is the gay rights movement selfish?

[smileyeagle1021]

OK, so when I'm in the mood for a flame war rather than an honest debate I'll go to the SL Trib online forum... today I read a comment on there along the lines of "gays are the most selfish people on the planet, they want to silence my voice, they are intolerant of my religion" etc.

So honest question, is the gay rights movement everything these people are saying, selfish, intolerant, etc?

[Rapscallion]

If someone wants to claim that, they need to provide the evidence.

Did they?

Rapscallion

[BlaqueKatt]

So honest question, is the gay rights movement everything these people are saying, selfish, intolerant, etc?

Was the civil rights movement?

They just want equality, the ability to marry and adopt or have children, just like everyone else. I don't see that as selfish or intolerant in any way.

[smileyeagle1021]

Did they?

Rapscallion

we're talking about SL Trib not a reputable site like Fratching :D of course they didn't have any evidence... other than personal feelings (which I was discussing with Pedersen yesterday is about all this issue could be based on).

[Greenday]

Was the civil rights movement?

Damnit, I was going to point that out when I read the thread title. I see no differences between the two movements.

[Sylvia727]

Well...there are individuals associated with gay rights who are arrogant, rude, boarish, hateful, patronizing, holier-than-thou, condescending, and just plain mean. They claim discrimination, which if one boils down the florid prose amounts to mild bullying, as if they were martyrs on par with lynch victims. They state flat out that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid, evil, or both. Their agenda promotes discrimination up to and including eliminating the opposite sex entirely. These are the sorts of people that homophobes (or heterosexists, if you prefer) can point to and say, "Now there's a fag/dyke!"

Fortunately, these people are far and few between. The gay rights movement (in my experience) is overwhelmingly populated with decent people who aren't looking to cause problems, but to correct them. Some of them are overzealous. I find the word "breeder" spoken in a contemptuous voice to be just as discriminatory as the word "fairy" spoken contemptuously. But the vast majority are selfless people, or people who just want what's due to them.

Perhaps, the question is "is the movement itself selfish"? By focusing only on gay rights, are the members ignoring rights for oppressed minorities, or for the handicapped, or for the displaced/homeless, or whatever else? I don't think it's that, either. Focusing on a single problem is a much more effective way to solve it than to try to focus on all the problems at once. Gay rights groups are more often than not willing to partner with another advocacy group to sponsor some event, or to promote awareness.

[Devilboy]

To paraphrase Dennis Miller, I refuse to treat anyone like a Fabergé egg because they feel they are 'different' from someone else.
Nothing matters... not their race, religion, gender, age, handicap and yes, even sexual preference.

We're all human beings.
I will treat all human beings with exactly the same amount of decency, courtesy and civility they treat me with.

If a group feels that they need a rally, protest, sit-in, march, parade, "awareness" program, bake sale, car wash,...etc. to help their agenda, then that is their business.
Personally, I feel that those sorts of things are, more often than not, irrelevant and unnecessary.
If anything, those events often (IMHO) draw more negative attention than positive because the protesters do nothing more than sling barbs against their oppressors. It ends up as reverse-prejudice which only gives the prejudiced more fodder for their cannons.

[smileyeagle1021]

Well...there are individuals associated with gay rights who are arrogant, rude, boarish, hateful, patronizing, holier-than-thou, condescending, and just plain mean. They claim discrimination, which if one boils down the florid prose amounts to mild bullying, as if they were martyrs on par with lynch victims. They state flat out that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid, evil, or both. Their agenda promotes discrimination up to and including eliminating the opposite sex entirely.

oh I know someone like that... and I hate him just as much as the homophobes hate him. Especially when he says he's the way he is to help the cause. I understand being bitter, I'll admit I have a certain level of bitterness... joining a church that under its leadership at the time said that being gay is a problem but with prayer and obedience you can overcome it, something that at the time I desperately wanted because for 19 years I had heard my mother talk about how much she was looking forward to me eventually marrying having kids and having the family she was never able to have because my father died when I was 5, then 2 years later having a change in leadership that changed their attitude to, "you're going to hell, you are vile, we need to make sure you don't infect the other members... you may stay as long as you don't even so much of think of the word gay unless it's in the same sentence as the words vile and disgusting and you don't use the word 'not' " will do that to you... however, I don't let my bitterness define me.

[AFPheonix]

To paraphrase Dennis Miller, I refuse to treat anyone like a Fabergé egg because they feel they are 'different' from someone else.
Nothing matters... not their race, religion, gender, age, handicap and yes, even sexual preference.

We're all human beings.
I will treat all human beings with exactly the same amount of decency, courtesy and civility they treat me with.

If a group feels that they need a rally, protest, sit-in, march, parade, "awareness" program, bake sale, car wash,...etc. to help their agenda, then that is their business.
Personally, I feel that those sorts of things are, more often than not, irrelevant and unnecessary.
If anything, those events often (IMHO) draw more negative attention than positive because the protesters do nothing more than sling barbs against their oppressors. It ends up as reverse-prejudice which only gives the prejudiced more fodder for their cannons.

I'm glad that you are able to treat people even-handedly that way. Unfortunately, not everyone is able to, evidenced by the fact that most states in this union won't even recognize a a gay couple's right to marriage and equal treatment under the law. It wasn't all that long ago that states were putting forth measures to try and allow gays to be fired simply for being gay. I remember a measure just like that in my state when I was in Junior High. While we've come a ways past that, there will still be many marches made and protests held until equality is reached.

[DrT]

If a group feels that they need a rally, protest, sit-in, march, parade, "awareness" program, bake sale, car wash,...etc. to help their agenda, then that is their business.
Personally, I feel that those sorts of things are, more often than not, irrelevant and unnecessary.
If anything, those events often (IMHO) draw more negative attention than positive because the protesters do nothing more than sling barbs against their oppressors. It ends up as reverse-prejudice which only gives the prejudiced more fodder for their cannons.

Well, the thing is: the majority of said manifestations do not indeed profit anyone.
Now you have the counterweight this with:
But the minority of them changed history.

They are the reason we have paid vacation. civil rights. justice courts.
The reasons we don't have kings anymore, and the reason why a person born in a farm can become president.


Regarding selfishness, well it's the appearence they give. Of course blocking 5 major avenues with a marching protest will be a selfish action to all the people trying to get through the city.
But the legislative doors said march might open are worth it. Let's face it: in human society, common sense and fairness is not the rule. To get it, you have to fight. And when you fight, you appear selfish. You have to, otherwise as said above: you can't focus on your one issue, and your fight is lost.

[Rapscallion]

While we've come a ways past that, there will still be many marches made and protests held until equality is reached.

Mmm - who will decide when equality is reached?

I can see some obvious things that need doing, but once gay marriage etc is obtained as a right, as well as other things I would describe as reasonable rights, when do we start seeing CS posts about someone playing 'the gay card'?

Rapscallion

[smileyeagle1021]

when do we start seeing CS posts about someone playing 'the gay card'?

Rapscallion

umm, I've already seen that card played... I used to have a roommate who played it all the *censored* time. So I'm kinda surprised we haven't seen a post about that yet. There are entitlement whores in every single group (despite our best efforts to get rid of them :) )

[Slytovhand]

Firstly - Smiley... flame, burn, flame, fire, hell and brimstone... barbeque... get out the marshmallows.

(didn't you say you were in the mood for a good flaming??)

Anyway, I am reminded of a comedian I saw on comedy channel. He intro'd a joke he told, and got heckled with "that's racist, you jewish prick" ... love the irony! (so did he, for that matter).

So - the problem isn't really gayness, or any other -ness, it's humanity hasn't yet learnt to wake up to itself. 100,000 years, and we're still acting like animals - fight, flight, and.... and if you can't do one, then you'll try to do one of the other 2.

[AFPheonix]

Mmm - who will decide when equality is reached?

I can see some obvious things that need doing, but once gay marriage etc is obtained as a right, as well as other things I would describe as reasonable rights, when do we start seeing CS posts about someone playing 'the gay card'?

Rapscallion

Blind justice does. When all people, regardless of gender, creed, color, and any other descriptor that you can think of, are able to be treated equally.
Of course, as soon as gays get that status, there will be someone else who will need it. I suspect muslims will be the next batch to have to go through the same bother.

[Rapscallion]

A reasonable perspective, but who will be the jury to say such has been reached?

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

A reasonable perspective, but who will be the jury to say such has been reached?

Rapscallion

A jury of this non-human species' peers, of course.
Honestly, it's nice to imagine a time when our kind don't hate or have any animosity toward one another. But come on: that time won't be full of humans. That kind of massive change of basic thought processes requires a major change in our genome and a new species name.

[BlaqueKatt]

A jury of this non-human species' peers, of course.




oooo-Like the Mega squid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zfyRxPPVI4) on the Discovery channel special "The Future is Wild"-I like squids-ten arms to hug with (http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/09/02/votd-oktapodi/).....Ok so the second link is Octopi but they're still cute.....

[Slytovhand]

BK - now, that's just being silly...:p made me laugh though :D

Flyn & Raps... how about AI? Ok - programmed by humans, but harder to hide one's intolerance and stupidity in logic.

[Rapscallion]

Logic has a place in decisions about human nature?

Rapscallion

[BlaqueKatt]

BK - now, that's just being silly...:p made me laugh though :D


we'll see if you still think it's being silly when Cthulu (http://www.upl.cs.wisc.edu/~kimuchi/cthulhu.html) judges you......

[Slytovhand]

Hmmm - the ferocity of a kraken, with the personality of a cat.... yep, judge humanity away, you jury of non-human species peer.

Tentacles and claws!

[Flyndaran]

Logic has a place in decisions about human nature?

Rapscallion

Of course logic can be used to express human nature.
For example, despite what actions may seem most appropriate to obtain stated goals, most people will instead go for the immediate gratification.
Logically, we may assume that desires have a time based component.

Logic doesn't mean smart.

oooo-Like the Mega squid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zfyRxPPVI4) on the Discovery channel special "The Future is Wild"-I like squids-ten arms to hug with (http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/09/02/votd-oktapodi/).....Ok so the second link is Octopi but they're still cute.....

Ouch. Those supposed scientifically plausible discovery channel programs tick me off. They violate so many guidlines of evolution and even laws of physics just to get the cute visuals. They hurts me brain.

[Rapscallion]

Of course logic can be used to express human nature.
For example, despite what actions may seem most appropriate to obtain stated goals, most people will instead go for the immediate gratification.
Logically, we may assume that desires have a time based component.

Logic doesn't mean smart.

Psst! The fuse on your irony detector seems to have blown!

Just saying.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

Psst! The fuse on your irony detector seems to have blown!

Just saying.

Rapscallion

I think that I've posted here long enough for regulars to realize that I will take any oportunity to lecture even if I have to respond to rhetorical or joking posts. :)

[Shards]

Well... I can't say I support what's being said here 100%.

I'm all for the fair and equal treatment of minorities, however, in my mind at least, there is a line of logic that says homosexual marriage should not be legalized. Now, before you flame me, I also think atheist couples and couples who don't want kids should also not be allowed marriage.

I believe this for semantic reasons. I support, 100%, the right of all parties listed above, to Civil Unions with equal legal rights to marriage (This hasn't happened yet, but this is a place to express our views on what SHOULD be, not what is). However, the fact is that, although it has degenerated away from such in recent decades, Marriage was originally a pact with the church that you would stay together with a certain person and create offspring for the benefit of the community and the church involved. Therefore, while I feel there should be no legal difference, I do not agree with the concept of anyone without a church to make such a pact to, or without the intent of children, should be honored with such a pact.

It may be important to note that this is said as an atheist, who therefore would not be benefiting from the honor of said pact.

Just my opinion, and it's been forged over the many years of development that I've gone through. Additionally, I feel I must say that while I've yet to see evidence on either side (Although statistics can be made to say anything by skilled researchers), I have never seen anyone who was raised by two members of the same gender turn out as a well-rounded adult.

Again, just my opinion, but I figured I'd put it out there. I'm not expecting a good response, but it is what it is.

[Rapscallion]

Marriage was originally a pact with the church that you would stay together with a certain person and create offspring for the benefit of the community and the church involved.

Are you certain about that? Isn't there a likelihood that marriage was a way of gaining fidelity from men for women and was taken over as a duty/control method by the church?

It's certainly become a religious thing, but did it actually start that way? I don't know, but I have heard the opposite view to what you've said.

Rapscallion

[anriana]

I also think atheist couples and couples who don't want kids should also not be allowed marriage.

What about agnostics? Or couples of religions that don't involve the church? How exactly would a couple prove that they wanted children and therefore should be allowed to marry? Would they have to stop using contraceptives? Would the woman be forcibly impregnated if she hadn't fulfilled her commitment to procreation after X years? Or would their union be dissolved if no children were produced after X years?

However, the fact is that, although it has degenerated away from such in recent decades, Marriage was originally a pact with the church that you would stay together with a certain person and create offspring for the benefit of the community and the church involved. Therefore, while I feel there should be no legal difference, I do not agree with the concept of anyone without a church to make such a pact to, or without the intent of children, should be honored with such a pact.

It sounds like your definition of original marriage is based off of the Catholic sacrament of marriage, and the church you're referring to is the Catholic church. Is that correct? If that's not the church that you're referring to, then I'm quite confused by your usage.

Why would you think they invented marriage? If you use the Bible as history (unlikely in your case), the Old Testament is full of people getting married before there was a Church to make a pact with. What church and community did Adam & Eve, the original Christian bride and groom, pledge their commitment to?

I'm curious how you explain the wide variety of marriages found throughout the world, specifically in cultures that had not had contact with "the church." Look at Japan in history for just a quick example - they were completely isolated from the Western world for millenia and had no religion that could reasonably be considered a church, yet they still had marriage ceremonies.


Additionally, I feel I must say that while I've yet to see evidence on either side (Although statistics can be made to say anything by skilled researchers), I have never seen anyone who was raised by two members of the same gender turn out as a well-rounded adult.

How many people raised by two people of the same gender have you known? What is your definition of well-rounded?

[smileyeagle1021]

Shards, would you be surprised if I said that I actually kind of agree with you. The ultimate compramise as I've started calling it is something I'm sure you'd like. Do away with the civil institution of marriage all together, have marriage be a strictly religious ceremony, then have civil unions open to all citizens who are legal age of consent.

[Boozy]

I have never seen anyone who was raised by two members of the same gender turn out as a well-rounded adult.

The problem here is not that you haven't met such a person, but that you are skeptical that they can exist at all. Why do you believe gay people are less capable of raising a child than straight people?

[Shards]

Shards, would you be surprised if I said that I actually kind of agree with you. The ultimate compramise as I've started calling it is something I'm sure you'd like. Do away with the civil institution of marriage all together, have marriage be a strictly religious ceremony, then have civil unions open to all citizens who are legal age of consent.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly, and I suppose that is a better way of putting it, as mine just comes out needlessly complicated. Thank you for that.

Again, my opinions are formed based on my own life experiences, and my experiences with the definition of marriage, and with interactions with various churches are where I pull these beliefs from, not any specific gospel.

@Boozy: Again, this is all based on personal experience, what little I have, but I am skeptical of such a person's capacity to exist because of the people I have known. I know several people who are growing up in double-mommy or double-daddy environments. (Many of these are products of a bi parents with full or close to full custody settling down with a same-sex partner.) Most of these people are lacking in certain basic areas of development, and the ones who aren't, have developed overcompensation methods that hinder their ability to function on a normal level in society. I've seen single parents work, but when they do, it is almost invariably with the help of opposite-sex friends or family who fill a missing role in the child's life. I have learned things from my father and grandfather, and seen them taught to those I know by their fathers and grandfathers, and even seen them handed down from male role-models to those who are children of single mothers, that I have only once seen successfully handed down by a mother. It's important for a child to have both male and female role models in their life as they develop, and all too many of the homosexuals I have met who want to adopt have given me the distinct impression that there will be no maternal figure in any child they raise's life, or that there will be no paternal figure. It's not that I don't think a homosexual couple COULD raise a fine young person, I just feel, from the experiences I've had, that it would be the exception, not the rule, and I'm not comfortable with that idea.

[AdminAssistant]

But there's no guarantee of that with heterosexual couples.

My parents are married (still, by some miracle) but my father had a very minor role in my early life. He was working all the time to support us, so that Mom could stay at home and raise us. He was a farmer, which meant from March to November he was working pretty much from "can see to can't see" - dawn to dusk. During the winter, especially during the 80's, he had to work at factories or wherever he could to get extra money.

I didn't start spending a lot of time with Dad until he had to sell out in 2000. Now we have a pretty close relationship, but I didn't have a strong paternal figure for most of my life. No grandfathers, no other strong male figures. I had Mom, my sister, aunts, and the various older ladies that would babysit my sister and me. Yes, I had uncles (and, in particular, one male cousin who lived with us for a while) - but I was never very close to them.

So, no strong paternal figure. I turned out fine. Really. You can't say "we can't let gay people have kids or get married, because - think of the children!!" Excuse my French, but that's a load of crap.

[smileyeagle1021]

Shards, one thing I will call you on is the well rounded bit. I guess you could kind of say I had two mommies... my mother and my grandmother... and I'm not one to judge about my well roundedness, but at least my assistant manager says that I am the most mature 22 year old only child she has ever had as an employee... I think that says a lot and kind of blows a hole in the theory that people don't turn out well when they don't have a male and female parent (granted some could argue if my father hadn't died when I was young I might be straight, but then again, I might not, so I don't think that's really an issue)

[anriana]

And another point - what about denominations that already allow gay marriages? Should we ban Episcopalians from having religious services for people of the same gender?

[Evandril]

When you look at who is currently allowed marriage, and who still would be under those rules...I still can't take it seriously. Look at all the nice public 'weddings' that lasted days to weeks, who would have still be allowed under those rules...To me, with the way our society currently operates and thinks, I see no reason to deny marriage to anyone.

Even if your original assumption is true, that the basis of marriage was to provide more people for the congragation, time has moved on. The original useage of many words/actions/rituals has changed *drasticly* over the years, and trying to stop time is never very effective. (As a slight example, saying someone was a man of prejudice used to be a GOOD thing)

[anriana]

Again, my opinions are formed based on my own life experiences, and my experiences with the definition of marriage, and with interactions with various churches are where I pull these beliefs from, not any specific gospel.

You didn't state the origins of marriage as your opinion or formed from your life experiences.

However, the fact is that, although it has degenerated away from such in recent decades, Marriage was originally a pact with the church that you would stay together with a certain person and create offspring for the benefit of the community and the church involved.

I am interested in the proof behind this fact. What church was marriage originally a pact with? How did this tradition, created by one specific culture, spread throughout the world to the wide variety of cultures throughout the world that practice it?

[Flyndaran]

Marriage has mostly been a way of declaring ownership of women and to legitimitise any offspring as belonging to the husband.
With d.n.a. analysis we have seen how often that little marriage pact is useless with regards to assumption of paternity.

All that's really left is religious and cultural symbolism used to publically declare mutual ownership. And of course the legal contract that can't be modified for personal preferences without hard to enforce pre-nuptual contracts.

[Slytovhand]

Bah Humbug!!!

I'll just quickly grab this line from Wiki...

The way in which a marriage is conducted has changed over time, as has the institution itself. Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends or religious beliefs concerning the origins of marriage.[11]

with appropriate emphasis.

More accurately - The union of a man and a woman, recognised by authority or ceremony, is as old as civilization itself and marriage of some kind is found in virtually every society....Early marriage was borne of ancient societies' need to secure a safe environment in which to breed, handle the granting of property rights, and protect bloodlines.

Sure, we're lucky in that we now live in a society where marriage can be done freely for 'love' (for any given value of 'love') rather than the need to breed, but that doesn't mean that 25000 years ago, there wasn't some form of 'courtship' which ended in the couple being permanently attached to each other - as far as the tribe was concerned. Naturally, no laws mean no form of 'civil union', but that doesn't mean that the tribe didn't have some form of acknowledgement that 'he's mine/she's mine - don't touch' in place.

[Lady_Foxfire]

The question i took the OP to be asking was if pushing for gay rights somehow infringed on anti-gay peoples rights to their beliefs or religion. And the answer is, simply, no. Gay rights laws will not forbid people from hating gays or preaching that homosexuality is a sin, anymore than the civil rights movement prevented racists from speaking their minds. Telling somebody that they're not allowed to make laws based on their personal beliefs is very different from telling them that they can't hold those beliefs at all.

[The Shadow]

Do away with the civil institution of marriage all together, have marriage be a strictly religious ceremony, then have civil unions open to all citizens who are legal age of consent.

As long as you attached no more significance or meaning to one over the other, then maybe such a compromise could work. But I don't think that will sit well with a lot of people anyway and they would start to complain

Besides, I don't think that would really make any difference. It would only be a matter of time before people started referring to civil unions as marriage anyway. The two terms would be used interchangeably so often, with marriage probably being the more common term since it's the one most familiar that any technical difference in definition would be meaningless.

As a side note, I have to say that I really have a hard time understanding why some people get so worked up about this issue. For other 'hot button' issues like affirmative action, abortion I can understand; these things have the potential to effect the lives of many people beyond those who benefit from them. But not same sex marriage. Nothing about same sex marriage or civil unions or whatever you want to call them makes a heterosexual marriage any less significant. Whenever I've encountered someone against SSM (which isn't very often) I always ask them "how does this issue effect you in ANY way whatsoever?" none of them ever advance any sound argument against it. They just say "it's against tradition" "the bible says it's wrong" or "it just doesn't feel right" etc. None of them seem to be able to come up with a good reason for not recognizing SSM.