Same sex marriage

Post Reply New Topic

I think that anyone who claims that 'allowing gays to marry will mean that men will leave their wives for other men, and women will all become lesbians,' has to be experiencing some sort of bisexual (at the least) tendency. Anyone who's strongly heterosexual knows that such a thing just won't happen.
I'm strongly feminist and completely throw off people's gaydar - half the people at the hospital think I'm a lesbian, and I think even some of my lesbian friends think I'm in the closet - but I couldn't be a lesbian even though, in my liberal area, it would probably be easier for me. I'm attracted to men, not women, even though men sometimes drive me nuts. It's just as impossible for a strongly heterosexual person to act gay, as it is for a strongly gay person to act heterosexual.

Actually, the most hateful anti-gay rhetoric coming under the pretense of religion is normally borne of ignorance. Unfortunately, religious critics of gay people literally think that gay people's lifestyle is one of absolute abandonment of self-control. The lifestyle they think the gay people tend to have would raise alarm bells among any audience in their right minds.

Fortunately, these religious people can be changed by simply getting them educated on how gay people can actually be if they are given a nurturing and supportive upbringing. Once they've really been made to understand how tame gay lifestyle is for those gay people who are given the pro-gay care-bear treatment from early adolescence onward, most of these guys change their tone pretty readily.

Case in point, "God's Frozen People," aka Episcopalians. The Episcopal Church is in many respects one of the most conservative of all sects. They have a long history in the USA, and they are proudly traditionalist. Therefore, they would seem to be an improbable sect to lead the way on changing their views on homosexuality.

If the Episcopalians aren't conservative enough for you, let's take the Presbyterians, then. The Presbyterians are uptight on purpose, and they should all rights be the last sector of society to say, "well, it's okay to be odd." However, the thing you have to remember is that the people who attend these services are largely families with housefuls of children. If you take time to show them visually the difference it makes on gay people's lives if they are raised in a tolerant environment, you find out pretty readily that they aren't stupid.

So, unless someone can propose a viable alternative to the care-bear crap for dealing with homosexuality, I think that it's the best way to go until someone figures out how to rewire a person's sexuality at a deep level without any lasting trauma. To tell you the truth, I really would rather spare young people the awkwardness of growing up with this annoyance, but there is presently no tenable means of advocating this without undermining efforts that are doing enough, in substance, at the moment to improve people's quality of life.

On the other hand, there is a plentitude of homophobia stemming from some people's wish to be giant as*holes, and they outta be dragged out in the street and shot.

I base this on my own assumptions, and discussions I have had with "anti-gay" people.

For the most part, people who are "anti-gay" will spout cliched rhetoric, but when it comes down to it, they aren't all that committed to their position. For example, they may say, "All gays are evil." And when you say, "But what about your neighbour Bill? He's gay. You really think he's evil?" And the response may be something like, "Well, yeah, he's okay. But you know what I mean. I just don't think what he does is right."

People like that (who spout this vitriol, but who are willing to backtrack on it) are your general, run-of-the-mill anti-gay people.

The ones who feel complete hatred for gays (or, more broadly, LBGT people) are, in my mind, insecure. What could they be insecure about? I think it is that they are afraid to admit to themselves that they sometimes have non-heterosexual thoughts (or, maybe, no heterosexual thoughts at all).

Regarding your analogy about the racists not being "closeted Persons of SubSaharan Ancestry"... that made me laugh.
I understand your point on that, and how my position may seem illogical, but I believe that any "rabid" bigot who cannot concede in their position even after being better educated is insecure. With a racist, perhaps it is that they are insecure about their position in society, and want to ensure others around them know that there are many others who are worth less than they are. Those who are homophobic - perhaps they are insecure of their sexuality. Those who are mysoginistic - perhaps they are insecure of their "maleness" (I can't think of a better term) and feel threatened by women. Those who are misandristic - perhaps they are feel threatened by men.

I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me. My theory of mind is not well developed (for somewhat obvious reasons), but my position is based on years of observing people.

Regarding your question about those "most actively acting out in the homosexual community fearthey may be latent heterosexuals" - if their "acting out" includes a vehement, irrational hatred for heterosexuals, then maybe. Although I have never met a LGBT person who has a strong, overriding hatred for all heterosexuals.

What get's me is the fact that it carries LEGAL weight now! It's not a complete religious thing! So that throws that out the door. BUT the religious motivations tick me off more since there SHOULD BE NO RELIGION IN OR INFLUENCING THE GOVERNMENT!

Example:
I'm not just against teaching creationism in schools because I do not believe in God, it's because its a federally funded education and shouldnt lean to ONE specific religion!

That would most likely be unconstitutional.

^You have that stuff backwards.

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'

Both of our constitutions have essentially the same language... Restricting religious people's right to influence government would contravene the constitution.... lefties always forget the latter part of that amendment. It was never intended to be used to subvert freedom of religion, in fact, originally it only applied to the Federal Government, some states actually had established Churches well into the nineteenth century.

Too bad. We're not going to tolerate being ruled by that juvenile nonsense.

If you want to smoke pot and believe that you can telepathically communicate with a supreme disembodied mind or whatever useless falderol you prefer, that's your business. When you start trying to monkey with the government over it, you're getting on my bad side.

You know, I don't believe in being nasty to people for having religious beliefs. I think it's mean-spirited and unnecessary. I've known people who believed in remote viewing and thought they had out-of-body experiences; I never said a thing. I have known people who believed in ghosts and guardian angels; I've always been nice about it, and I've tried not to be condescending. I've been a good liberal about it.

If I found religion to be a threat to my own welfare and way of life, though, I would not stop until I saw it destroyed for good. I would attack it as violently and hatefully as I had to in order to see it retract again from my affairs.

Thanks for a clear and straight [possibly the wrong word in context?] response. One appreciates it.

I think the key to the rabid response is, as you say insecurity. And certainly "I MIGHT be gay because I really liked Alphonse in school and I saw him holding hands with that guy, but I don't want to be gay and maybe if I talk more macho people won't think I'm queer" is one possible type of insecurity. Same as not smiling at kids so they don't think I'm pedophile, sneering a Palin so they don't think I'm a tea partisan, yelling at the Jews so they don't start to wonder about my uncle's second wife, AND - from my own story - NOT mentioning that I agree with Teitelbaum's hypothesis when Professor Skene is laughingly disparaging Teitelbaum's views.

And I am sure it does apply in some cases. But there are other insecurities. My racist New Zealander - who for sure was not worried he might be black - I am betting he deep down either worries "white girls would rather sleep with Blacks than with me because they are all superstuds" or else "Blacks are coming into the country in droves and breeding like fruit flies and how can I find a job when they work for fufu?"

Then there is the female academic who makes life hell for the women under her who might want to get her job the way she nabbed Louise's position. And the colleague who lashed pout at me calling me a plagiarist - because he thought MY paper would get ,published instead of his. And my brother who honestly believes science is so lacking in robustness that one more person believing in God might destroy it.

And THAT I suspect is a prime insecurity among the super Evangelicals, the ones who ate so much purer than ANYBODY - who in many cases are scared they might NOT be as pure as all that, and in many cases honestly believe that Christianity is so lacking in robustness that teaching evolution or allowing same sex marriage will let Satan destroy it. To whom - my brother and the Hyperevangelical - I say, "Where is your faith?"

doesnt that mean they cannot indulge a religion as well?

wouldnt that make religious teachings in school by law illegal?

The schools here over time - in various ways - have taught about religious beliefs./ Which is different from teaching people what to believe. Which the schools too often do.

It does, it is true and there's legal precedent about that.

I think the "insecure" claim is overused. It reminds me of the claim that all childhood bullies have a low sense of self-worth, or that all adult as*holes had a bad childhood. Seems these are pop-psychology myths designed to make people feel pity rather than hatred for predatory bastards. If you can tell yourself there is a reason why evil POS human beings exist then it makes it a little easier to tolerate the fact that they exist. The idea that homophobes are closet cases is just another one of these myths. Personally I don't believe any of it.

I am sure it is overused. As we have seen, there is a strong tendency to "put down" the perceived enemy, and that means people generalize the most insulting thing they can find. He does not like that I talk funny? It is because he is afraid he talks funny.

As I say, that can be the case [I have known situations where it is very probably the correct analysis.]. Insecurity is often going to be involved somehow when someone cannot speak or hear reason.

But it will not always be the case, and even where it is it is not possible to be at all certain WHAT the subject may be insecure about.