or hold fast to them.

Yes, my problem is with the word "forced". You see yourself as being "forced", whereas I see you making a choice and then being unwilling to live with its consequences.

Everything is a tradeoff. If disliking gay marriage is more important to you than being socially cordial towards someone, then that choice has the consequence of you risking the relationship with that person.

You are complaining that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You want to be able to "hold fast to your personal objections", but you can't accept that gay people might well have "personal objections" to your personal objections? What right do you have to put everything on the gay person whose wedding you shunned, to ignore what you did and just pretend everything is just fine?

This is the double standard I have a problem with. You make your choices and others make their choices. Complaining about being "forced" into doing something in this context is like complaining about being "forced" into dieting and exercising if one wants to lose weight. There is no forcing -- there are only choices and consequences. Eat Cheetos and sit on the couch if you like, but you are going to keep gaining weight. Shun gay marriage if you like, but the people you shun probably won't want anything to do with you afterwards.

Either way you're going to lose one of them. You'd have to choose which one is worth holding on to. But if he decides to not deal with you and you keep hold of your objection, that's his choice and no one can lay the blame on you -- he decided to no longer deal with you, you didn't end the relationship.

Again, the double standard here. You want to be able to do whatever you like and have the other person accept it, and if he doesn't, then the result is his fault. But he's not "deciding to not deal with you" in a vacuum. He's doing it in response to your decision to disrespect his relationship with someone he loves.

Neither one of you is entirely at fault for ending the relationship; it is shared. But in this case you made the first move that led to the result. Saying you are not to blame would be like me telling an acquaintance that I think his wife is an ugly whore and then blaming him if he didn't want to talk to me again.

You need to take responsibility for the consequences of your beliefs and actions.

 

[Whiskey16]

Charles, on topic, it is incorrect for you to disassociate that the statements and perpetuation to target and marginalise a targeted group are not an enabler to the extremes of hate crimes. It is an extreme, but a reasonable warning to an accurate association of long standing social behaviour.

The great frequency of lynching and associated impunity for those actions against Blacks, Jews, and others in the USA were due to an environment that promoted the acceptability to marginalise the targets by those who had the higher social standing. The contemporary same for homophobic slurs through to physical gay bashing.

Such crimes exist to greater extents in environments that favour the supremacy of a group and the marginalisation of another:

Homophobic hate crimes on the rise, UN human rights chief warns

Hate crimes against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people are rising around the world, the United Nations human rights chief said today, urging governments to do much more to eliminate discrimination and prejudice based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

..

"History shows us the terrible human price of discrimination and prejudice. No one is entitled to treat a group of people as less valuable, less deserving or less worthy of respect. Each and every one of us is entitled to the same rights, to the same respect and ethical treatment, regardless of our sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Ms. Pillay said statistics indicated that homophobic-based hate crimes were on the rise in many parts of the world, from New York to Brazil and Honduras to South Africa. Homosexuality also remains a criminal offence in more than 70 countries.

It is of a helpful and wise note for Rob M to be made accurately aware for what his prejudicial views help promote into the greater society. It is not a vacuum -- there a great repercussions to expressed bigotry.

“Homophobia curbs the capacity of individuals to realize their aspirations and potential,” she said. “Discrimination and harassment in families, schools, workplaces and the military on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity lead people to drop out of school, prevent them from getting jobs and inhibits millions across the globe from seeking crucial health services.”

Rob M brought his prejudice against family relations into discussion.

 

[Craig234]

I am with Rob on this. I am against gay marriage also. For me, it's not about religion, because I don't believe in it. I just don't think it's right.

I feel a person certainly has the right to be gay if they wish, but it's not something people should always be celebrating. It's not natural. It's just not the way it's supposed to be. I mean if the human population decided to be gay it would cease to exist. It goes against one of the most basic instincts; survival. People of the same sex were just not made to come together as one. Allowing gay marriage just puts a big stamp of approval on it, and that's why I have been against it.

And don't substitute gays for blacks, because being black is perfectly natural. Being gay is not.

You're in error about the nature of homosexuality, and that drives your opinion.

I've identified that as a key factor in the existence of anti-gay views.

If being gay were a 'choice', we could have a very different discussion. Should it be respected, where are the lines of freedom, and other issues.

But it's not. And until you understand that, you will be acting on a lie.

There are a lot of people who seem to approach the issue similarly to you - they'll base some tolerance on the issue of an idea of individual liberty. 'If that's the choice they want to make, it's none of my business' is how they'll often describe their position, explaining their tolerace, but setting limits on things like marriage based on the assumption that it's just some perverse use of the freedom to choose same-sex partners.

If you look into the issue, if you talk to any good number of the millions of gay people in the US about their experiences, if you learn the scientific research, you will find that sexual orentation is generally determined at a very young toddler type age at the latest. It clearly has a 'natural' determination. You did not choose puberty and heterosexual attractions, and gays had the same experiences with puberty and same-sex attractions.

Human sexuality is complex and there are exceptions, but these are general facts.

It's completely 'natural' in that these people did not make a choice, even if we have not completely understood the origins of homosexuality - just that it's a seemingly universal trait for a small percent of any population that has always been a natural occurance for people.

You really need - if you want to base your views on a correct understanding and not treat people very unfairly - to learn that homosexuality is natural and that people who are gay are very much like you in that they have the same needs for sexual, companionship, love, and other relationship desires, but about the same gender. They aren't just like you but the needs and rights are the same type, and equally deserving.

Your treating them as second class, denigrating their relationships and rights, is no difference than the racists who separated slave families or outlawed black marriage.

When you come to understand you are in error about gays not being 'natural' and that they are people deserving the same respect you do, as a decent person your opinions follow, you come to realize that your voting for legal discrimination to deny them the right to marry is very unjust on your part.

'If everyone was gay, the species would be threatened' is a common point made. And it's a natural one to consider - a natural question to ask about the morality of a behavior is 'what if everyone did it?' But not everyone is gay. A small percent are, everywhere, for the history of mankind as far as we can tell. The problme here is not their lack of reproduction - it's the lack of understanding about the nature of homosexuality by the majority that is also as old as mankind.

Just as we had a lot of misconceptions about other people and races, often viewing them as somehow 'subhuman' or inferior. Barack Obama is a counter example to that - but there couldn't have been a Barack Obama if by law he were beaten in slave labor and prohibited from literacy.

You need to educate yourself about the nature of homosexuality to get accurate views and not be a force of injustice to people.

Just get answers to your questions instead of making assumptions.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Charles, on topic, it is incorrect for you to disassociate that the statements and perpetuation to target and marginalise a targeted group are not an enabler to the extremes of hate crimes.

You and I have had this discussion before in a slightly different context. This is a free country where people are allowed to have what views they wish as long as they are not inciting violence. Furthermore, this is an open discussion forum where people are allowed to have what views they wish under similar, if slightly more restrictive, rules.

I utterly and completely reject your implication that anyone who opposes gay marriage is responsible in any way, shape or form for "hate crimes". As recently as a decade ago, a majority of Americans opposed gay marriage, including a very large number of liberals. The president formally opposed gay marriage even more recently than that. There are gay people who oppose gay marriage. These people are not responsible for the criminal actions of a microscopic minority.

You are free to disagree if you wish, and believe that every person who opposes gay marriage is somehow collectively responsible for hate crimes against gays. However, you're not going to accuse people of that stuff here. If you can't accept that, please file a complaint under Moderator Discussions.

 

[Craig234]

(Edit: this was written before the post above it was posted.)

Whiskey did not accuse Rob of crimes. He said that supporting bigotry created an environemnt that makes it more likely for crimes to be committed.

First he's right.

Second, it's excessively censoriing to deny the discussion of the impact of the issue of bigotry.

Third, it's rather evident he has a point considering the history of violence that comes from that bigotry - including the murder that just happened which I linked.

Most people who are bigoted against gays don't commit violence. Most people who were bigoted against blacks at the height of lynching didn't lynch anyone.

There is such a thing as when bigotry is more or less tolerated which influences all kinds of harms - from broad legal ones such as marriage, employment, or criminal law to how much the more extreme frings does worse such as violence and murder. The rate of 'hate crimes' seems likely to be higher or lower corresponding to the amount of bigotry - even if most of that bigotry is just private opinion by people.

Linking the negative views to effects like violence is like linking the requirement for German Jews to wear markings to later violence. There's a relationship. And while gays don't have to wear markings, the prevelance of hate and discrimination and bigotry exists in these or any other number of cases which lead to greater wrongs.

While thankfully in the US public opinion is moving towards less bigotry, that doesn't change the need to address it where it remains - that's largely how it's reduced.

The more people who support discrimination against gays, the more that makes the culture likely to produce acts of violence against gays.

No one is accusing Rob of such acts.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Whiskey did not accuse Rob of crimes. He said that supporting bigotry created an environemnt that makes it more likely for crimes to be committed.

First he's right.

He's not "right", because that implies something that can be factually proven, and there is no possible way to prove that anonymous comments expressing personal disapproval of gay marriage on an Internet forum create any sort of "environment", much less one that increases the chances of crimes.

Free speech means people saying things you don't like. The real excessive censorship takes the form of suppressing unpopular opinions through the unwarranted implication of guilt in criminal behavior, and I will not have it here as long as I have any say on the matter.

Linking the negative views to effects like violence is like linking the requirement for German Jews to wear markings to later violence.

Again with the ridiculous Nazi analogies. You know, Godwin's Law exists for a reason. As someone of Jewish descent who lost a big chunk of his family in WW2, I find your incessant abuse of Holocaust analogies EXTREMELY offensive.

The Nazis DID make gays wear markings on their clothes. Where do you think the pink triangle comes from? How DARE you suggest that that is even remotely comparable to a personal view not supporting gay marriage?

If you or anyone else has anything further to say on this, do it in Moderator Discussions.

 

[Whiskey16]

He's not "right", because that implies something that can be factually proven, and there is no possible way to prove that anonymous comments expressing personal disapproval of gay marriage on an Internet forum create any sort of "environment", much less one that increases the chances of crimes.

This is a social environment where those views have been expressed, recorded, and most certainly do promote responses and actions -- as witnessed in this thread. This is not a vacuum.

If I see any further implications that people here who express opinions you do not like are in any way responsible for hate crimes, I will recommend you be barred from further participation in this forum. Take your objections to the administrators. --ck

 

[alzan]

This is simple reality -- and I know you want everyone to be all happy and accepting that gays are marrying, but reality knows better. Again, too bad if gays "don't want to deal" with other people and their objections -- they still HAVE to co-exist with us. I guarantee you there are people who employ gays that don't agree with gay marriage, doctors who help gays that may not be in agreement with gay marriage, but they still have to "deal with them".

Yes the reality is that there are people like you who through justifications of religion, tradition, abnormality, etc. will not allow gays the same rights or in some cases any right to live their lives in peace.

FWIW, if I were a business owner and a gay man met my hiring criteria, you're darn skippy I'd hire him.. WITH my views on gay marriage.

And what if anything would you do as far as his work environment; where he'll be working for a boss and certainly with co-workers who have objections to homosexuality and SSM? Is there a company wide policy to keep ones opinions to ones self; to not openly denigrate someone who is different than (generic) you?

And you can stop with the "not worthy of the same rights" stuff because my position isn't of that nature, or I'd be enthralled in political battles trying to keep laws banning it in place. I let the law decide for itself either way.

Given your posting history I doubt that. You've stated in several other threads on this topic that you'd neither fight for or against SSM.

Society gives me no reason to change my views -- what's wrong today could be right tomorrow and visa versa. People are carried by the wind and go wherever the current takes them.

That depends on an individuals definition of what's "right". True, some people are carried by the winds and currents, I don't know if that in and of itself is good or bad. But there those who stand against the wind and swim against the current; as more of us do we progress as a society.

If it sends a message, it sends the message that I can't go to a straight wedding if I decline a gay wedding invitation, or if I accept a straight wedding, I am indirectly forced to attend a gay marriage.

Your problem is with the word "forced", I think -- but that's exactly what you're doing. Likely, the gay brother probably isn't going to deal with you after not attending his wedding, so you are indeed forced (for the sake of saving the relationship) to either abandon your personal objections, or hold fast to them.

Either way you're going to lose one of them. You'd have to choose which one is worth holding on to. But if he decides to not deal with you and you keep hold of your objection, that's his choice and no one can lay the blame on you -- he decided to no longer deal with you, you didn't end the relationship.

Sometimes it's good to discard a particular personal objection, especially one that separates familial or personal friendships. What kind of person would I be if I did not attend a concert featuring both music that I enjoy as played by my good friend simply because he's gay? Or attend his commitment ceremony between his longtime partner and himself because they are gay? I lessen myself as a person if I do such things.

In the example, the gay brother decided to no longer deal with the friend when the friend chose to not attend the SS wedding; the "blame" is equally divided between the two and both lose in the long run.

Respected? No, left alone... yes... I expect to be left alone with my decision.

Keep swimming with the current Rob.

 

[Vaux]

You're in error about the nature of homosexuality, and that drives your opinion.

I've identified that as a key factor in the existence of anti-gay views.

If being gay were a 'choice', we could have a very different discussion. Should it be respected, where are the lines of freedom, and other issues.

But it's not. And until you understand that, you will be acting on a lie.

There are a lot of people who seem to approach the issue similarly to you - they'll base some tolerance on the issue of an idea of individual liberty. 'If that's the choice they want to make, it's none of my business' is how they'll often describe their position, explaining their tolerace, but setting limits on things like marriage based on the assumption that it's just some perverse use of the freedom to choose same-sex partners.

If you look into the issue, if you talk to any good number of the millions of gay people in the US about their experiences, if you learn the scientific research, you will find that sexual orentation is generally determined at a very young toddler type age at the latest. It clearly has a 'natural' determination. You did not choose puberty and heterosexual attractions, and gays had the same experiences with puberty and same-sex attractions.

Human sexuality is complex and there are exceptions, but these are general facts.

It's completely 'natural' in that these people did not make a choice, even if we have not completely understood the origins of homosexuality - just that it's a seemingly universal trait for a small percent of any population that has always been a natural occurance for people.

You really need - if you want to base your views on a correct understanding and not treat people very unfairly - to learn that homosexuality is natural and that people who are gay are very much like you in that they have the same needs for sexual, companionship, love, and other relationship desires, but about the same gender. They aren't just like you but the needs and rights are the same type, and equally deserving.

Your treating them as second class, denigrating their relationships and rights, is no difference than the racists who separated slave families or outlawed black marriage.

When you come to understand you are in error about gays not being 'natural' and that they are people deserving the same respect you do, as a decent person your opinions follow, you come to realize that your voting for legal discrimination to deny them the right to marry is very unjust on your part.

'If everyone was gay, the species would be threatened' is a common point made. And it's a natural one to consider - a natural question to ask about the morality of a behavior is 'what if everyone did it?' But not everyone is gay. A small percent are, everywhere, for the history of mankind as far as we can tell. The problme here is not their lack of reproduction - it's the lack of understanding about the nature of homosexuality by the majority that is also as old as mankind.

Just as we had a lot of misconceptions about other people and races, often viewing them as somehow 'subhuman' or inferior. Barack Obama is a counter example to that - but there couldn't have been a Barack Obama if by law he were beaten in slave labor and prohibited from literacy.

You need to educate yourself about the nature of homosexuality to get accurate views and not be a force of injustice to people.

Just get answers to your questions instead of making assumptions.

I still don't believe I am in error. I think for some people it is a choice and some it isn't. Many gays will say that they are born that way, and I am fine with that and I agree it's true.

However, that does not make it natural. What about people that are born with 3 arms or other birth defects? Is that natural? Well, I suppose you could say it's natural. If by that you mean it is natural for nature to make mistakes. Then yes, its natural. But that is not the way that humans are supposed to be. Something happened and they weren't born right. And that is the same with being gay.

Craig you are a very well spoken individual, but your not selling me. No matter how hard you try to talk your way around it, being gay is not how any species of animal including humans are supposed to be.

 

[alzan]

I love my nephew, but I won't support a SS wedding at all. While he's free to marry who he wants, I am actually disgusted at the sight of two persons of the same-sex marrying.

Since I have no attraction to other men, I can't see myself watching two guys walk down the isle and get married. But I won't deny them that right to do it, though.

I don't feel persecuted, FYI -- but I DO know how people feel about religion these days. The facts are, to your point, Jesus was persecuted.... and if fellow believers are also, this isn't a sheer coincidence or framing of the mind.

And it's also true, to your point, that some are indeed deluding themselves and I am in full agreement with you on that.

Having never been to a SS wedding, how do you know you'd be disgusted at it? I'm sure the visual image your brain provides you with repulses/disgusts you, but being at an actual wedding with other people who are supportive of SSM and/or your nephew may modify that feeling. You may, if you'll pardon the small pun, actually get into the spirit of the occasion.

Is that your reason to your nephew, that you would be disgusted at the sight of him walking down the aisle to marry another man that will keep you from attending?

Well I did say the generic religious, not you specifically. Our minds frame information, memories, etc. for us all the time. It very well could be that the framing has voluntary and involuntary causes.

 

[alzan]

I still don't believe I am in error. I think for some people it is a choice and some it isn't. Many gays will say that they are born that way, and I am fine with that and I agree it's true.

However, that does not make it natural. What about people that are born with 3 arms or other birth defects? Is that natural? Well, I suppose you could say it's natural. If by that you mean it is natural for nature to make mistakes. Then yes, its natural. But that is not the way that humans are supposed to be. Something happened and they weren't born right. And that is the same with being gay.

Craig you are a very well spoken individual, but your not selling me. No matter how hard you try to talk your way around it, being gay is not how any species of animal including humans are supposed to be.

Ah yes, homosexuality as birth defect. I'm surprised it took someone this long to trot out that particular steaming cow pile. Considering how many species in which we see homosexuality it looks pretty natural to me. Does it make you feel better to think of it as a birth defect?

 

[piasabird]

As a member of society I dont care if a person is GAY. I still consider being Gay to be a mortal sin that will condemn people to Hell, but I think the same way about Men that cheat on their wives and people that live together without marriage. Everyone has some kind of sin or vice whether it is small or great. Life is a journey and is full of problems to overcome. It is like alcoholism; if you dont overcome alcoholism, it may kill you or destroy your life.

These are my personal views. I dont believe people are bad or good. They are just people like me capable of good or evil acts. Everyone has to make their own judgements. I dont have to accept your view and you are free to ignore my view. So dont try to force other people to accept your Gay Views.