H-Kat wrote:
Oh, wow, I hadn't realized that it was time for Jim's Asshole Hour. Let's take it away.
The Man In Black wrote:
In many cases its not an "enforced" minority but a volentary one, gay culture taking it far beyond black culture,
Okay, first of, these are a people who simply are as they are, and are being persecuted by it. Nearly all will clearly let you know they didn't chose to be gay, they just were. Wrongo, buck, but let's keep going.
I think what Mibby was trying to say was that in many cases people who are gay make a big deal about it, and try to be special through it. I don't think he was commenting on the people's choice to be gay... just how they deal with it. In my own experience, I find it preferable to think of being bisexual as being kinda special and different, rather than thinking of being bisexual as, say, meaning I'm going straight to hell for something I can't help. So, I find myself making a bigger deal out of it than it really deserves, particularly in my case.
H-Kat wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
I mean its one thing to say I am a human being and I have the right to be treated like one, another to say my sexual orientation makes me special, look I can dress in a skirt.
Your skirt wearing ways have no relevence here, Jimmy, dear.
The skirt comment is taken out of context, and I'm not reading through post after post of what appears to be bickering to find out the context, but I think Mibby is trying to say that making a big deal about your sexuality is an unnecessary extreme, though expecting to be treated fairly is of course perfectly reasonable.
H-Kat wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
I like the stereotypes on both sides, gays are either all decadents or decent human beings, what about the part they play in their own segregation? Gay pride parades, the flagrent anti-strait culture in some gay communities, etc etc, all contribute to reinforcing the idea of the dominant group that these people are too mentally unstable to be given proper air time.
Because they want to show that they're alive? Because they don't want to be Gay indoors, and Straight otherwise? Because they don't want to be Gay on weekends and evenings, but straight 9-5 during working hours?
Anyone who has a history has a right to be prideful about their victories, and it's remarkably bigoted to say otherwise.
Oh, and it's not anti-straight by any means, Jim. But I won't hold you responsible for not knowing the truth.
I can't quite tell what Mibby was trying to say with the connection of the first two phrases and the rest of the quote, but it seems that he is trying to illustrate more of the separatist attitudes that many gay people take as a reaction to the years of repression. When he uses the term "anti-straight" he isn't referring to a militant condemnation of heterosexuality, but to the rather simple idea that we do not live in a world where it is really "safe" to be gay, and the only way many people can think of to change that is to be as openly and flamboyantly gay as possible. Many people think that only by making "gay culture" familiar to as many people as possible will people start to think of it as "normal" or "acceptable." The pride parades etc. reflect the attempts to celebrate and publicize the existence and acceptableness homosexuality.
H-Kat wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
Oh, as to the whole issue, comparing gays to blacks or hispanics is rather insulting, I mean there's disapproval and there's actual prejudice, for the most part gays experience the former, the latter is reserved for the stuff of hate crimes and such.
Bullshit, Jim. Gays were portayed as pedophiles, rapists, and sick and deseased. They've been persecuted for the same as any other minority, but are only now reaching for acceptance. This isn't about Gay marridge, Jim. It's about marridge, period.
And I didn't say a thing about hispanics. In fact, my arguement had nothing to do with race. It had to do with rights. Don't make assumptions. It's ignorant. Going on.
I think Mibby is saying that while it is true that homosexuals and bisexuals do suffer from the extreme actions of prejudiced people, the majority of what is endured today is rather mild in comparison to what has been suffered by racial minorities in the past. Although he is correct about this, he fails to mention that the homosexuals who were open about it were widely condemned and persecuted, often to far greater extremes than would be seen in response to someone who was of a racial minority. The simple fact of the matter is that homosexuality can be hidden, while race cannot. Fewer homosexuals were persecuted because almost none dared to be recognized as such, not because of a greater tolerance in society as a whole.
H-Kat wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
Lets get it right here; this is not some historic OMG PPL R EQAL moment in history, it is the change of a historically heterosexual institution to include people that we for the most part disapprove of.
Not 'we', Jim.
There has never been an "OMG PPL R EQAL" moment in history. Ever. There have, however, been institutionalized changes in the way people are supposed to legally be treated, which have led to some changes in the ways people actually are treated. There are two different kinds of marriage. One is legally binding, and says to the government "We wish to be viewed as a single economic unit, and to have the appropriate allowances made due to that view." The other is societal, and says to anyone who will listen, "Hey, we're life partners, and we want to be considered by (the divine and) anyone who will listen out of the general realm of people who are even remotely available for romantic or sexual interactions with someone other than our partner." One of those, we as voters have the power to decide the legality of for homosexuals. The other is a social contract, and is under the discretion of society and/or the members of the religious faith(s) (and presumably also under the discretion of the divine, though it might be more relevant to say "perceived discretion" instead).
H-Kat wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
Of course there will be a backlash - to put it in simple terms, if a court ordered you and your friends to let some asshole who's lifestyle you think is immoral or just stupid (lets say, lots of hard drugs, living off welfare, etc etc) into your "Non-Idiots" club, you'd be a little pissed right? Same thing here.
Right. Bitching at me for making a racial comparison, but compairing gays to drug users, welfare recipients, and idiots.
Give the man a cookie, folks. Then a helmut, and sit him in the corner so he doesn't hurt himself.
I think Mibby was trying to say that it makes sense for people to be upset about the potential legalization of homosexual marriage because they don't approve, and that he was trying to cite examples of situations people frequently don't approve of in an attempt to make his commentary something people could relate to, rather than in an attempt to compare homosexuals to drug-addicts or people on welfare. In short, he was comparing the situations, not the people.
H-Kat wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
Of course, I don't mind constitutional equal-protection arguements, which are in fact legitimate. As to the slippery slope, there is actually a tenent that the courts have approved where you can ban "immoral/decadent" behavior; most Americans (and judges) don't consider homosexuality decadent on the order of beastiality, per se, but they do at the very least 'disapprove' of it. If homosexuality were that, you'd outlaw it and that would be that.
Keep going...
The Man In Black wrote:
People do not want to outlaw homosexuality, thus putting it on par with heterosexuality, or at least in the same ballpark, and subject to the same benefits and protections under the constitution.
No, Jim. People are out to outlaw it, or at least they're out to limit the lives of the people who happen to like other men/ other women.
I think Mibby was trying to say that he doesn't see a societal trend to have homosexuality outlawed in the same way that many "extreme" sexual acts are. He does, however, see that the majority of people disapprove of homosexuality, but that because they are not trying to outlaw it, he thinks it should be considered in the same class as heterosexuality and treated accordingly. Whether or not that is the opinion of the majority could be determined through survey results, but it is certainly true that people's opinions fall into a range, and some do wish to outlaw homosexuality for whatever reason, while others are fully supportive of it.
H-Kat wrote:
The Man In Black wrote:
So its all or nother, either convince teh voters to ban homosexuality like they've banned beastiality, or its a legitimate choice and you'll have equal-protection suits filed everywhere. As mentioned, Bush's constitutional ban on gay marriage has no chance whatsoever to pass, and given his opponent the lodge republicans won't be voting for Kerry anyway, so he can have his cake and eat it, too. Impress the Christian right, everyone else who doesn't approve has nowhere else to go.
-MiB
MiB... every so often, you debate with skill.
Others, you look like a fucking idiot. So I'll tell you what, I'm not going to make an immediate rebutal. I'm going to send a message to a man I respect and admire, a Gay male professional who has been in a healthy, loving relationship for 13 years, and an avid advocate for gay rights. I'm going to set up an account for him, and I'm going to let him make his arguements, and I'm going to let you tell
him why he's wrong, kay?
-Kitty
Regardless of whether or not Mibby feels that homosexuality is wrong, the majority of his statements are about perceived trends in society rather than the morality of the subject, and about his projections for people's behavior.
I posted on this board not because I wish to participate in the debate in this thread, but because I'm tired of seeing people bicker and call each other names, then speak of themselves as using logic to debate. I see it on other boards a great deal, and I see it in #en a great deal. While it is entirely possible that logic was involved in people's conclusions, I see people express themselves so sarcastically and agressively that any point they had is buried in a hail of insults or color commentary. Personally, I enjoy debating, and I might someday want to participate here, but people (and I do count myself) will need a huge amount more self control, and much better language skills before I'd even consider it, because at the moment the majority of the "debates" I've encountered in this group (by which I mean Kyhmers or #en regulars) have been largely comprised of arguments which fall just short of incoherent, followed by gross over-reactions and absurdly unrelated insults. In short, grow up and learn to argue like adults.
-_-'
And, for the record, I think marriage is silly in general, but I can understand why people want to do it, and can think of no particularly important reasons not to let them, regardless of sexuality. Should people care to know more about my views, they can read my livejournal, where they are contained in a public post.
^-^'