The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Famine]

These options don't even make sense; "nobody's business but the people involved" isn't an opinion: it's a non-opinion.

Simply saying that you're not going to take any stance doesn't do anything to elevate or diminish the social acceptance of homosexuality, which most would agree is decidedly unequal. IMO, it's a cop-out for neglecting civic duty—which is to uphold the equal rights and opportunities for all citizens—whether in official policy or not.

"Nobody's business but those involved" is woefully myopic, I think.

No law needs to be passed that specifically regards sexuality. It is, frankly, none of the government's business either - ensuring that someone's sexuality is not a marker of denial of rights nor discrimination under law.

 

[Public'sTwin]

No law needs to be passed that specifically regards sexuality. It is, frankly, none of the government's business either - ensuring that someone's sexuality is not a marker of denial of rights nor discrimination under law.

There are loopholes and qualifiers in [for example: employment-] law, which varies by U.S. state, that tacitly permits persecution, since sexual orientation is not listed under prohibited means of discrimination.

If there is widespread social discrimination, and this is enabled by means of negligent policy—tacit official discrimination—then that is not a sufficient protectorate of citizen's rights. The law needs not pry into the private-lives of the citizenry: the goal is not to ensure the right to be gay, but rather to be treated equally under policy as a gay person.

 

[Northstar]

These options don't even make sense; "nobody's business but the people involved" isn't an opinion: it's a non-opinion.

Simply saying that you're not going to take any stance doesn't do anything to elevate or diminish the social acceptance of homosexuality, which most would agree is decidedly unequal. IMO, it's a cop-out for neglecting civic duty—which is to uphold the equal rights and opportunities for all citizens—whether in official policy or not.

"Nobody's business but those involved" is woefully myopic, I think.

How is it a non-opinion?

My salary isn't anyone's business, neither is anybody's salary any business of mine. Really you could substitute salary for anything people like to keep private.

 

[Public'sTwin]

How is it a non-opinion?

My salary isn't anyone's business, neither is anybody's salary any business of mine. Really you could substitute salary for anything people like to keep private.

You're equating 'business' with 'right-to-know'.

First, it [ideally] matters not what you make when being interviewed for a job, or being elected to a position. Typically, it's totally irrelevant except, for instance, in cases where you may be suspected of something such as a conflict of interest, but where the suspicion is erased upon knowledge of your income (as it may negate whatever 'interest' could be proposed in such a conflict). Example: ex-Secretary Of The Treasury Hank Paulson's background with Goldman-Sachs would've normally been viewed as a conflict of interest to assign directives to the company from his position as an elected official, as he may otherwise profit from this in the future in some way—however, his absurd wealth was such that any gain had from that directive would likely have been nominal and unlikely to taint his judgment as it relates to the public-interest.

Secondly, in terms of real discrimination, there is no argument that racism and sexism are far more prevalent in the workplace than is discrimination against income. Yet, racism and sexism are both expressly forbidden as factors of consideration when dealing with the workplace, politics, and other institutions. The same is not true with homosexuality—not in all states, countries, provinces etc. is it protected against discrimination.

Nowhere did I ever say that anyone should have the right to know your orientation—but that, so long as it is "nobody's business", very few will feel the social obligation to acknowledge that everyone should be free from systemic discrimination against orientation, which I may remind you is a very real policy in the US Army, and was even recently reinforced in the US Navy.

 

[Famine]

There are loopholes and qualifiers in [for example: employment-] law, which varies by U.S. state, that tacitly permits persecution, since sexual orientation is not listed under prohibited means of discrimination.

There should be no legislated prohibition of discrimination. There should be no laws of any kind which refer to any form of discrimination. Only then can everyone be treated equally under law.

 

[hambone8611]

There should be no legislated prohibition of discrimination. There should be no laws of any kind which refer to any form of discrimination. Only then can everyone be treated equally under law.

Yes it is much better to fight it out in the street with clubs and knives like in days gone by.

 

[Famine]

Where has any suggestion of physical violence come into it?

 

[Public'sTwin]

There should be no legislated prohibition of discrimination. There should be no laws of any kind which refer to any form of discrimination. Only then can everyone be treated equally under law.

Whether or not that actually happens under your proposed scheme of supreme equality, can be debated ad nauseum—but it won't happen socially in any society that still clings to concepts of division along racial, religious, or sexual lines.

I'm also unsure of the rationale you're using to assert that no acknowledgement of discrimination would be the only context in which everyone would be equal under law (which is a term you used unqualified, mind you, so I'm not sure what context this argument operates under . . . ).

 

[Famine]

Whether or not that actually happens under your proposed scheme of supreme equality, can be debated ad nauseum—but it won't happen socially in any society that still clings to concepts of division along racial, religious, or sexual lines.

People have the right to be assholes. People can discriminate against whomever they wish - but government must not.

I'm also unsure of the rationale you're using to assert that no acknowledgement of discrimination would be the only context in which everyone would be equal under law (which is a term you used unqualified, mind you, so I'm not sure what context this argument operates under . . . ).

Okay, let's invoke the physical violence that hambone conjured up from somewhere.

Laws say you can't just go around beating people up (rights do too, but we're talking about laws here). If you then add the clause "even black people"* to the law, to create "hate crime", you've created discrimination in legislation - black people* suddenly aren't the same as the rest of people in the eyes of the law and need special laws just for them.

We don't need laws that give special recognition to ethnic, racial, sexual, religious or any other group, because that discriminates against both everyone in that group (they have special laws because they aren't "we the people") and everyone not in that group (they don't get the special treatment that group gets).

Since government represents everyone equally (in theory), it may not discriminate against - or for - anyone, and introducing special laws to account for divisions of people is discrimination which perpetuates those divisions at the highest level.


* Or insert your own preferred group here

 

[Public'sTwin]

People have the right to be assholes. People can discriminate against whomever they wish - but government must not.

Agreed.

Okay, let's invoke the physical violence that hambone conjured up from somewhere.

Laws say you can't just go around beating people up (rights do too, but we're talking about laws here). If you then add the clause "even black people"* to the law, to create "hate crime", you've created discrimination in legislation - black people* suddenly aren't the same as the rest of people in the eyes of the law and need special laws just for them.

This is not the context in which I'm arguing for a declared protection of people 'x' or 'y'. Indeed, in cases of assault, or some other such civil offense, there shouldn't be any qualifier of who you are in addition to being the victim or offender. Hate crime, though, isn't insignificant.

We don't need laws that give special recognition to ethnic, racial, sexual, religious or any other group, because that discriminates against both everyone in that group (they have special laws because they aren't "we the people") and everyone not in that group (they don't get the special treatment that group gets).

That "special recognition" (A) is not special treatment (B). What it actually represents is an acknowledgement of existing "special recognition"—or, more specifically, "special denial" (C) on the basis of that difference (X).

The intended effect of (A) would be to negate (C) so that it is an offense to discriminate against (X). This does not invoke exceptionalism (B), nor is that what I'm propounding.

There has been a tenuous history of this sort of thing in America, where it was actually legislated that blacks were not equal to white people; in order to correct that, [the state] couldn't simply remove the legislation—an active condemnation of it was required (ie not "equal-but-separate"), at least until such point as the prevailing social conditions were in unison with the legislation's view that black people are equal in every way; only when that point is reached, is it essentially unnecessary to politically stipulate or advance that ideal.

Philosophy and ratiocination ≠ application to human behaviour.

Since government represents everyone equally (in theory), it may not discriminate against - or for - anyone, and introducing special laws to account for divisions of people is discrimination which perpetuates those divisions at the highest level.

The concept of this thought is secure, but I place the terms in question: It would be true that, as you say, someone would not be "equal" if there was a special law created to account specifically for them.

However, the existing problem in laws prohibiting discrimination do not have umbrella terminology as applied to all; they have terminology catering to sex, race, religious beliefs etc and overlook orientation as a factor of persecution. It's a foundation requiring endless addendums to account for future problems.

If there is a flaw in my argument, it's not that I'm advocating something which inherently divides people, it would be that in implementing my proposal, there lies the potential for incompetent execution of it in an already-flawed system which already divides.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I have no problem with homosexuality... but "in your face" campness does irritate the hell out of me...

 

[Public'sTwin]

I have no problem with homosexuality... but "in your face" campness does irritate the hell out of me...

What does that have to do with homosexuality?

 

[MatskiMonk]

What does that have to do with homosexuality?

Behavioural traits commonly associated with gay (or "Homosexual") men are annoying to me... can't really make it any simpler than that. It is my opinion, and I stated it because the Poll does not offer an option close enough to my opinion to be worth voting for.

 

[hambone8611]

Where has any suggestion of physical violence come into it?

Discrimination has led to violence and murder in the streets to many times to even try to deny it, so don’t even try saying [ what, where, or when ] I find it funny that when you boil it all down your really saying don’t discriminate against those that would discriminate…. Get over it.

Also I’ve never conjured in my life, ok once in high school but I was young.

 

[Keef]

Discrimination has led to violence and murder in the streets to many times to even try to deny it, so don’t even try saying [ what, where, or when ] I find it funny that when you boil it all down your really saying don’t discriminate against those that would discriminate…. Get over it.

Also I’ve never conjured in my life, ok once in high school but I was young.

Do you not understand the fact that, if the government has laws pertaining to discrimination, they are in fact promoting discrimination by citing it in the first place?

 

[FoolKiller]

I have no problem with homosexuality... but "in your face" campness does irritate the hell out of me...

I have no problem with heterosexuality, but seeing The Rock with a painted on shirt and construction workers make cat calls at women does irritate the hell out of me.

Want me to go down the full list of things straight guys do regularly that would be the straight equivalent of gay stereotype behavior?

Discrimination has led to violence and murder in the streets to many times to even try to deny it, so don’t even try saying [ what, where, or when ]

Ever instance I can think of is due to government backed discrimination.

I find it funny that when you boil it all down your really saying don’t discriminate against those that would discriminate….

It is called reverse discrimination, which is still discrimination. If you don't think a white male should be allowed to fight discrimination against them then you practice your own form of racism.

Get over it.

Get over a lack of equality? Not likely.

 

[Famine]

That "special recognition" (A) is not special treatment (B). What it actually represents is an acknowledgement of existing "special recognition"—or, more specifically, "special denial" (C) on the basis of that difference (X).

The intended effect of (A) would be to negate (C) so that it is an offense to discriminate against (X). This does not invoke exceptionalism (B), nor is that what I'm propounding.

It is irrelevant what the intended effect of "A" is - as soon as government recognises that a group of people is not the same as the rest of the people, it is legislating discrimination against both that group and everyone else.

Philosophy and ratiocination ≠ application to human behaviour.

I don't recall anyone saying that it was. The point is relatively clear - people may discriminate but their governments may not.

Discrimination has led to violence and murder in the streets to many times to even try to deny it

So have many other things. We have laws against violence and murder in the streets - it still happens. It's just not relevant.

I find it funny that when you boil it all down your really saying don’t discriminate against those that would discriminate…

Not really, no. When you boil it all down I'm really saying what I've said, without need for rewording. However, if you want a soundbite, it's "People may discriminate but their governments may not."

Get over it.

When we already have laws preventing the acts to which you refer (violence and murder), making special laws for groups of people discriminates against everyone who isn't those people by denying them equality and against those groups by denying them equality.

We don't need laws to say:
* Thou shalt not kill people
* Especially people who like Seinfeld

If you support legislated recognition of differences you are supporting discrimination - but that's fine, since people are allowed to discriminate. Their governments may not.

Do you not understand the fact that, if the government has laws pertaining to discrimination, they are in fact promoting discrimination by citing it in the first place?

It is called reverse discrimination, which is still discrimination. If you don't think a white male should be allowed to fight discrimination against them then you practice your own form of racism.

These.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Behavioural traits commonly associated with gay (or "Homosexual") men are annoying to me... can't really make it any simpler than that. It is my opinion, and I stated it because the Poll does not offer an option close enough to my opinion to be worth voting for.

But like I said the page before, you've probably been annoyed by countless camp men, but how many have you asked their sexuality? I've met quite a few in university, and while I don't ask them their sexuality, I've later found a surprisingly high percentage of them are straight. The assumption that a camp man is a gay man is terribly flawed.

 

[MatskiMonk]

But like I said the page before, you've probably been annoyed by countless camp men, but how many have you asked their sexuality? I've met quite a few in university, and while I don't ask them their sexuality, I've later found a surprisingly high percentage of them are straight. The assumption that a camp man is a gay man is terribly flawed.

Well, thats probably down to personal experience, I haven't met many blokes at all that are openly camp, and not also openly gay... I did also say "associated with gay men", it was not my intention to label all homosexuals exclusively as camp.

 

[lbsf1]

Well, thats probably down to personal experience, I haven't met many blokes at all that are openly camp, and not also openly gay... I did also say "associated with gay men", it was not my intention to label all homosexuals exclusively as camp.

Seems like a really good place to mention something that happened to me today.
I have allways thought that gay people were always really camp (stupid I know yes) But this has mainly been built on the fact the only gay person I have known before is a guy called Bradely in our class, and he is extremely camp.

However today a mate of mine told us that he is gay. Kinda right out of the blue. This made me think, I have never seen him as camp atall, if anything he is less camp than me. In the summer he goes down the bike jumps with us and is pretty legend on a bmx. not something your stereotypical homosexual would do.


There is probably not much of a point to this post, it was just to share this story of how my naive views have been changed.

Just to point out, I have nothing against gay people. I find it slightly weird, however hey its that persons feelings, they have the right to feel that way.

 

[PeterJB]

Seems like a really good place to mention something that happened to me today.
I have allways thought that gay people were always really camp (stupid I know yes) But this has mainly been built on the fact the only gay person I have known before is a guy called Bradely in our class, and he is extremely camp.

However today a mate of mine told us that he is gay. Kinda right out of the blue. This made me think, I have never seen him as camp atall, if anything he is less camp than me. In the summer he goes down the bike jumps with us and is pretty legend on a bmx. not something your stereotypical homosexual would do.


There is probably not much of a point to this post, it was just to share this story of how my naive views have been changed.

Just to point out, I have nothing against gay people. I find it slightly weird, however hey its that persons feelings, they have the right to feel that way.

Same for me, when I (half) came out my friends said they wouldn't have suspected had I not said anything, and its cool between all of us now, as long as I keep my hands to myself...

 

[DKLion3s]

I only have one gripe, it's not with homosexuality or sexuality. It's the "movement" of homosexuality that I have a problem with. To be more specific. Why in the **** did they have to choose the rainbow as their banner of solidarity?

Of all the things out there, they could have at least gotten imaginative or creative in adopting a moniker?

At this point I'll elaborate. The "rainbow" appeals to every child in a facinating way when they first ever see one. The multitude of colours, the perfect geometrical shape (as it drapes across the sky), the notion, as they (children) see it, appearing out of nowhere.

Even I myself as a child, once I found out how to track one down, would run out just after raining, the clouds part and that glimmer of sunshine peeks through, to glimpse this fascinating and spectacular phenomenom at every turn.

Now, when I go to the stores and my children ask to buy something multicoloured, I've got to explain why I/they can't have it, or why I/they can't display it, atleast not yet. It just irritates the hell out of me.

That's my only gripe.

Regards.

 

[FoolKiller]

I only have one gripe, it's not with homosexuality or sexuality. It's the "movement" of homosexuality that I have a problem with. To be more specific. Why in the **** did they have to choose the rainbow as their banner of solidarity?

Of all the things out there, they could have at least gotten imaginative or creative in adopting a moniker?

A rainbow is all-inclusive. Also, there is a flamboyantly dressed little man at the end of it with a chest full of treasure.


If anything I am surprised that religious people don't complain about rainbows being used more as it is supposed to be the promise from God that he won't destroy the Earth in a flood again.

Now, when I go to the stores and my children ask to buy something multicoloured, I've got to explain why I/they can't have it, or why I/they can't display it, atleast not yet. It just irritates the hell out of me.

Personally, I feel for certain sports fans that can't wear their team colors to public places on certain days because it is Red Shirt Day. But as a Kentucky Wildcats fan, I find the suggestion quite a bit funny.

 

[DKLion3s]

A rainbow is all-inclusive. Also, there is a flamboyantly dressed little man at the end of it with a chest full of treasure.

If anything I am surprised that religious people don't complain about rainbows being used more as it is supposed to be the promise from God that he won't destroy the Earth in a flood again.


Personally, I feel for certain sports fans that can't wear their team colors to public places on certain days because it is Red Shirt Day. But as a Kentucky Wildcats fan, I find the suggestion quite a bit funny.

A friend of mine, immigrant, bought a rainbow car freshener due to his child liking it. The child apparently loved to see the colours dangle as they went on trips.

Just so happens he didn't realise what it stood for. He almost got hemmed up for it. He had to do some quick thinking and get the **** out of dodge.


To me, they should have found something else. Not the one thing that attracts most children, multicoloured items/objects.

That's just me, though. I haven't heard anyone in any discussion about this topic have qualms with it, aside from myself.

Regards.

 

[Public'sTwin]

... so, your kid can't have anything rainbow-colored because...?

 

[DKLion3s]

Firstly, only goats have kids. I don't have any of those. What I do have are children.

I'm gonna assume you meant child. Right? If that's the case, then, the reason is obvious.

Homophobia has no boundaries, so to keep my children focused on being children and not muddled in adult situations, such as this, just yet. I don't supply any munitions or targets to attract unwarranted attention/distraction to/for them or the familly, atleast not yet.

I think it can wait until they're around middleschool age, for me to begin that discussion. For the time being, they can admire the real rainbow or recreate it in the bedroom with a prism, which also aids/facillitates in the learning process.


And just for further clarification. They do have items that are rainbow coloured, but none of them can be displayed beyond their home and be deemed appropriate by the society at large.

Now, if you want to get even further technical. Yes, they can have items such as rainbow coloured popsicles, however, due to the fact that most of those colours are artificially derived, they don't get them that often. Possibly only three times since they were born. A dietary choice.


Regards.

 

[Villain]

To me, they should have found something else. Not the one thing that attracts most children, multicoloured items/objects.

That's kind of the same thing with gay marriage. I've always felt that if there were a new term for it (Union, partnership, whatever) then people might not attach such a stigma to it. For some reason people like to get into a big huff over the term "marriage." But then, who knows? People are always going to be irrational because they always have. I do believe gay marriage should be legalized here in the United States and I also believe thatit will be... eventually.

Bold Prediction: It will come through a Supreme Court ruling (a'la Brown v Board of Education).

 

[DKLion3s]

That's kind of the same thing with gay marriage. I've always felt that if there were a new term for it (Union, partnership, whatever) then people might not attach such a stigma to it. For some reason people like to get into a big huff over the term "marriage." But then, who knows? People are always going to be irrational because they always have. I do believe gay marriage should be legalized here in the United States and I also believe thatit will be... eventually.

Bold Prediction: It will come through a Supreme Court ruling (a'la Brown v Board of Education).

Not quite understanding how the two could be equated. One deals with adults and their views, marriage of any kind, that does not involve children.

The other inadvertently embroils/sucks children into the equation via their banner of symbolism (rainbow), which infiltrates at ever earlier grades of schooling. Shoot, children are talking about sex & sexual orientation way earlier in school, than when I was growing up, 3rd & 4th grade elementary.

I remember when my child came home from school, this was around the ending of 2nd grade, said he was being ridiculed for not having knowledge of the famous artistes (music videos) of that time. I could definitely envision how it played out, because my children don't spend much time in front of a television.

Although, I do have an understanding of what you're trying to convey. The context doesn't fit as the same analogy, from my perspective.

Regards.

 

[TheCracker]

That's kind of the same thing with gay marriage. I've always felt that if there were a new term for it (Union, partnership, whatever) then people might not attach such a stigma to it. For some reason people like to get into a big huff over the term "marriage." But then, who knows? People are always going to be irrational because they always have. I do believe gay marriage should be legalized here in the United States and I also believe thatit will be... eventually.

I don't understand why the term 'marriage' when used to describe a union between two members of the same sex, would cause such an issue in the first place.

I also wouldn't mind my kids, if i had any, wearing or owning anything with a rainbow on it. Hell, i'd sport one myself if it was on something i wanted to wear/use. Maybe it's a cultural thing. In this country i'd say 'Rainbow' is just as likely to be associated with the kids TV program of the same name, than it is Gay symbology.

 

[Danny]

I don't understand why the term 'marriage' when used to describe a union between two members of the same sex, would cause such an issue in the first place.

I also wouldn't mind my kids, if i had any, wearing or owning anything with a rainbow on it. Hell, i'd sport one myself if it was on something i wanted to wear/use. Maybe it's a cultural thing. In this country i'd say 'Rainbow' is just as likely to be associated with the kids TV program of the same name, than it is Gay symbology.

I've always pegged you as a Bungle.

The general consensus on using the term 'marriage' seems to be that it would somehow and inexplicably devalue the institution of marriage. Divorce however, certainly doesn't.

Regards,
Zippy.