Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet the movement appears that it is less concerned with its rights and more concerned with acceptance. A concept that can not be achieved unless it is dictated to the masses. A concept that requires adherence to a state of opinion and which is contrary to the very aspect of individual freedom.
Who is "the movement"? All gay people? Can't be. Obviously, not all gays think alike when 25% of gays/bisexuals consistently vote Republican, according to the exit polls in the last three presidential elections.
With that said, it must be acknowledged that laws do affect public opinions and attitudes. Ask any sociologist.
Who is "the movement"? All gay people? Can't be. Obviously, not all gays think alike when 25% of gays/bisexuals consistently vote Republican, according to the exit polls in the last three presidential elections.
With that said, it must be acknowledged that laws do affect public opinions and attitudes. Ask any sociologist.
Did I state such or were you honestly asking a question? I understand there are gays who have differing opinions and if you noticed, I gave an example of one opinion on this issue.
Of course laws do. That is their entire purpose. Laws exist to remind society of its boundaries which exist to protect them from violating the rights of each other.
Just as laws dictate such, so do the definitions of our language dictate proper understanding. This is why such a direct approach to a definition is met with such resistance. We aren't talking about simple idiomatic social acceptance as this is accepted all the time, but legal declaration differs greatly otherwise we would be using slang in our legal declarations, as if the system wasn't messed up enough.
You are being irrational. You are stating your entire position on the demand of a words definition be changed.
I knew a guy when I lived in California who was gay (I worked with him and we got on the subject at a company party), we talked about the issue. He was completely against the demand for a definition change. This was at the time that there were two focuses of the gay community, one for civil union rights which properly assessed the issue and attempted to achieve the needed adjustments to meet equal rights and the other was to merge the concept of same sex couplings as marriage.
He thought it was a waste of time, pointless, and illogical to pursue the latter. That all of the tools existed to meet the goals with civil unions, as well as the fact that there was much less resistance to the concept of civil union than there was in a convergence of definition with marriage. He believed that if the goal was civil unions, that in all but specific states that might have trouble, the issue would be resolved in a short manner with little obstruction.
Looking back, I would have to agree. In past polling's, many had issues with the marriage direction, but little with civil unions. Logically it also fits, it defines legally the relations (which is important in legal declaration due to specific discrepancies).
Yet the movement appears that it is less concerned with its rights and more concerned with acceptance. A concept that can not be achieved unless it is dictated to the masses. A concept that requires adherence to a state of opinion and which is contrary to the very aspect of individual freedom.
You have every right to demand that the government recognize a contractual agreement between each other (which is really what marriage is in the legal sense), but you do not have the right to dictate to which langague should be adjusted to fit your demands. This is absurd as demanding that the legal code be translated into Ebonics to fit the idiomatic language of slang.
Just because you say I am being irrational does not make it so. The only words changed are husband and wife to spouse and spouse, what is the friggin big deal about that? It is you that is being so irrational, not me. It is you that cannot see how lame it is to ban a select group of people from marrying just because the majority says so. I do not give a hoot whether people accept me or not, it is about the rights for me. Your supposed gay friend obviously does not care about being equal to you and has accepted being second class. I was born with all the rights a US citizen is granted and the day I came out of the closet I lost many of those rights. That is not fair and equal treatment. When have you ever been told that you cannot marry the person that you love but have to marry a person approved by the masses. Are you old enough to remember when the races could not intermarry because the majority disapproved of it? It was not right, fair or equal then and it is not right, fair or equal now.
No. It's just that there doesn't seem to be any point to suggesting that if 90% of the world was homosexual, humans would become extinct. I don't know why anyone brings that up. It's an argument that I hear regularly from people who are anti-gay, so don't be surprised if some of us have a strong reaction to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.J. MacReady
I was responding in general to the population won't survive vibe if gays are accepted (and doom the world by turning everybody gay). There's never going to be a 90% gay/10% straight world so why even bother with it. It was quoted as it was as crazy as the other part that was quoted.
I only brought it up in order to back up my statement that in terms of meaning to society homosexuality is not like being red-haired or left-handed, because it is not a symmetrical alternative. I am not anti-gay. I do think, however, that some gay men are somewhat embarrassing in their behavior, especially those 'professional aggressive civil rights gays' who want to slam their gayness into everybody's face, knowing it provokes some more conservative people and considering their own status as an alternative life style or whatever. I am against homosexuality being mixed into the civil rights pot, as if sexual orientation were the same as color of skin. But those gays are relatively few, I don't mind civil gays at all. Actually, occasionally I think my brother is gay, am not sure though. But if he is, he is in a private way, which doesn't bother me at all.
As I said, I do not think at all that the number of gays will change much, no matter how we treat and what we think of homosexuals. I believe it has biological causes, which basically stay the same in quality and quantity. For instance there is a clear tendency for the likelihood of homosexuality to rise with every new child a woman has. The first child is least likely to be gay. Maybe that stems from ancient times when the first child was considered the most important and thus received preferential treatment.
According to various statistics, in any given society the percentage of homosexual men is about twice as high as that of homosexual women, though in absolute numbers that data varies depending on who does the study and where. I am not sure how to interpret that phenomenon, though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
