Why Do Straights Hate Gays? - 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 03-23-2007, 01:56 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

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.
Your not going to squeeze an ounce of respect from people that think where you stick your John Thomas makes you hellbound so in that context I think (and im sure that you do) it's unfair to expect legal sanction to stop those attitudes altogether.

I have my suspicion that the institution of marriage is flawed since a large proportion of people are not capable of being monogamous for decades on end but the merits of these arrangements doesn't matter because in terms of having a legal framework for recognising relationships a situation where hetero couples get all manner of legal protections and rights while gays don't is wrong, and as you have alluded to some of these are very practical and basic protections.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 01:59 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 04:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


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.
Ask those same questions to some ultra consrevative bigot and he´ll probably say yes. And if you´re trying to get unanimous acceptance, surprise, he´s one of the people you are going to have to convince.
__________________

__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 02:03 PM   #33
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 11:47 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.
Exactly, and that's where the problem in appealing to the otherwise eminently worthy-sounding notion of one's right to a certain personal moral standpoint comes in. No one seriously believes that people who are opposed to gay marriage, adoption, etc. would give a 56-hour marriage and perhaps a kid or two who gets caught in its aftermath a resounding thumbs-up simply because it's straight, but the fact is we're all willing to recognize the problems you'd get into trying to use the law to prevent such inevitabilities, yet some aren't willing to extend that same recognition to gay people. Would some gays and lesbians proceed to make lousy spouses and parents given the chance to do that freely, yeah sure, will some straight people always perceive homosexuality as a regrettable moral failing, yes probably, but those just aren't legitimate reasons to deny freely chosen, fully and meaningfully consensual relationships which don't cause tangible, quantifiable harm the same legal validation as the wide variety of straight relationships out there. I can understand frowning on the Jim Crow analogy to the extent that discrimination against gays is on the whole less far-reaching in its consequences, but on the other hand I don't think there's anyone who opposes full legal rights and protections for gay people and couples who doesn't on some level feel resentment towards gay people for encroaching on their uniquely rightful space, as they see it.

I'm not one to get into rhetorical gestures about how I personally supposedly "love" or "hate" some entire social group or another, that feels both misleading and beside the point to me, but I do hate injustice and the demotion of anyone to second-class personhood by applying legal strictures to their freedom and autonomy using logic (it's not 'ideal', 'cheapens' others' relationships, etc.) which we'd immediately recognize as unacceptable grounds for discrimination in other cases. Reserve the right for yourself to attend a church where gay people cannot have wedding ceremonies, fine, because your place of worship is not where the rights and freedoms of citizens before the law are enumerated. But that right should not extend into the public sphere.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 02:08 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
But that right should not extend into the public sphere.
Public sphere in which context?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 02:14 PM   #35
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 11:47 PM
The Defense of Marriage Act, for example.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 02:15 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen

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.
I don't think that's what he was getting at. He wasn't saying they weren't humans, he was saying they should be more relatable to heterosexuals if they want to be taken seriously. He has a point. Two guys walking around in chaps with their asses hanging out is only going to perpetuate the supposed myth that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, much like a goth or a jock. That picture also, I think, would say to most who oppose gay marriage that it's an adventurous relationship, rather than a committed one. Yes, there are "flamboyant" heterosexuals, but I would think most who disagree with gay marriage disagree with that, too.
Also, flamboyant gays may not be the majority, but the ironic problem is they're more visible . . . because they're flamboyant. Therefore, that's where the stereotype comes into play. That's why the point was made — a more effective gay pride parade may be a group of homosexuals that look more like everyone else. I think the point he was trying to make is if you want to be treated equally, try not to appear so different. It's only going to make things more difficult for you.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 02:15 PM   #37
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

No one seriously believes that people who are opposed to gay marriage, adoption, etc. would give a 56-hour marriage and perhaps a kid or two who gets caught in its aftermath a resounding thumbs-up simply because it's straight,


but, that's the joke.

that's the message being given when we're going to allow Britney to continue to marry whomever she wants for whatever reason she wants, yet we're going to amend the Constitution to prevent gays from marrying anyone.

they might not "seriously believe" that what Britney does is immoral, but i think they do "seriously believe" that she's not intrinsically immoral because she puts penises in her vagina. so no matter what she does, so long as it is heterosexual, if we are to maintain the position that marriage is the sole province of heterosexuals due to the superiority of heterosexuality over homoseuxality, the sex Britney has and the relationships Britney enters will always be better.

they just don't get that this is the logical conclusion of the maintenance of the "specialness" of heterosexuality. it's a fundamentally absurd position.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 03-23-2007, 02:20 PM   #38
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen

That's why the point was made — a more effective gay pride parade may be a group of homosexuals that look more like everyone else.


if you go to a gay pride parade, probably 75% of the people marching are "normal" people -- you know how in, say, a St. Patrick's Day parade, persons of Irish heritage from, say, the police department will march? it's the same thing with a gay pride parade.

i agree that the assless chaps get the most attention. and it's a difficult thing to explain, and would take more time than i have here, but do know that this conversation goes on amongst gays all the time. and, ultimatley, the gay community is as diverse as any other, if not more so, since homosexuality is found amongst all races, religions, ethnicities, and socioeconomic groups.

it was interesting, i was reading an article about the creation of programing for LOGO, the gay/lesbian network. someone said that it wasn't like creating a channel for, say, people who all like golf. or gardening. it's like creating a channel for people who all have red hair.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 03-23-2007, 02:22 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




but, that's the joke.

that's the message being given when we're going to allow Britney to continue to marry whomever she wants for whatever reason she wants, yet we're going to amend the Constitution to prevent gays from marrying anyone.

they might not "seriously believe" that what Britney does is immoral, but i think they do "seriously believe" that she's not intrinsically immoral because she puts penises in her vagina. so no matter what she does, so long as it is heterosexual, if we are to maintain the position that marriage is the sole province of heterosexuals due to the superiority of heterosexuality over homoseuxality, the sex Britney has and the relationships Britney enters will always be better.

they just don't get that this is the logical conclusion of the maintenance of the "specialness" of heterosexuality. it's a fundamentally absurd position.
Here's where I think conservatives are coming from though: They disagree with immoral hetero marriages, too, but they can't stop it. They feel they can stop homosexual marriages, and indeed, they have to a large extent. I'm not taking a stance either way, I'm just explaining where they may be coming from. I don't think they see Britney's marriage as being any better, just as another immoral problem that's tougher to prevent. Again, I'm trying to speak objectively.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 02:27 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Yes, and the fact that they see ill considered hetero marriages as the next oroblem to roll back is the reason that they represent a pernicious threat to liberty.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 02:28 PM   #41
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 11:47 PM
It's not tougher to prevent, just make divorce illegal and perhaps require a 'character assessment' by a psychologist employed by the state before getting married. Problem solved.

Naturally the resistance to that would be more vigorous, but that's because you're dealing in consequences that directly affect the majority.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 02:29 PM   #42
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen


Here's where I think conservatives are coming from though: They disagree with immoral hetero marriages, too, but they can't stop it. They feel they can stop homosexual marriages, and indeed, they have to a large extent. I'm not taking a stance either way, I'm just explaining where they may be coming from. I don't think they see Britney's marriage as being any better, just as another immoral problem that's tougher to prevent. Again, I'm trying to speak objectively.


so they will protect Britney's freedom as a heterosexual, no matter what the costs, but they will deny the freedom of any homosexual. they're saying that even the best homosexual marriage is as or more immoral than the worst straight marriage.

this is why people like Kramer use the word "hate."

(i appreciate that you're putting forward a position, not an opinion, no worries )
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 03-23-2007, 02:31 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


if you go to a gay pride parade, probably 75% of the people marching are "normal" people -- you know how in, say, a St. Patrick's Day parade, persons of Irish heritage from, say, the police department will march? it's the same thing with a gay pride parade.

i agree that the assless chaps get the most attention. and it's a difficult thing to explain, and would take more time than i have here, but do know that this conversation goes on amongst gays all the time.
That may be the case. I've never been to a gay pride parade. : ) The problem is, as with a St. Patty's parade, the media are going to focus on the most flamboyant. It gets a reaction out of people. This is damaging to gays because the reaction from the other side is political . . . or even hateful. I understand though that not all gays are this way — the ones I know aren't.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 02:44 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


so they will protect Britney's freedom as a heterosexual, no matter what the costs, but they will deny the freedom of any homosexual. they're saying that even the best homosexual marriage is as or more immoral than the worst straight marriage.

this is why people like Kramer use the word "hate."

(i appreciate that you're putting forward a position, not an opinion, no worries )
I'm not saying it's right, only trying to explain where they're coming from. I'm glad you understand this.

Like I said before, I'm on the fence with this. You could say I'm now at a point where I'm trying to put my own opinions aside and just watch the two sides make their points. I guess what I'm seeing is misunderstanding on both sides and a sort of apples and oranges food fight that's not getting anywhere. I'd like to see real, honest progress to a place of peace and understanding, where ever that is. But it has to come from both sides, not just the anti-gay marriage side. It was interesting to hear you say earlier that people who are anti-gay marriage can feel homosexuality is gross, as long as they don't take away gay rights. I think a lot of people who are anti-gay marriage feel they're being told they can't even that way. To them, gays are trying to take away their right to feel a certain way about something. You know? And maybe that's another part of the discussion (I won't say debate any more) — gay people are saying their sexuality is simply who they are, they can't help it. At the same time, those against gay marriage are saying the icky feeling they get when they see two men kiss is who they are, too. They can't help it. It doesn't mean they hate, it's just the natural reaction they get. If both sides could understand that and start there and respect that, THEN the discussion can begin. Both sides have to respect the weight of the issue to the other side. (Again, I'm speaking in general terms. Nothing personal here.)
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 03-23-2007, 02:56 PM   #45
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen
I think a lot of people who are anti-gay marriage feel they're being told they can't even that way. To them, gays are trying to take away their right to feel a certain way about something. You know?


i don't understand this. can you explain further?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 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 05:47 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