A "very serious" Homophobic Crime? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-23-2008, 11:02 AM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Canadiens1160
In situations like this, you have to keep in mind that "gay" is a common playground putdown or remark, "That's pretty gay".

It's not right, nor is it acceptable, but these are kids and the authorities have to keep that in mind when dealing with situations like this.

This case is [b[much
different than a group of high school kids chasing and taunting a classmate for actually being homosexual. That is when the school administration and the police become involved. Totally different situation. [/B]


i do agree with this.

i've taught junior high aged kids (11-14) and the words "gay" and "retarded" are somehow interchangeable.

one way you go about changing this is to point out that it is wrong, that you don't play "smear the queer" at recess, etc.

however, i would agree that this particular case seems to be an overreaction.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-23-2008, 09:09 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
I think this is real B.S. Again, demonstrate to me evidence of a corporation refusing to hire or firing an individual, because he or she is heterosexual. But, oddly enough, the fact that sexual orientation is not a protected class, in regards to anti-discrimination laws, means that a company could full-well decide to fire someone for being heterosexual, if they so wished.

On the other hand, there are several documented cases of companies harassing or firing someone heterosexual based on perceived homosexuality; that is, an effeminate-seeming man or a masculine-seeming woman. Again, since sexual orientation is not a protected class in anti-discrimination legislation, these people, too, can legally be fired at will.

As for the rest of what you've written, I'm sorry, but I think it reads like homophobic paranoia.
Re-reading my post, I accept that I did not give sufficient context or clarification. That said, my post should be read in its entirety, i.e. the second part, granted, if it was read ON ITS OWN could potentially be read as evidence of homophobic paranioa.

BUT in the first part of my post, I stated my opinion that too much is made, in modern society, of what I view as more or less arbitrary distinctions between 'straight' and 'gay'. And I then proceeded from that to suggest that the US gay rights movements operates, in some respects, in a somewhat exclusionary manner.

And now for the context and clarification that I should have provided in my initial post.

My view is that some elements of the US gay rights movement go about their business in a manner that is almost guaranteed to alienate more than win support from moderates, centrists and even people that would otherwise be advocates/supporters.

For example, some elements of the gay rights movement in the US insist that gay couples must have the exact same adoption rights as heterosexual married couples. Now fair enough, I can see where they're coming from. But let's get down to basic biological facts. It is a biological impossibility for gay couples to conceive. Granted, it is presently also impossible for SOME heterosexual couples to conceive, but that's a slightly different situation. Scientically, it's highly probable that we will see medical advances that will allow all heterosexual couples that currently cannot conceive, to do so in the not too distant future. But in respect of gay couples, married or otherwise, that's not going to happen. It's a medical impossibility.

Now, on balance, I personally think that gay married couples SHOULD be allowed to adopt. But it's way too easy just to ascribe all and any objections as pure paranoid homophobia.

My second point is potentially slightly graphic, but given that this is a family forum, I'll try and be as tactful as possible!
There's a certain type of gay sexual practise that is potentially unhygienic, dangerous and, in the opinion of many, humiliating and quintessentially exploitative. (Ok, some heterosexuals also engage in said practice. Don't see the attraction myself, but each to their own.) And yet, whenever anyone, including people who themselves identify as gays, criticise this practise, they are castigated, scorned and criticised as homophobes. For example, the US gay rights pioneer Bill Weintraub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bill_Weintraub) has faced such criticisms.

In the past few years, we have seen two lobby groups do battle on the American stage - the gay rigts movement and their enemies the homophobic element within the 'Christian conservative' movement.

Overall, I would have to say that both, from the point of view of the general public, are minority groupings, and the general public remains to be convinced of either point of view.

Granted, under the Bush administration, the latter minority group have had much more influence. But there's a reasonable argument to be made that, even under the Bush administration, such setbacks as the gay rights movement HAVE experienced are likely to be relatively short term. The broad thrust of history is still in favour of the gay rights movement - and rightly so, in my opinion.

Another thing I'd mention is that I'm slightly suspicious of any lobby group that holds itself as being above criticism, and I have to say that I do see elements of that in the US gay rights movement.

And that concerns me somewhat, and I see it also in some other lobby groups.

Bill Weintraub criticising aspects of gay culture doesn't make him a homophobe.

Chris Rock critiquing elements of African-American culture doesn't make him an Uncle Tom.

And Seymour Hirsch criticising elements of Israel's policy doesn't make him an anti-semite.

As a moderate conservative, I believe that societal change should be gradual and that it should - wherever possible - respect prevailing mores and values, and, for the record, I have gay friends and acquantainances that have a similar line of thinking.

Now you'd possibly say I'm wrong in everything I've said, and you're entitled, of course, to say that I'm talking bollocks.

BUT that is a difference in POLITICAL VIEWPOINTS, not a difference between two extremes, one of whom argues that 'If you don't agree with every single thing the gay rights movement puts forward, you're a damnable homophobe' and another that says 'Queers go to hell'.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-23-2008, 10:09 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
Re-reading my post, I accept that I did not give sufficient context or clarification. That said, my post should be read in its entirety, i.e. the second part, granted, if it was read ON ITS OWN could potentially be read as evidence of homophobic paranioa.
I've read enough of your stuff to know that you're not, for lack of a better term, "the enemy," but do realize that some of what you write on this subject does not interpret well.

Quote:
BUT in the first part of my post, I stated my opinion that too much is made, in modern society, of what I view as more or less arbitrary distinctions between 'straight' and 'gay'. And I then proceeded from that to suggest that the US gay rights movements operates, in some respects, in a somewhat exclusionary manner.
Sexual orientation protections do not protect only gay people. They would protect bisexuals and even heterosexuals from being discriminated against on actual or perceived sexuality. That's why I'm pretty confounded by what you've written here.

Quote:
And now for the context and clarification that I should have provided in my initial post.

My view is that some elements of the US gay rights movement go about their business in a manner that is almost guaranteed to alienate more than win support from moderates, centrists and even people that would otherwise be advocates/supporters.

For example, some elements of the gay rights movement in the US insist that gay couples must have the exact same adoption rights as heterosexual married couples. Now fair enough, I can see where they're coming from. But let's get down to basic biological facts. It is a biological impossibility for gay couples to conceive. Granted, it is presently also impossible for SOME heterosexual couples to conceive, but that's a slightly different situation. Scientically, it's highly probable that we will see medical advances that will allow all heterosexual couples that currently cannot conceive, to do so in the not too distant future. But in respect of gay couples, married or otherwise, that's not going to happen. It's a medical impossibility.
If we're coming down to "basic biological facts," generally speaking, if you're trying to adopt, as a heterosexual couple, you are just as biologically unable to have children as a homosexual couple.

If we're going to play the "natural law" argument here, one could say that scientific advances to allow the infertile to conceive is "unnatural," and, as such, it opens a "slippery slope" that is societally undesirable. Yet, it seems, the "natural law"-type arguments only get leveled against gays. Why is that?

Quote:
Now, on balance, I personally think that gay married couples SHOULD be allowed to adopt. But it's way too easy just to ascribe all and any objections as pure paranoid homophobia.
I was only referring to your single argument, as it seemed nonsensically paranoid--on par with blaming bad weather on "the Jews."

Quote:
My second point is potentially slightly graphic, but given that this is a family forum, I'll try and be as tactful as possible!
There's a certain type of gay sexual practise that is potentially unhygienic, dangerous and, in the opinion of many, humiliating and quintessentially exploitative. (Ok, some heterosexuals also engage in said practice. Don't see the attraction myself, but each to their own.) And yet, whenever anyone, including people who themselves identify as gays, criticise this practise, they are castigated, scorned and criticised as homophobes. For example, the US gay rights pioneer Bill Weintraub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bill_Weintraub) has faced such criticisms.
Imagine, now, if I said that vaginal sex was merely an unhygienic, dangerous, and degrading act of male domination over the female? You'd probably get outraged and call it feminist misandric bullshit.

That's really what this is too. There are some gay men who don't like anal sex (I don't see why you had to avoid saying it, because it is certainly less insulting than what you wrote above). I'm guessing that Bill Weintraub doesn't like it from experience. But, just as the majority of women don't see vaginal sex as some kind of "male domination" ploy, the vast majority of men who do have anal sex not only do it safely, but also do it without humiliation and actually enjoy it.

What is there to "criticize" here? If you don't like to do it, then don't do it!

Quote:
Another thing I'd mention is that I'm slightly suspicious of any lobby group that holds itself as being above criticism, and I have to say that I do see elements of that in the US gay rights movement.
The problem, generally speaking, is that these "criticisms" are generally completely puzzling and foreign to gay people, and usually require taking on broad stereotypical generalizations. It would be like Jews taking criticisms from people, who write criticisms on the assumption that they're all greedy bankers with big noses. We get angry, because the criticisms, themselves, are often based on offensive stereotypes!

Quote:
And that concerns me somewhat, and I see it also in some other lobby groups.

Bill Weintraub criticising aspects of gay culture doesn't make him a homophobe.
I don't think that Bill Weintraub is a homophobe. I think he's broadly ignorant of the breadth of the gay experience, if he truly thinks that all anal sex is exploitative.

Quote:
As a moderate conservative, I believe that societal change should be gradual and that it should - wherever possible - respect prevailing mores and values, and, for the record, I have gay friends and acquantainances that have a similar line of thinking.

Now you'd possibly say I'm wrong in everything I've said, and you're entitled, of course, to say that I'm talking bollocks.

BUT that is a difference in POLITICAL VIEWPOINTS, not a difference between two extremes, one of whom argues that 'If you don't agree with every single thing the gay rights movement puts forward, you're a damnable homophobe' and another that says 'Queers go to hell'.
The problem is that "prevailing mores and values" are often just utterly wrong, and if you happen to be on the wrong side of those mores, you're not going to sit back and be patient, while government and society openly discriminate against you. Once upon a time, "prevailing mores and values" were racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic too, and I don't think that any of us, today, would try to argue that those are correct.

I respect your opinion, but, frankly, your view on homosexuality is, frankly, so completely foreign to me that I can't help but think that, like Bill Weintraub, it has to do with having only a very narrow and possibly stereotypical view of what it means to be gay. Frankly, we're getting to a point where "gay culture" is fragmenting to the point that it is virtually indistinguishable from the rest of society, at least amongst younger generations. And that makes sense, does it not? If I started writing arguments, claiming that all heterosexuals were the same, from Albania to Zimbabwe, you'd all laugh.

And, frankly, I find myself chuckling over your sweeping depiction of all gay people, as well. We're not over constructive criticism, but it does have to withstand a certain level of reality first.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-23-2008, 10:20 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:38 AM
Just to point out something amusing, I checked out the history of that page on "Bill Weintraub," and found this:

Quote:
'''Bill Weintraub''' is the gay activist and author who claims to have coined the term "Frot" and who created the "Frot Movement," a sexual and gender-identity ideology which is notably anti-feminist in its epistemology. He has been critical of anal intercourse as a root cause of the "effeminization" of males, and has suggested that subjugation to penetration creates a "pseudo-female," or a lesser-male. His writings on masculinity and sexual identity have been criticized as being sexist and anti-transgender.
Sounds about right, to me.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 09:04 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


As a moderate conservative, I believe that societal change should be gradual and that it should - wherever possible - respect prevailing mores and values, and, for the record, I have gay friends and acquantainances that have a similar line of thinking.
But (why) does it always have to be a gradual, and thus slow, process?
Couldn't there be exceptions?

And which mores and values, in this context, have to be respected? Which are worth enough to slow down the process of equalisation?
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 12:30 PM   #36
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:38 AM
erm, anyone who's ever engaged in said "gay sex act" -- that seems to be a straight male obsession, btw, how they can convince their girlfriends/wives that they'd enjoy it -- knows that the actual power in said act lies with the bottom, not the top.

so i have no idea what FG is trying to get at here. there is no evidence that engaging in anal sex causes diseases to suddenly appear out of nowhere. this is something that "family" groups are now trying to link, just like 9-11 to Saddam Hussein, that STDs are somehow created by gay sex. nonsense. STDs can and are passed along by sexual activity, straight or gay, and the rate of HIV transmission from active to receptive partner, whether vaginally or anally, isn't much different.

i think Melon hit all the other points.

and i also think you have many people who will certain criticize aspects of the "gay rights" movement, or more specifically the HRC or GLAAD or whatever. but when you are a persecuted minority who's often scapegoated and used as political pinatas and whenever you do stand up and assert that, yes, what you do and how you love is just as worthy as what a straight person does and loves and you get all this extreme nervousness from many straight people, it's hard not to always be in a defensive crouch and to defend vigorously even those with whom you have disagreements with.

and if you could give me an argument against gay adoption and gay marrige that isn't rooted in the assertion of the fundamental infeority of the same-sex couple to the opposite-sex couple -- the line of thought that can only be defended if you are going to say that, yes, Britney Spears and K-Fed are always going to be preferable parents to, say, Ellen and Portia -- then i would love to hear it.

i haven't yet. i've had good discussions with one particularly eloquent poster in here about this topic, but i haven't seen a single empirical assertion that would support banning gay marriage or adoption. all the assertions are rooted in wishy-washy "natural law" or "indelible gender differences."

if there's any to offer, i would love to hear it.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 01:28 PM   #37
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 05:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

if there's any to offer, i would love to hear it.
Don't go on a hunger strike until you hear it.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 04:34 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Can you give an example of an exclusive right gay people have that straight people do not have?
yes,
if I don't want to rent one of my apartments to a gay or a negro

they have "extra special" rights
they can sue me because of their status

if I refused to rent to a white, straight
they can not sue me, based on their status




yawn
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 04:59 PM   #39
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 05:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


if I refused to rent to a white, straight
they can not sue me, based on their status




yawn
Are you sure about the white part? Racial discrimination is against the law.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 04:59 PM   #40
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,607
Local Time: 07:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
"We are law-abiding citizens who have paid taxes all our lives.
"I've constantly contacted police about break-ins at my business and never get a suitable response.
this is what i don't get. what do taxes have to do with anything? so if he didn't pay taxes then it'd be okay? or if one of them had a speeding ticket on their record? i certainly agree the police overreacted, but that just seems so silly.

and he constantly calls the police about break-ins and nothing happens? i find it hard to believe. unless he's exaggerating and he comes to work and finds a window broken every once in a while and that's all, i can't believe a police force wouldn't follow up on a break-in.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 05:12 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 02:38 PM
Yeah, I was a bit puzzled as well why he had to mention that he and his wife paid taxes all their lifes.

Maybe it's got something to do with the recent Liechtenstein scandal.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 05:33 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Bono's shades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 5,038
Local Time: 08:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Yeah, I was a bit puzzled as well why he had to mention that he and his wife paid taxes all their lifes.
I guess it goes along with the whole "upstanding, law-abiding citizen" thing. This guy probably doesn't give a crap if the police hound people he sees as not living a totally perfect life, but to go after oh-so-perfect him and his family? OH NO!
__________________
Bono's shades is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 05:43 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 02:38 PM
Of course, if you are law-abiding and pay taxes you must be holy.

My fault, I haven't paid much income tax in my life so far.
In that context the last thing that would come to mind would be to tell the press that I pay taxes, but well, that might be just me.
I don't value taxes enough.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 06:28 PM   #44
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
[B]

yes,
if I don't want to rent one of my apartments to a gay or a negro

they have "extra special" rights
they can sue me because of their status

if I refused to rent to a white, straight
they can not sue me, based on their status
/B]


you're right about the Negros.

but not about the gays.

your right to the freedom of religious expression is the most cherished one we have. in fact, it's the very reason this nation even exists. without it, we'd be as lost as those shattered nations in Western Europe.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-24-2008, 11:32 PM   #45
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 65,805
Local Time: 05:38 AM
It's against the law, so it should be investigated. Simple as that.

Now, whether or not this is a "very serious" hate crime is certainly debatable. Your opinion on its severity will likely be based upon your culture and upbringing; some will think "Who gives a damn?" and others will take it to heart.
__________________

__________________


Now.
LemonMelon is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com