melon said:
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'.
