Imagine a world where "gay" is the norm and "straight" the deviation from the norm...

[Anthony K. S.]

I, personally, think it's mostly preaching to the choir, since the only people who would get anything from it were already trending that way to begin with

You may have a point there.

I think it was clear, from the very beginning, that the people who most needed to hear the message wouldn't get it. The filmmaker herself knew that, I believe.

And if there was any doubt, all you have to do is look at how some parents and clergy in Florida's Putnam County reacted when that teacher, Jeremy Rhoden, showed the film to his students.

"Anti-Christian," "promoting sodomy," "indoctrinating students" ... Well, did anybody really think that the reaction from these people would be any different?

However, I do think that the film could make a good impact on people who are more "on the fence" about LGBT issues.

There are always some folks who don't really care about the issue, or do so in a very lukewarm way, like "Oh, well, if they really want to get married that badly, let them get married. What's the big deal? I don't care."

A film like this might motivate such people to feel more empathy for the LGBT community than they did before, and get them to care more about the issue than they otherwise would have.

Also, even among those who do actively support LGBT rights, a film like this might inspire increased action, concern, and understanding.

Lindsay, for example, has always supported LGBT rights, but in her OP, she said that watching this film still helped her to challenge her own heteronormative mindset. It wasn't until she saw the film that she really started to understand how awful it would be, to be denied the chance to be with somebody she loved, because of societal prejudice.

Every little bit helps.

[Anthony K. S.]

And that argument would still be happening. Nothing would change in that respect, except for the sexual orientation of the ones making the arguments.

From a philosophical standpoint, my argument is that simply because "society" says something is "good" or "right" doesn't necessarily make it so. It's the same if society says something is "bad" or "wrong".

... Honestly, I tried ... Seriously, I really did ... I read and re-read your posts several times, trying to understand what your point was. And the only thing I could come up with was a question :

You said that you didn't watch the film. Well, did you read Lindsay's OP? Did you do anything beyond just reading the title of this thread?

Because it now occurs to me that the very first line of the OP was a quote from one of the film's characters (a heterophobic minister), condemning heterosexuality as an "abomination," and also mentioning that a man and a woman having sex is only permitted in the "breeding season."

And yet, until cindybubbles pointed it out (in response to your claim that such a society wouldn't be viable because reproduction would be problematic), you didn't seem to be aware that this "breeding season" even existed.

Also, in two of your posts, you stated that if the gay-straight percentages were reversed, then the only difference would be that it would be gay people persecuting straight people instead. But you presented this as if it was a counter-argument, when, in fact, that was exactly what the film and Lindsay's OP were both clearly saying.

That was what I couldn't understand.

It took me a while to realize that the only way your posts would make any sense, mjr, would be if you believed (incorrectly) that somebody (either Lindsay herself or the filmmaker, I suppose) was claiming that this "reversed" world would somehow be a good place. Or, at least, somehow better than ours. That it would be free of discrimination based on sexual orientation, or that it at least have less discrimination.

But nobody was saying that. The film portrays this alternate reality as being just as bad as ours, with heterosexuals being persecuted the same way that the LGBT community is in the real world. Further, Lindsay and everybody else on the thread agreed with that message.

The film was asking people to imagine walking in somebody else's shoes. It was asking straight people to think about what it would be like to be persecuted for their desire to love somebody of the opposite sex, by a gay majority. To try to understand what it's like for those who are gay and lesbian in the real world.

It was also presented as an "anti-bullying" film, to condemn bullying behavior - for any reason - among teenagers. Everything that happened to Ashley in this film, up to and including her suicide at the end, was something that has actually happened to teenagers in real life.

[Andara Bledin]

From a philosophical standpoint, my argument is that simply because "society" says something is "good" or "right" doesn't necessarily make it so. It's the same if society says something is "bad" or "wrong".

That right there just about sums up the point the film is trying to make.

I, personally, think it's mostly preaching to the choir, since the only people who would get anything from it were already trending that way to begin with, but it's what they went with.

[Canarr]

Of course that would be the case - but, as TheHuckster pointed out, that IS the point. It is to show the homophobes, the haters, that life would be just as bad for them if they were in the minority, as they are now making it for others. It's basically a, "Look, morons - you're not right. You're just in the majority."

Yes, people are largely the same. Gay people are just as capable of being petty, cruel, bigoted and just plain assholes as straight people are. So, when put into the position of straight people (the majority), it stands to reason that they would exhibit largely the same behavior. But showing that is not the point of this video. It's an attempt to get people to think about what they're doing to others, by getting them to imagine how it would feel if others did it to them.

[mjr]

But that is the point! A lot of the arguments from the anti-LGBT crowd boils down to "they aren't conforming to the norms of society; therefore it's wrong"

And that argument would still be happening. Nothing would change in that respect, except for the sexual orientation of the ones making the arguments.

From a philosophical standpoint, my argument is that simply because "society" says something is "good" or "right" doesn't necessarily make it so. It's the same if society says something is "bad" or "wrong".

Take, for instance, societies that do "honor killings". Most people believe (as do I) that honor killings are wrong. Our society says that is the case. A different society may disagree.

[TheHuckster]

But that is the point! A lot of the arguments from the anti-LGBT crowd boils down to "they aren't conforming to the norms of society; therefore it's wrong"

[mjr]

So, your point is... that this thread is pointless?

No, not at all. But if the ideas behind it are superficial and false, then the "discussion" itself becomes superficial, does it not?

It's kinda like "sound byte" politics. When Democrats say "Republicans want Grandma to DIE!!" it's the same sort of thing. It's a shallow statement that is meant to generate knee-jerk reaction. In one instance (Democrats) it's self-fulfilling and it "confirms" what Democrats think, because a Democrat said it.

I'm not saying "don't have the discussion". But has this "argument" really changed anyone's mind?

Because if you really think about it, if you flipped the percentages, most straight people would be gay, anyway, and so you would probably have many of the same arguments going on, except the sexual orientation arguments would be flipped.

Not much, IMHO, would change beyond that.

[Canarr]

So, your point is... that this thread is pointless?

[mjr]

I know, but what's the point? Where is the correlation between the two hypotheticals?

The point is they're both superficial, false (almost strawman) arguments, with no real substance behind them.

[Canarr]

I know, but what's the point? Where is the correlation between the two hypotheticals?

[mjr]

I've no idea what you're trying to say here. So, in this world, gay is the norm, and Communism works?

We ARE dealing with hypotheticals, right?

[Canarr]

Let's imagine a world where everyone's wealth is confiscated, and laws are put into place where everyone makes exactly the same amount of money.

What then?

I've no idea what you're trying to say here. So, in this world, gay is the norm, and Communism works?

[mjr]

Let's imagine a world where everyone's wealth is confiscated, and laws are put into place where everyone makes exactly the same amount of money.

What then?

[Anthony K. S.]

I remember watching news segments about couples who had been trying for years to have children, but were unable to conceive a child, and encountered one difficulty after another in trying to adopt.

There are many people who want very much to experience the joy of raising a child. I would not expect a gay, lesbian, or bisexual person to be any more or less likely than a heterosexual person to have such a desire.

So, in this alternate reality, society would be perpetuated by the exact same thing that it is in the real world - the simple desire to raise children and have a family.

It would just be a more complicated process, since two gay men would need a surrogate mother, and two lesbian women would need a sperm donor. But since that has not stopped people in the real world, why would it stop anybody in this fictional world?

There are, in fact, same-sex couples in the real world who have gone this route so that they can have children. There are also heterosexual couples who are unable to have children of their own, who have gone this route as well.

The film did not actually specify what this "breeding season" involves. As cindybubbles pointed out, artificial insemination would probably be the preferred course in the modern day. Before that option was available, or in cases where it isn't now, they would likely do it the old-fashioned way. It's a matter of necessity.

If I may ... Since the entire process of having a child, and raising a child, requires major sacrifices and overcoming huge obstacles, no matter what, why would adding one more obstacle stop anybody?

[mjr]

The video DOES mention "breeding season", though, in order to keep the population numbers up. I suppose that, in this day and age, artificial insemination would be the way to go otherwise.

I haven't seen the video, but what does this "breeding season" consist of?