Why Do Straights Hate Gays? - Page 2 - 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 03-23-2007, 01:19 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

you could have the most dysfunctional 55-hour Britney Spears marriage and it would always, always be better than two lesbians who have been together for 35 years and adopted 3 kids.
Raise your hand if you thought Britney's 56-hour marriage was a good idea in any way, shape or form.

These aren't absolutes we're dealing in, Irvine. Creating them makes a straw man argument which may reinforce your opinion, but isn't backed up by reality. I don't think the people who are in support of one-man/one-woman marriage generally support a laissez-faire attitude to sexuality.

I appreciate the passion that you bring to this conversation -- Larry's article is extremely deeply-felt -- but when it comes to this issue, there are deeply-felt issues on both sides that preclude a stark black and white perspective.
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 01:22 PM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


Your very question presents a whole series of terms that need defining: "equal rights", "gay relationships" (as opposed to what?), "hate"...etc. I think we need to define what we're talking about before we can say that anyone who disagrees with you hates you.

And anyway, isn't living in that kind of black and white world sort of like saying, "If you're not for us, you're against us"?

i'm not sure what you need defining? i think we know what a gay relationship is, and i think we know what equal rights are in this situation. how do you understand a "gay relationship"? is it different from my understanding?

here's the distinction. it's not about "agreeing" or not with someone, by all means, reserve the right to hate gay people as people reserve the right to hate any other group (women, Jews, the left handed). the difference is the denial of a very specific set of rights based upon an immutable characteristic that harms no one and has a clear biological basis.

anyway, i'm not sure i agree or not, but i do think the LA Times Op-Ed is drawing a line in the sand. he is saying that if you think that gay relationships are by their definition different, and thus inferior, to straight relationships, then that is a hateful viewpoint.

oh, and since we've had so, so, so many threads on the topic of gay marriage, i think it would be best if we could tackle a new angle and get to the philosophy behind all this -- can we draw distinctions? do we draw distinctions? -- rather than the nuts and bolts of the marriage equality debate. i think the sources that we draw upon in order to make certain social distictions (and we all do this) are more interesting than ground that's been well covered in FYM before.

not that i started this thread, but as someone who's inevitably going to participate a lot, that's what i would love to see happen.

__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 01:23 PM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


Raise your hand if you thought Britney's 56-hour marriage was a good idea in any way, shape or form.

These aren't absolutes we're dealing in, Irvine. Creating them makes a straw man argument which may reinforce your opinion, but isn't backed up by reality. I don't think the people who are in support of one-man/one-woman marriage generally support a laissez-faire attitude to sexuality.

I appreciate the passion that you bring to this conversation -- Larry's article is extremely deeply-felt -- but when it comes to this issue, there are deeply-felt issues on both sides that preclude a stark black and white perspective.

but you are dealing with absolutes.

she can get married for 56 hours, i can't get married for 56 years. why? because she's straight.

in some ways, it really is that simple.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 01:25 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

i think we know what a gay relationship is, and i think we know what equal rights are in this situation. how do you understand a "gay relationship"? is it different from my understanding?
Are we talking marriage? Are we talking co-habitation? Dating? Group co-habitation?

The very phrase "relationship" requires definition.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 01:28 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


but you are dealing with absolutes.

she can get married for 56 hours, i can't get married for 56 years. why? because she's straight.
I personally think the Britster should declare a moratorium on all "marriage prospects" for quite some time. But that's just me.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 01:33 PM   #21
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


Are we talking marriage? Are we talking co-habitation? Dating? Group co-habitation?

The very phrase "relationship" requires definition.

this seems quite semantical to me.

if i had said "relationship" in the context of a discussion about marriage, would you even question that it was about a man and a woman involved in a romantic relationship who were considering commiting their lives to one another through marriage?

when i talk about a "gay relationship," it's no different than a straight relationship.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 01:33 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

but where does the moral distinction come from? how is one form of love, always and everywhere, less moral than another? i think that's the distinction
Maybe so, but those who oppose gay marriage don't agree with this. That's my point. (BTW, to say it again, I'm not trying to put my viewpoint in this or get personal, I'm just trying to ask a genuine question.)

Quote:

by saying that one group of people are qualified to certain rights, respect, and privileges and another group aren't, you're saying that, by definition, heterosexuality is at all times and all places better than homosexuality. so you could have the most dysfunctional 55-hour Britney Spears marriage and it would always, always be better than two lesbians who have been together for 35 years and adopted 3 kids. in order to justify this viewpoint, it seems that hate -- and what else do we call it? -- is necessary.
Again, I see where you're coming from. I do. What I'm getting at is do you see where the other side is coming from? Those who think it's a moral issue do believe it's not right, but they also believe a dysfunctional 55-hour Britney Spears marriage isn't either. That doesn't mean they hate either side. To disagree doesn't mean to hate. I'm on the fence about this issue. I really am. And I'll leave it at that. I'm talking here purely out of just general discussion, hopefully even neutral.

Quote:

it's analgous to juding people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character. you're saying that the opposite-sexed structure of a relationship is always more moral (just like white skin might always be "better") than a same-sexed structre of another relationship. the individuals in the relationship doesn't matter, the functioning of the relationship doesn't matter, the commitmen, love, respect, intimacy, whatever, don't matter. what matters first and foremost is the differing anatomical structure of the two partners involved in whatever relationship.
But, from the other perspective, those who oppose gay marriage think it is a matter of judging someone by their character, so to them, you can't use the skin color analogy. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not saying I fully agree with that, but I'm trying to see if you understand where the other side is coming from.

I think that's where some of the problems lie in the whole debate itself. Two different perspectives. The real debate, to me — and I'm saying this hopefully from an objective perspective again — isn't whether homosexuality is right or wrong morally, it's whether it's how gay people are wired or if it's something they learn or choose. I know both sides have their sources on this issue to back their stance up, but it's where the discussion needs to go if there's to be any constructive dialogue. Otherwise, you're throwing apples and oranges at each other. Do you see what I'm saying?
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 01:34 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


I personally think the Britster should declare a moratorium on all "marriage prospects" for quite some time. But that's just me.


while i agree, this avoids the issue. why can she do whatever she wants, however she wants, and her relationship, in the eyes of some, is always going to be superior than mine (or Doozer's)? and the proof of the superiority is the conferrment of benefits and social respect one gets when one enters into a marriage.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 01:38 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:15 AM
I don't know about social respect, since that isn't mandated, but in law we have a pro-freedom and an anti-freedom position, regardless of how we percieve personal morality.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 01:40 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 04:15 PM
While I agree with the article that things still aren´t the way they should be, I think we´ve progressed some in the last couple of years.

I do have gay friends. I´m comfortable enough with them to give them a hard time about being gay as much as I give a hard time to straight friends about other things. I´ve actually held hands with a girl so that her parents would thing I was her date and not the girl next to her.

But I think what gay people should start doing is sending out a more human image. Whenever I think of a gay pride parade the first thing that comes to mind is a kind of freak show parade. These things just make a disservice to the gay community because it alienates you. I think that if gay people want to be taken seriously as normal citizens these things have got to stop.

Have a parade but show up in your working suits, in your uniforms. Show the homophobes that you are regular people and stop with the whole carnival weird performance gay pride parades!
__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 01:42 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




while i agree, this avoids the issue. why can she do whatever she wants, however she wants, and her relationship, in the eyes of some, is always going to be superior than mine (or Doozer's)? and the proof of the superiority is the conferrment of benefits and social respect one gets when one enters into a marriage.
I will say this from my own perspective — this country seriously needs to start taking marriage seriously and the divorce rate needs to go down. If gays are going to marry, I would hold them up to the same standard.

It's pathetic how easily people get divorced. I know there are instances where divorce is necessary, but frankly I think many Americans are simply weak and childish when it comes to marriage. And children are getting hit the hardest. And yes, as a Christian, I know we aren't doing very good here either.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 01:45 PM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
[B]Maybe so, but those who oppose gay marriage don't agree with this. That's my point. (BTW, to say it again, I'm not trying to put my viewpoint in this or get personal, I'm just trying to ask a genuine question.)
no one is asking anyone to agree or disagree -- we can think that Jews, because of their refusal to view Christ as the Messiah, are going to hell. but we're not going to prevent them from worshipping. the same applies here. you can think being gay is gross or immoral all you want; when that becomes a problem is when you use that to deny someone a series of rights.



[q]Again, I see where you're coming from. I do. What I'm getting at is do you see where the other side is coming from? Those who think it's a moral issue do believe it's not right, but they also believe a dysfunctional 55-hour Britney Spears marriage isn't either. That doesn't mean they hate either side. To disagree doesn't mean to hate. I'm on the fence about this issue. I really am. And I'll leave it at that. I'm talking here purely out of just general discussion, hopefully even neutral.[/q]


but i don't think the term "agree" or "disagree" is even relevant here. by virtue of her heterosexuality, Birtney can marry whomever she wants, whenever she wants. he could smack her around; they could both be heroin addicts; she could keep dropping her babies; they could live on opposite sides of the globe; they could hate each other. but no matter what she does or how awful her relationship might be, it's heterosexuality makes it worthy of marriage.

so you and i can sit here and think she's terrible, but we can't deny her any rights because we might disagree with her choices.





[q]But, from the other perspective, those who oppose gay marriage think it is a matter of judging someone by their character, so to them, you can't use the skin color analogy. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not saying I fully agree with that, but I'm trying to see if you understand where the other side is coming from.[/q]


but we judge lots of people on their character -- we're judging poor Britt right now -- but we don't deny them rights because they are bad people. awful people get married and have awful marriages. but if you're awful and heterosexual, then it's okay. and you're saying that if you're homosexual, you're automatically awful.

hence, hate.


[q]I think that's where some of the problems lie in the whole debate itself. Two different perspectives. The real debate, to me — and I'm saying this hopefully from an objective perspective again — isn't whether homosexuality is right or wrong morally, it's whether it's how gay people are wired or if it's something they learn or choose. I know both sides have their sources on this issue to back their stance up, but it's where the discussion needs to go if there's to be any constructive dialogue. Otherwise, you're throwing apples and oranges at each other. Do you see what I'm saying? [/q]

i think this is where many people stand, and this is why the evangelicals (for lack of a better word) are so invested in "Straight Camp" and reparative therapy. for if a homosexual can "change," then it can be demonstrated to be at some point a choice, and therefore discrimination can be applied.

and that's a whole other discussion.

did you see South Park last week?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 01:46 PM   #28
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I don't know about social respect, since that isn't mandated, but in law we have a pro-freedom and an anti-freedom position, regardless of how we percieve personal morality.

but doesn't the word "marriage" imply some sort of respect? someone could have an awful marriage, but that wouuld be the fault of the individuals, not that the institution is flawed.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 01:49 PM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy
But I think what gay people should start doing is sending out a more human image. Whenever I think of a gay pride parade the first thing that comes to mind is a kind of freak show parade. These things just make a disservice to the gay community because it alienates you. I think that if gay people want to be taken seriously as normal citizens these things have got to stop.

Have a parade but show up in your working suits, in your uniforms. Show the homophobes that you are regular people and stop with the whole carnival weird performance gay pride parades!


many gays (including this one) agree with you.

in some ways, making gay sexuality visible is important. it's lovely to have, say, gay characters in movies, but ever noticed how they're not allowed to be in love or to have sex? that's one of the reasons why "brokeback" was so important, the visual depiction of gay sexuality by two mainstream, dashing movie stars in an Oscar winning film.

i would also ad that there's a whole lot more to a gay pride parade than smooth boys gyrating in their skivvies -- there's lots of political work done, lots of community building, countless other stuff, but that doesn't get news coverage.

personally, i will usually go to a pride parade and have a look around, but the whole concept seems dated to me. from another era. this is not to say that important work wasn't done, it was, it just doesn't seem to address the current reality.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 01:55 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy


But I think what gay people should start doing is sending out a more human image. Whenever I think of a gay pride parade the first thing that comes to mind is a kind of freak show parade. These things just make a disservice to the gay community because it alienates you. I think that if gay people want to be taken seriously as normal citizens these things have got to stop.

Have a parade but show up in your working suits, in your uniforms. Show the homophobes that you are regular people and stop with the whole carnival weird performance gay pride parades!
So a few gay people who do this = gay people are not "human"? Do you honestly think those more "flamboyant" gay people represent the majority of gay people? So carnival type gay pride parades are a reason for straight people to hate gays? Well gee, logic follows that we straights give gay people plenty of reason to hate us, considering the ways in which some of us behave in public and parade our sexuality around.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

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 05:15 PM.


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