Thought provoking stuff. I always percieved society as very tolerant.
Just as gay and lesbian people are starting to enjoy equal rights, the number of attacks against them seems to be rising. Why?
Ten years ago, a nail-bomb exploded in a gay bar in the heart of London, claiming three lives and maiming dozens more, the final act in a series of attacks on the capital's minority groups.
The intervening decade has seen significant steps in changing attitudes and legislation that give gay people - and their civil partners - equality enshrined in law.
But now another shadow has been cast over the UK's gay community. A series of homophobic attacks, at a time when crime figures suggest such incidents are on the rise, has mobilised people to voice their anger.
Over the weekend, candlelit vigils were held in London and Liverpool, at the scenes of two of the most recent acts of violence to make headlines, and also in Brighton and Norwich, while gay venues across the country held a two-minute silence on Friday evening in an act of solidarity.
Of the thousands who gathered in London's Trafalgar Square - at the spot where Ian Baynham was attacked in September, later dying from his injuries - some headed afterwards to the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho, the scene of the nail bombing 10 years ago.
Although it looked like business as usual, some punters were in reflective mood. Jeff, 32, said he sensed "more tension" in the last 12 to 18 months and some people had stopped coming into central London as a consequence. He said he had always been wary about showing public affection to his civil partner, for fear of inviting abuse, but even more so recently.
"I'm nervous when we're out and about in case we draw attention to ourselves and get a bad reaction from someone."
One 28-year-old, who asked not to be named, said he and his boyfriend had recently been threatened with a weapon and foul language.
The pair had been getting off a bus when a man with a knife began spouting insults, calling them "queers".
Such incidents have always happened, but are they happening with more regularity now?
There are no national figures for homophobic crime, but individual police forces have reported an annual rise in their latest figures - 40% in Merseyside, which covers Liverpool, and 34% in Strathclyde, which includes Glasgow.
Third-party reporting
In London, where there was a series of attacks over the summer on people outside gay bars in the East End, there has been an 18% rise, mostly in common assault and harassment, prompting Mayor Boris Johnson to seek assurances that enough is being done.
The police say this rise, at least partly, is due to improved relations with the gay community. After decades of mistrust and a resistance to reporting homophobic crime, gays and lesbians are coming forward in greater numbers, say police. Some forces have introduced third-party and online reporting in an effort to address the under-reporting of these incidents.
People are now more likely to report incidents to the police, says Phil Nicol, who works at a London-based advice service that receives complaints of abuse from people in cities across the UK such as Glasgow, Manchester and Belfast. It ranges from name-calling in the street, neighbours hurling objects through windows, damaging cars, to serious physical assault.
"A lot of people feel a lot more comfortable with the police, because they have specially trained lesbian and gay officers and there's a better understanding among people of what homophobia constitutes, that it isn't only
that it isn't only physical."
But gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell sees a more worrying picture. The higher level of reporting to police has masked an accompanying rise in attacks, he believes. This is partly due to more people coming out as society becomes more accepting, plus there's probably a backlash happening against equality legislation, he suggests.
"As more people come out they become more visible and more easily identifiable. That makes them easier targets for people who want to target them.
"The second thing is there's probably an element of people who are losing what they have until now taken for granted - their right to be homophobic. They are angry and it's a last desperate gasp from people who are used to doing what they like to gay people.
"I remember there was a similar backlash in the US in the 60s, a big rise in racist attacks in the wake of the civil rights movement."
He thinks the real figure is probably double the official one, because up to three-quarters of gay men and women simply don't report because they still don't trust the police. And he expects this spike in offences to last two or three years before subsiding again.
A link between gay equality and the rise in homophobic abuse is also identified by Ben Summerskill, chief executive of campaign group Stonewall. Civil partnerships, he says, have reminded people who harbour prejudices that gay people are everywhere.
And he is particularly drawn to the fact that many of the antagonists are in their teens or early 20s. To him, that suggests a link with school where he says homophobia is still going unchecked.
Youngsters looking for scapegoats may be turning their fire on gay people because other forms of prejudice have become unacceptable.
"For years people said schoolchildren used words like 'Paki' and 'spastic' and there's nothing that can be done about it, but when schools said these expressions were completely unacceptable, they stopped using them.
"We know from our work with schools that - partly in the shadow of Section 28 [a now repealed law which prevented councils from promoting homosexuality] - many schools still feel ambivalent about addressing homophobia, even when they want to."
This "serious problem" in schools is hardly helped when BBC Radio 1's Chris Moyles is allowed to use the term "gay" as an insult, he says.
Perhaps the experience of Liverpool explains the paradox of rising tolerance at a time when homophobic incidents are growing.
Carl Alderdice, who organised Sunday's vigil, says the city has become much more gay-friendly, although it is still some way behind Manchester. But he knows that with greater prominence comes greater risk.
"Liverpool could have a [gay festival] next year and it's getting its first official gay quarter. This means we could become more of a target so we need to make sure the police are aware of that and we hope they have more visible policing on the streets."
Dear Lynn,
It exhausts me talking about this issue so I will only say a few words right now. This, IMO, is the Civil Rights issue of this decade. IMO, it is absolutely outrageous; against Nature, against any interpretation of human rights and civil rights, to deny the equal rights of LGBT people in our society.
I agree, politically and socially, US society seems to be moving backward into more ignorance, more hatred, more bigotry and discrimination against LGBTs.
Yes, there are tiny victories here and there - but there is a vast reservoir of ignorance and hate that seems to be gaining strength - moving us back into a Dark Ages mentality when it comes to the civil and human rights of LGBTs.
It saddens me to no end; it upsets me; it amazes me how much hate and ignorance people have, IMO, when it comes to rejecting the fact - the fact - IMO, that homosexuality is normal, homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. There is basically no difference, except in people's narrow perceptions; just like there is no difference when it comes to our bizarre and absurd concepts about race that have so divided us as human beings for so many thousands of years.
Are we getting better in our understanding? Yes, some are. Are we getting worse? Yes, too many are.
The fight for equal rights, equal respect, equal understanding for LGBTs has just begun.
If we, as human beings, place any value in civil and human rights, this fight for the equal civil and human rights of all LGBT people, cannot and must not be lost.
This post was modified from its original form on 03 Nov, 2:17
JMHO here.
I think that some people (such as my parents in their 80s) have always been fine with gays AS LONG AS they were not out in their face. My mother specifically is tired of hearing about them.
On top of that, you have (or used to) those parades where we hear "we're here, we're queer, get used to it". It can be a bit over the top.
Think about the abortion issue too. back when the only option was a backstreet illegal abortion, nobody was out there picketing them or shooting them.
We may be getting less tolerant of the fringe gays, the loudmouths and the strident folks...but we tend to get less tolerant of the behaviour of most folks like that, and not just because they are gay...or boorish...or leftwingnuts....
This post was modified from its original form on 03 Nov, 10:13
Knate..........I second everything you have said.
This is just an observation, but it seems to me (having lived through several) that in times of recession, high unemployment etc, generally the populace becomes more intolerant of just about everyone that isn't them. Maybe that is a social phenomena, almost like looking for scapegoats to blame the problems of the world on??
And I did some research a few months back. Checking biology journals for lists of animals with homosexual behaviour. Yes, other animals are also gay. It is natural.
Lynn, you are right about scapegoats.
Maine voters latest to turn down gay marriage
By Ros Krasny
PORTLAND, Maine (Reuters) - Voters in Maine on Tuesday overturned a law allowing same-sex couples to wed, dealing a fresh setback to the U.S. gay marriage movement in a race that attracted national attention.
The law was approved by Maine's Legislature in May but was not implemented after opponents gathered enough signatures to put the issue to a "people's veto."
With 87 percent of precincts reporting, votes to reject the law were running at 52.75 percent to 47.25 percent, according to unofficial tallies from the Bangor Daily News.
Frank Schubert, chief organizer of the "Yes on 1" campaign to reject same-sex marriage in the state, claimed victory early on Wednesday, although his opponents refused to concede.
Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont are the only U.S. states where a same-sex marriage law is on the books. In each instance, the laws were approved by legislatures and judges, not by popular vote.
Citizens in some 30 states before Maine voted against same-sex marriages.
Nut bars like that Paris guy do not help their cause. Gay marriage is legal in Canada and they have also been a nice little boost to our economy as well! people come here from all over to get married! Live and let live!
I do think it is nice that you have a say in this State to State however. That was not the case here in Canada - it was dictated to us and I always wished they had held a referendum about it so we could demonstrate our support for it. Mind you the law applies only to civil marriages as the government has no say what the churches do (though quite a few of them now conduct marriages as well - as they should).
The voters in Maine have chosen Hatred, Bigotry and Ignorance and I think what they have done is inexcusable and disgusting.
Inexcusable and disgusting.
This post was modified from its original form on 04 Nov, 4:25
Have to admit I was watching all New Jersey elections taking place. Last I saw on the Maine vote was that it was going to pass. I am surprised it didn't. Like Northern said people should "Live and Let Live".
This post was modified from its original form on 04 Nov, 6:11
Dear Northern and dear Suzanne...
(PS/Suzanne....Really enjoyed talking with you on the phone. Best of the best to you and your loved ones.)
Knate....It was a pleasure for me as well, hope to do it again soon.
I can't stop smiling....can you see it!
This is just an observation, but it seems to me (having lived through several) that in times of recession, high unemployment etc, generally the populace becomes more intolerant of just about everyone that isn't them. Maybe that is a social phenomena, almost like looking for scapegoats to blame the problems of the world on?? ~Lynn
That is my thinking too, Lynn.
I think people today in these uncertain times, are just over-all 'less-tolerant' because they are so near or at their wits end.
I think to some degree these acts reflect a reaction to the dramatic change that has begun toward full equality.
I do not know about Great Britain, but the next generation of Americans will dramatically change the societal treatment of gays. Yes, there are still homophobic behavior, but most of the people I come into contact with who are under the age of 30 just don't get the problems older people have with homosexuality.
I agree, Lynn and Katii. And I believe, when conditions improve in a couple of years - which they will - I hope this trend towards intolerance will be turned around.
When it comes to civil and human rights, it took this country over 100 years to begin granting equal rights to women and to African-Americans (and others). It will take more time to grant equal rights to another large percentage of our population.
Many battles to get there will continue to be lost but people of good will, will not give up until every single American, regardless of their gender, their ethnic background, their religion, their skin color, their age or their relationship orientation have their full, fair and equal rights.
We will not rest until there are equal rights for all.
Gay leaders blame TV ads, Obama for loss in Maine
By LISA LEFF and DAVID CRARY (AP)
SAN FRANCISCO — Stunned and angry, national gay rights leaders Wednesday blamed scare-mongering ads — and President Barack Obama's lack of engagement — for a bitter election setback in Maine that could alter the dynamics for both sides in the gay-marriage debate.
Conservatives, in contrast, celebrated Maine voters' rejection of a law that would have allowed gay couples to wed, depicting it as a warning shot that should deter politicians in other states from pushing for same-sex marriage.
"Every time the citizens have voted on marriage, they have always sided with natural marriage," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based Christian legal group. "Maine dramatically illustrates the will of the people, and politicians should wake up and listen."
Gay activists were frustrated that Obama, who insists he staunchly supports their overall civil rights agenda, didn't speak out forcefully in defense of Maine's marriage law before Tuesday's referendum. The law was repealed in a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent.
"President Obama missed an opportunity to state his position against these discriminatory attacks with the clarity and moral imperative that would have helped in this close fight," said Evan Wolfson of the national advocacy group Freedom to Marry. "The anti-gay forces are throwing millions of dollars into various unsubtle ads aimed at scaring people, so subtle statements from the White House are not enough."
The White House, asked about the criticism, had no immediate comment.
The marriage debate is simmering in at least a half-dozen states where a same-sex marriage bill is pending or where a court ruling or existing law is being eyed by conservatives for possible challenge.
Had Maine's law been upheld by voters, it would have become the sixth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to affirm it by popular vote. In Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Iowa, gay marriage resulted from court decisions or legislation.
California is sure to be a major battleground over the next several years. Last year, conservatives succeeded in winning public approval of Proposition 8, which overturned a state court ruling allowing gay marriage. Gay rights groups want to take the issue back to the voters but are divided on a timetable.
In the aftermath of the Maine vote, some California activists appealed to their supporters for money to help them put a measure on the 2010 ballot. Other activist leaders want to wait until 2012.
"It's never too early to go back to right a fundamental wrong," said Chaz Lowe of Yes! on Equality, who favors shooting for 2010. "A lot of people are angry, a lot of people are upset. It at least has the potential to be a mobilization for the grass roots."
Some California activists said the outcome in Maine strengthened their belief that it will fall to the U.S. Supreme Court — not the voters — to make gay marriage legal. A federal lawsuit challenging Prop. 8 is scheduled to go to trial in January, the first step in a legal journey that is expected to reach the high court in a few years.
(cont.)
"The results in Maine underscore exactly why we are challenging California's same-sex marriage ban," said Chad Griffin, president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the Los Angeles group spearheading the lawsuit. "The U.S. Constitution guarantees equal rights to every American, and when those rights are violated, it is the role of our courts to protect us, regardless of what the polls say."
The situation elsewhere:
_ In New Jersey, the election Tuesday of Republican Chris Christie as governor puts extra pressure on gay rights supporters to win passage of a pending same-sex marriage bill before the legislative session ends in January. Christie says he would veto such a bill, while lame-duck Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, says he would sign it.
_ In Iowa, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage last April, conservatives have no quick way to overturn the ruling. Their only option would be to amend the state constitution through a ballot measure — in 2014 at the earliest — and that effort would need approval from a legislature whose current Democratic leaders don't even want to debate the issue.
_ In New Hampshire, conservatives have filed legislation to repeal the state's new gay-marriage law and amend the constitution to ban such unions. Kevin Smith, executive director of the conservative Cornerstone Policy Research, said he doubts the measures will pass, but hopes the vote in Maine will give gay-marriage opponents ammunition for the 2010 elections.
"It gives us more fodder to go back to people and say, 'Look, they aren't letting you vote on it,'" Smith said.
_ In Washington, D.C., conservatives are trying to force a popular vote on a bill headed toward City Council approval that would legalize gay marriage. Michael Crawford, one of the leaders of the local pro-gay marriage campaign, said the result in Maine increased his determination to avoid a ballot measure.
"The same cabal of anti-gay groups who stripped away marriage equality from our families in California and Maine now have their sights on D.C.," he said.
Crawford was among numerous gay rights leaders complaining about the campaign tactics of the groups that opposed same-sex marriage in Maine and California.
In both states, California-based political strategist Frank Schubert oversaw an advertising campaign warning that "homosexual marriage" would be taught in public schools.
The campaign to defend gay marriage countered that Maine's state curriculum guidelines contain no reference to marriage, and the state's Democratic attorney general, Janet Mills, issued an opinion backing that up. But the ads continued.
"It is infuriating to see that the same fear-mongering ads that were used to pass Prop. 8 a year ago have triumphed again at the expense of so many," said Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay rights group.
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, came away with a different message.
"Over and over again, the American people have affirmed marriage at the ballot box and turned aside the demands of a movement that remains largely driven by Hollywood, some extreme activists and a few activist judges," he said. "We hope the message sent by Maine's voters will be heard in Washington and state capitals around the nation."
I think what we need is a federal law that says there can be no law for or against gay marriage 
I suppose "we" are becoming MORE tolerant of Gay people. At least I am aware of civil rights of the gay movement.
What of a gay human and their "human rights"? Should they not have human rights?
Knate is all over this issue, as well we all should be with him. This issue is about HUMAN rights. Just keeping it simple is all.
President Obama was to busy campaigning for Corzine to swing a little love that way. It was a fairly close vote, wonder if he put a little backing to it how it may have worked out. Guess we will never know.
This post was modified from its original form on 04 Nov, 16:49
It would not have mattered what Obama might have said. It would have been a nice 'gesture' but in the end it would not change the minds of homophobes. Period. What will change those minds is when they die and their bigotry with them. The good news is that the younger generations aren't buying it.
Katii, you are right. A lot of bigotry is amongst older people. What is worrying in the UK is that YOUNGER people seem to be getting like it, that is the difference from the recent past. I think that what counteracts bigotry best is education, education, education.
If it's on the ballot, put to a vote and the vote is legal, then there can be no carping about the outcome. Gays have to do better to get their point across next time. If the argument is good, the vote will be good.
Dear Lynn,
Respectfully, I disagee about the "old" vs the "young."
I live in a community of only "old" people, over the age of 62 - and up to some in their late 80s and early 90s. There is no homophobia in this community. None. There are grandparents of gays and lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered. There are gays and lesbians (etc) in this community.
It is not just the "old" who are holding onto the hatred, the bigotry and the ignorance. It is young haters, bigots and ignorant people, too. In fact, I say there are more young bigots, haters and ignorant than there are old.
I say, it's more a pseudo-religious and political divide, than an age divide.
Hi Robert,
I agree partly with what you say - and I think I understand the point you're making - but, respectfully, I see it a different way.
I agree, Robert, gays & lesbians (etc) need to do a better job of communicating. But, I say, better at communicating with each other; yes. With the rest of society? No. IMO, that's not their responsibility.
IMO, it is up to the ignorant to stop being so ignorant; it is up to the bigots to stop their bigotry; it is up to the haters to stop spreading their hate.
Human beings, IMO, all deserve equal, fair civil and human rights. Civil and human rights are non-negotiable. Civil and human rights should not be up to a vote. Will we go back to voting pro- or con- on slavery? Will we go back and vote on whether women deserve the right to vote and own property? Civil and human rights are NOT about what the "majority" wants or what the "majority" allows. Civil and human rights are about what every single person deserves; minority or majority, it doesn't matter.
The only vote I say should be made is a vote establishing a Constitutional Amendment that ends this bigotry under law forever.
IMO, it is up to the ignorant to stop being so ignorant; it is up to the bigots to stop their bigotry; it is up to the haters to stop spreading their hate.~Knate
Hi Robert,
I agree partly with what you say - and I think I understand the point you're making - but, respectfully, I see it a different way.
I agree, Robert, gays & lesbians (etc) need to do a better job of communicating. But, I say, better at communicating with each other; yes. With the rest of society? No. IMO, that's not their responsibility.
IMO, it is up to the ignorant to stop being so ignorant; it is up to the bigots to stop their bigotry; it is up to the haters to stop spreading their hate.
Human beings, IMO, all deserve equal, fair civil and human rights. Civil and human rights are non-negotiable. Civil and human rights should not be up to a vote. Will we go back to voting pro- or con- on slavery? Will we go back and vote on whether women deserve the right to vote and own property? Civil and human rights are NOT about what the "majority" wants or what the "majority" allows. Civil and human rights are about what every single person deserves; minority or majority, it doesn't matter.
The only vote I say should be made is a vote establishing a Constitutional Amendment that ends this bigotry under law forever.
This is an arbitrary issue. There's a difference between individual rights and collective rights which I think is misunderstood. To demand rights is to deny rights. That is a contradiction which makes the issue a no win situation.
Respectfully, IMO, this has nothing to do with any contradiction at all. I couldn't disagree more what you're saying.
To demand rights is to deny rights? Certainly not my opinion.
Millions of our citizens are being denied their equal civil and human rights based on hatred, bigotry and ignorance. IMO, it's perfectly clear and it's perfectly simple. The situation, as it stands, where people are forced or expected to "beg" for their equal rights, is totally unacceptable. Period.
To demand rights is to deny rights.~Ken
By demanding the civil and human rights that the gay and lesbians should have but don't, what rights are being denied?
If it's on the ballot, put to a vote and the vote is legal, then there can be no carping about the outcome. Gays have to do better to get their point across next time. If the argument is good, the vote will be good.
If that was true, we wouldn't have had to resort to the courts to overthrow Jim Crow policies in the South. Rational arguments do not appeal to bigots. The state has no moral right to represent the majority in oppression of a minority, whether that minority are slaves, taxpayers who are disenfranchised, or are otherwise denied equal protection under the laws as defined by our Constitution.
Well-said, Dale, when you say....
The state has no moral right to represent the majority in oppression of a minority, whether that minority are slaves, taxpayers who are disenfranchised, or are otherwise denied equal protection under the laws as defined by our Constitution.
I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.
Thank you for the statement above, I believe their is truth in what you say. I find it hard to believe all those people in California who voted it down last year and these people in Vermont were all from the right. I really doubt it.
I am on the right and I have no problem with gay people wanting a life like everyone else. None at all, it shouldn't even be an issue.
This post was modified from its original form on 05 Nov, 19:50
Two people meet and get involved and then get married. When they meet they have individual rights but when they marry they give up their individual rights for collective rights. It doesn't matter whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.
To demand rights is to deny rights means if rights are demanded by some they are denied to others. When an issue is voted on, they are voted on collectively because we are a society meaning collectively we're meant to be stronger than individually the same as marriage.
The examples given on the crimes committed on gays are just crimes, which being gay has nothing to do with losing tolerance towards them. That same crime could've been for hatred for the color socks they worn. Then the issue would've been are we losing tolerance for people wearing a certain color socks. If the people then voted on the issue about what color socks to wear it would be a collective choice laws would be made for. The demands for rights is an insecurity to me of those that don't want to give up control. The majority of marriages fail from not giving up control as do societies. The demand for individual rights distracts from collective rights.
I also am with you David but I grew up with a mother and father who I definitely know were necessary as role models. For me as a male I sure did appreciate a father's discipline and example. Also a male-female family differences compliment one another the same as a battery having plus and minus poles which have to be connected to function. It takes a woman to make a man. Her qualities demand a male step up to becoming responsible and accountable. I can't see any way around that in my opinion. When my wife became a mother the only reason I felt I even existed in her life is to help her feel secure raising the children. Even my daughter recently mentioned how the last guy she divorced doesn't have anything to do with her like her children's father does. I wrote that because the last husband was with you for as long as you chose to have him where as you'll be his children's mother forever to their father. There's a difference in that bond for sure.
I've had gay friends and seen to many struggles in their relationships such as falling for another guy without knowing if the guy was gay or not. One other had a lover dying of aids and the fighting they did all the time was disgusting. I mean I've done enough fighting in my male-female relationships but something didn't set right when I watch the demands for how I'm suppose to treat them. One was a great friend and we used to joke about our sexual differences as we just accepted each other just the way we were.
I did say FAR right. Do you know any leftist people that are anti-gay in America? Socialists? Communists? Since most of them reject Biblical teaching on sexuality, they would be more accepting of gays. I always thought anti-gay attitudes came from religious fundamentalism. Nothing else.
OK, maybe some moderates are anti-gay. Who knows? But I still say the attitude is ultra-rightist. Not like Suzanne or other rational people around here.
I just would like to take one moment to speak in a positive light about marriage. I have lived with my husband for 24 years and been married for 18 of those years. I still consider him my very best friend and partner. I think there are still good marriages out there.
They should be free and available to anyone who choses to enter in to that kind of commitment.
I just felt there is a lot of negative marriage talk going on whether it be hetero or gay marriage. I just wanted it to say marriage is all good if you find the right one..... Slightly off topic ... Sorry!
But thanks!Obama Says He Is Against Same-Sex Marriage But Also Against Ending Its Practice In Calif.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i.html
This post was modified from its original form on 05 Nov, 21:31
"I did say FAR right. Do you know any leftist people that are anti-gay in America? Socialists? Communists? Since most of them reject Biblical teaching on sexuality, they would be more accepting of gays. I always thought anti-gay attitudes came from religious fundamentalism. Nothing else." - Dale
Think again, Dale.
- When the Chinese Communist Party came to power in 1949, gays were subject to long prison terms & heavy fines.
- The Nazis "registered" homosexuals, considering & treating them as "asocials".
- In regard to the 1971 New Communist Movement: "But whatever was formally said or not said, for the most part the movement's attitude toward homosexuality and the gay movement was decidedly negative. Fundamentally, most Marxist-Leninists shared the homophobia prevalent in society as a whole, and on the issue of gay rights they surrendered to prejudice instead of analyzing and opposing it."
- While we're talking about Communists: "Almost all the old communist regimes, for example, criminalized homosexuality and Russia only decriminalized it in 1993 when communism fell."
That's enough for now....
http://frank.mtsu.edu/~baustin/homobg.html
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/sex_gender/engels_homophobia.htm
Two people meet and get involved and then get married. When they meet they have individual rights but when they marry they give up their individual rights for collective rights. It doesn't matter whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.
Gee, you make marriage sound like the Borg of Star Trek!
To demand rights is to deny rights means if rights are demanded by some they are denied to others.
Would you say that white people in the South might actually have a "right" to Jim Crow laws to segregate blacks?
Point noted, Barb. However, there is nothing about the ideology of Communism that is necessarily anti-gay rights. Clearly, some followers of Communism screwed it up. Also, Nazism is not leftist, but ultra-rightist, having much more in common with Christian fundamentalism than most American religious extremists would ever admit.
"Also, Nazism is not leftist, but ultra-rightist, having much more in common with Christian fundamentalism than most American religious extremists would ever admit." - Dale
I can't agree with that Dale. Nazism is a form of socialism. Their propensity for things like eugenics are far more in line with Planned Parenthood than the Church. http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html
Definitions of nazism on the Web:
- a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism and obedience to a strong leader
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Nazism, officially National Socialism (Nationalsozialismus), refers to the ideology and practices of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party under Adolf Hitler, and the policies adopted by the dictatorial government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. Payne, Stanley G. 1995. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Dale is right that Nazis are far right, although I am sure Dale will agree that the strict left-right ideology scale has its limitations. He has a whole Care2 group about it.
Nazis put "socialism" in their name because "socialism" was popular during the time but they were really corporatists rather than socialists, and they rounded up and imprisoned leftist socialists and communists.
"Their propensity for things like eugenics are far more in line with Planned Parenthood than the Church."--Barb
I know people who volunteer at Planned Parenthood and they are not like the Nazis. Even if you belief that a clump of cells is a human, not everyone including many medical doctors and ethicists shares that opinion.
I am trying to be diplomatic and I assume you did not mean the comment the way it came across. If the tone of this group was supposed to be no-holds-barred, then fine call people Nazis if that is your real opinion about people who assist women with medical decisions.
But please remember that you are comparing Nazis to many very good people who are trying to help women (who most certainly are humans) in a difficult situation.
The Nazis were definately NOT socialists. You wouldn't have wanted to be a communist in wartime Germany.
Are the right more anti-gay than the left?? Well, here in France and in the UK that is certainly the case. I am talking right wing extremists here like the BNP, not normal everyday conservatives.
Knate, I hear what you say about the community in which you live. But in very broad terms my experience has been that younger pêople, by and large, are less anti gay.
Just proves you can't be catagorical at all............bigots are everywhere.
NAZI means National Socialist German Workers' Party....it is set apart from and was at odds with the ideals of the Soviet Union. But they were truly socialist. They rounded up not only their communist enemies, but also Catholics Lutherans, and other religionists as well. The "Socialist" in NAZI was not a convenience or a popular term meant to gather support, but was a backlash in 1919 against the successful communist Russian Revolution (which at the time of the founding of the NAZIs was still going on after two years, and pitted the Mensheviks angainst the Bolsheviks. The US was involved in fighting the Communists in Russia at the time as well.)
<<Nazism is not leftist, but ultra-rightist, having much more in common with Christian fundamentalism than most American religious extremists would ever admit>>
Sooo wrong in soooo many ways.
Nazism is a form of socialism. Their propensity for things like eugenics are far more in line with Planned Parenthood than the Church.
No, Nazism is a form of fascism, which in turn stole a few ideas from socialist movements and warped them into corporatist extremism instead. Mussolini, the founder of the first Fascist party, was a former socialist turned ultra-nationalist. Right-wing parties by nature and definition are hypernationalist, not egalitarian like leftist movements are.
You on the far right in America keep forgetting that in Europe in the early 20th Century, socialism was seen (and is still is by many) as a GOOD thing. Every ideology, even Nazism, tries to justify itself by claiming to be "good", so it seems clear that Hitler used the word "socialist" to make his twisted ideology look better than it was. But he and the other Nazis were violently anti-Communist (an extreme form of socialism). They condemned Karl Marx and his teachings as part of a Jewish plot. They also hated democracy. In actual economic terms, they promoted corporatism more than outright socialism.
I am sure I have said this somewhere else before to Kevin I think, but it applies I think to Dale too. Why don't you start a thread that actually explains some political definitions? That way we might get some of that across to some people.
Anyway, the NAZI's were (and are........yes, they still exist) and extreme RIGHT WING party. But, what has that got to do with the origin of this thread anyway?????????????????????????????????????????
Just to make it as clear as mud.....from Wikipedia:
Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right.[9] The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group. The Nazi Party presented its program in the 25 point National Socialist Program in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,[10][11]eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism
This post was modified from its original form on 06 Nov, 4:04
I am going to upset all sides of this discussion when I say this, but here goes:
If people wish to discuss definitions: of Liberalism, of Conservatism, of Libertarianism, of Right Wing and Left Wing, of Socialism and Nazism and Communism, of any ism, I think it is much more productive to do so in separate threads.
Please, if people really wish to discuss political definitions, please do so in threads where we can all focus on just the political definitions. Personally - and no one is going to like hearing me say this - I find this to be a great way to lose focus of what the issues are.
Lynn started this thread to discuss tolerance and intolerance towards gays - towards LGBTs. Lynn started this thread to ask if we are becoming less tolerant or more tolerant. ............Not to have the discussion descend into bickering about, "Nazis are Socialists!" "No, they're not!" "Yes, they are!"
The intolerance, ignorance, hatred and discrimination against LGBTs in US society - and I expect elsewhere - should be the issue. Let's please, try to focus on that.
This is Lynn's thread.
Let's please show Lynn the respect she deserves to have the topic of the thread discussed that she asked to be discussed.
Thank you.
Back to the point..................do you think growing intolerance of gay people is a result of social conditions under a recession, or something else?
Dear Lynn,
I think, it goes without saying, that when economic times are difficult for more and more people, there are negative consequences when it comes to the way we act with others. But I think the ignorance, the hatred and the bigotry against LGBTs goes way deeper than what is occurring economically. Even in boom times, the discrimination is there.
For thousands of years our Western Judeo-Christian (and Muslim) cultures have taught us that homosexuality is an evil, a sickness, an aberration - and because of that, a large portion of our natural and normal populations have been hated, abused, exploited, killed and discriminated against.
Times, I hope, are beginning to change. People are beginning to learn the truth that there is nothing evil, wrong, aberrant, unnatural or ill about homosexuality. In fact, homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality. They are both natural elements of being human - as they are natural, as well, in the animal kingdom.
Your question: Are the difficult economic times making it more difficult for us to overcome ignorance and intolerance? Difficult times, IMO, make all things more difficult. But the progress we need to make, IMO, has little or no bearing on economics. It has to do with teaching, with perception, with knowledge of scientific and social facts. It has to do with combating hatred and ignorance and bigotry - which need to be done no matter what the economic conditions or political or economic systems.
This intolerance, this ignorance and this hatred must end. We must end it now. It will not be easier if we wait until our economies improve.
What needs to be improved is not our economy but our minds, our hearts and our souls. That is where our real sickness lies and that is where our real healing has to take place. Today.
This post was modified from its original form on 06 Nov, 5:41
I think there's a major difference between "intolerance" & the fact that, here in America, 31 states have voted against gay marriage.
As to the latter issue, I believe what makes many of the voting public uncomfortable is what the consequences can be & the conflict this can cause to their 1st Amendment Right to freedom of religion. Consider the lesbian couple who sued a Methodist Church in NJ because the church denied them the right to hold their wedding on church property. Listen to the American Jewish Congress' General Counsel. He foresees problems between the state & "those who hold to orthodox positions concerning human sexuality and marriage". Heck, there's even a polygamy activist group going after New Hampshire because "law that is intended to assure "equal access to marriage" for all instead specifically embeds in state statutes bigotry against polygamists." Many see gay marriage as a Pandora's box.
Dear Barb,
As you know, I have the greatest respect for you, for your opinions and for you as a person.
On this issue we disagree. But I will not argue the point because I feel arguing will go nowhere. I hope someday you will be able to see what I see, and you will be able to perceive and understand it as I understand it. But even if that does not happen, Barb, I am willing to address one thing.
IMO, there can be no steps to granting people their fully-deserved and natural civil and human rights. Or to have any excuse to deny them. I say, fully-deserved civil and human rights cannot be put up to a vote. It is not subject, IMO, to majority rule.
However, I will not argue that point because - also - there are too many arguments, too much posturing, when it comes to these issues about gays and lesbians. We need no more fighting over this. Any of us, on any level.
In the State of Washington - thank G-d! - the voters have again given their support to domestic partnerships. No, I do not feel it goes far enough, but, at least, there is the recognition that there is NOTHING WRONG with being homosexual. The marriage issue will be decided later, IMO, when people's minds and hearts are enlightened to the truth. (That is the way I see it and that is the way I express it.)
Having domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians - and, BTW, for Seniors, too! - recognizes the rights couples should have in our society. It is not far enough but it is a good step;it is an excellent step away from intolerance, ignorance and discrimination. I am so proud of my fellow Washington State voters that they didn't act in support of bigotry and ignorance like the voters in the state of Maine.
So, Barb, if we both support civil (or domestic) partnerships, then I will be glad to join with you in support of that step. The rest can be worked out later.
This post was modified from its original form on 06 Nov, 5:59
Can spomeone tell me the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage? Aren't they the same thing?
There's the rub, Lynn.
Marriage, to many, should only have a civil definition. But it gets confused with "religious" definitions and ceremonies. And with those who claim that only a man and a woman can be a couple.
The hope of many who want to have domestic (or civil) partnerships is to not address the term "marriage," but have couples - gays and seniors not married - have the same societal and economic benefits given, by the state, to married couples.
I know, it's unnecessarily confusing.
<In actual economic terms, they (NAZIs) promoted corporatism more than outright socialism>--Dale
With the US government poised to control 50% of the economy by next summer, the BHObama administration is definitely NAZI.
This post was modified from its original form on 06 Nov, 8:15
Lynn, I hope you don't mind if I attempt to share my opinion on the subject from my own experiences. I compared individual rights to collective rights which I can see now that I am totally incapable of doing. So between you and me I have another example of intolerance.
I used to do custom painting and became involved with doing work for bikers (motorcyclists). I'm not sure if your country has biker gangs or not but in time I started doing work for some 'Outlaws.' When I first started I did a pair of tanks for a guy I never met. Then at a show this guy thanked me for painting his tanks. I couldn't figure out who he was cause he was clean shaven and had a hair cut yet he wore the 'Outlaw' colors. He was on trial for murder. Later I worked for another one who was a brother-in-law to an 'Outlaw' who the newspapers wrote about as dying from a heart attack while being taken into custody. "BS," this guy told me. "I seen the body. They beat him to death with their night sticks." It was the same intolerance that gays experience.
The one gay was telling me about how he was a teen and wondered what was wrong with him. He let me know about seeing shrinks and how others would beat up on him all the time cause he was different. When I knew him he came across as being gay and so what. If others had a problem with that, it was their problem and he let it remain their problem. Personally I appreciated his friendship and seen him as a very caring person. I do admit that I felt a little fear of him myself because of our difference which we both later on laughed about. To me that's the intolerance. It's those with fear of our differences which I see as insecure. I seen the same intolerance for the 'Outlaw' bikers I seen for the gays. Being older I am more appreciative that these people were in my life then those that showed the intolerance although I have a hard time in my mind seeing the bikers showing tolerance to gays.
As for marriage I had hoped that including what I told my daughter about how her last husband wouldn't have anything to do with her yet her children's father was always there for her; the last husband was in her life by choice that two people made and only lasted as long as the choices lasted whereas she will be her children's mother forever to their father. Personally I can not see that in gay marriages which I see only as choices that will last only till those choices change.
If the pursuit of happiness is a human right in this country, and I believe the document called THE BILL OF RIGHTS states that it is, and if being married contributes to that pursuit of happiness, then marriage is a human right - not a right ONLY for this or that relationship orientation.
Two people meet and get involved and then get married. When they meet they have individual rights but when they marry they give up their individual rights for collective rights. It doesn't matter whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. ~Ken
What human rights do the people in a marriage give up merely because they are married? None.
To demand rights is to deny rights means if rights are demanded by some they are denied to others. When an issue is voted on, they are voted on collectively because we are a society meaning collectively we're meant to be stronger than individually the same as marriage. ~Ken
Human rights, in my opinion and that of most sentient human beings, is not something that should need to be voted for or against. While because of racism and bigotry - both inhumane mentalities - it has become a necessity to have an official vote in FAVOR or human rights to usurp the decisions of a body of people who've voted for themselves AGAINST human rights.
For gays and lesbians to "demand" their human rights is not in any way a demand for anyone else to give up their own.
"For gays and lesbians to "demand" their human rights is not in any way a demand for anyone else to give up their own."
Sure isn't, Katii!!!!!
Right, for gays to demand their human rights is not in any way a demand for anyone to give up their own but when the issue is voted on it's not their own they are giving up. The demand is for those who voted on the issue to give up their collective rights. The vote was a way to chose what everybody wanted instead of just individuals. I mean my children had rights to but it was still up to parents to reason and make decisions what was best for not only them but the whole family until they could do that for themselves. Individually their rights were part of the family collective rights. If an individual is on an island alone the rights are for only the individual but whenever there is any other form of life on the island it's the rights of all living creature that enter the picture. Even animals rights enter the picture collectively. What's so hard to understand about that??? I mean what's voting about to you that can't see this issue about collective rights being for everybody in society instead of individuals?
Racism and bigotry are just words that express opinions without any path to reasoning in decision making. Reasoning to me is looking at the issue to make decision whereas when I'm presented words like racism and bigotry I question the ability to discuss issues with attempting to arrive at solutions. What kind of solution can come from racism and bigotry????? I wonder if any thought has been given to bring in something to back up points about racism and bigotry that might connect to the issue of intolerance.
Fine the Bill of Rights offered happiness but what a joke that's turned into. Go tell the unemployed and those that lost their homes they're suppose to be happy cause the Bill of Rights says so. Go tell the guy who shot up Fort Hood that he was suppose to be happy going to Iraq cause the Bill of Rights says so. The bible says a lot of stuff also and so does the Koran but they're all just written words. Discussing to me is reasoning to make decisions and the Bill of Rights doesn't cut it. If it did I honestly feel this country wouldn't be as screwed up as it is.
The majority has no "right" to deny or remove the civil and human rights of any minority. The majority has no "right" to vote on whether they will decide to grant rights to any minority.
Universal civil and human rights are just what they are; they are rights; universal rights. They are not arbitrary rights that the majority can morally give or take away at will.
The idea that the majority is "giving up" its collective rights to deny the rights of others is a bogus concept, without any merit whatsoever, logically or legally or morally. The majority may rule, as it always has, by force. But the idea that the concept is moral, logical or legal is, IMO, absurd.
Did you honestly word that right, "The majority has no 'right"?????????
And then to follow with, "The majority has no 'right' to vote," sure could've used more thought in my opinion. It does fit in with the demand of rights though because right here in your own words the majority has no right which means to me the demand for rights is the denial of rights. The demand for gay rights denies the majority who voted on the issue is the way I understood this.
If you wish to re-write what I said, go ahead, Ken - but that isn't what I said. Anyone here can see I didn't say that. Twisting my words is nothing more than word-twisting and has no validity.
Yes, I stand exactly by what I said, exactly as I said it.
The majority has no "right" to grant or take away, by vote, any minority's universal civil or human rights. Not logically, not morally and not legally. Just because the majority can force itself on others does not make it right...and does not make it a "right."
It's not the far right who are voting down initiatives for gay marriage. It is right, middle, left, white, black, chicano, Asians - the whole spectrum of American voters.
The demand for gay rights denies the majority who voted on the issue is the way I understood this. ~Ken
It's only because there are racists and bigots 'demanding' to DENY someone else their human and civil rights that this 'vote' was held to begin with. It was not GAYS OR LESBIANS who brought an initiative to deny their right to happiness, it was not GAYS OR LESBIANS who are demanding for someone to "give up their rights." It was BIGOTED HOMOPHOBES who brought and voted in majority for an initiative to expressly DENY human and civil rights to other human beings.
Let the states decide the issue. It's their right to do so.
What is BHObama's position on gay marriage?
This post was modified from its original form on 06 Nov, 15:26
Hi Robert,
Respectfully, I don't give a rotten fig newton what Barack Obama's position is on gay marriage.
You and I disagree on State's Rights - which is the same disagreement I had on State's Rights when it came to state's denying the rights of African Americans. I do not consider it anyone's - or any state's - "right" to deny the rights of others.
So, we'll just have to "agree to disagree" on this issue.
Let me see if I understand this because I took the words from a post and wrote them exactly as I seen them, then I understand that I twisted them around. What am I missing about this?
And the following post to me means that because I voted for marriage to be between a man and a woman I'm a racist and bigot. Am I understanding that right??????
My point about this issue was that I voted my preference in how I felt about marriage but constantly see where the demand from the other side of the issue is placing demands which would void my vote or choice. So to me that means demand for rights denies rights. Their demand denies my right. So does that make all who voted for marriage, to be between a man and a woman, racists and bigots????? And if so does it mean that all us racists and bigots aren't suppose to vote anymore according to the way I'm understanding your logic???? I mean I would like to have a clear understanding on the subject of getting less tolerant of gay people.
Personally I clearly will state that I am less tolerant of people who want to destroy my vote for what I believe in.
This group is educational for sure!
Universal Declaration of human rights, Article two:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Article sixteen:
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution
Where does it say that a man has to marry a woman and a woman a man????
You did not quote me, Ken, so please take responsibility for the fact that you purposely misquoted me so you could accuse me of saying something I did not say.
If you want to quote me accurately, exactly what I said, then do it. Otherwise, keep my words out of your posts.
This post was modified from its original form on 07 Nov, 1:13
Dear Lynn,
Excellent post.
You get it perfectly. There are, IMO - and in yours - and in the legal and moral opinions of untold hundreds of millions of people - a set of Universal Human Rights.
No one has a legal or moral "right" to deny or remove Universal HUman Rights from anyone else based on a vote. Universal Human Rights are deserved by all human beings. They should not be subject to majority rule. Nor does the fact that these Universal Human Rights exist take away from anyone else's rights. The idea that they do is, IMO, bizarre and absurd.
Your post: "
The majority has no "right" to deny or remove the civil and human rights of any minority. The majority has no "right" to vote on whether they will decide to grant rights to any minority.
My post:
Did you honestly word that right, "The majority has no 'right"?????????
And then to follow with, "The majority has no 'right' to vote,"
What is there about our thinking that is so different? I seen this subject about intolerance to gays and shared my thoughts on the subject from what I believe and feel about the subject. We're a society that individually takes sharing our thoughts and feelings in what we believe and combine them together collectively to set the direction for the well-being of all involved in the process.
I actually see this thread as my right to share being denied me which is comparison to voting and then having what I voted for being denied by the demand for rights. When I vote I share in the process of democracy as I believe that is the way democracy was meant to function. The demand for rights is not sharing in the process to me. It is insecurely trying to control and manipulate, not share.
It's time to start a new thread_____
Let the states decide the issue. It's their right to do so.
It is not the right of any state to decide to remove or deny human rights.
My point about this issue was that I voted my preference in how I felt about marriage but constantly see where the demand from the other side of the issue is placing demands which would void my vote or choice.
It is not the right of any person to decide - or vote - to remove or deny human rights from another person.
Ken, if not bigotry then what other reason is there to vote against the civil and human rights of other human beings?
Dear Katii,
Thank you for repeating what I said, and what others said, about civil and human rights.
The idea that anyone can think they have the right to vote down another person's universal civil or human rights is truly abominable and is about as bigoted and self-serving an idea that can possibly exist.
Who decides what the "human rights" are that the majorities are supposed to respect of the minorities?
You cannot currently send a star to Kevin because you have done so within the last week.
I guess I should clarify what I meant by that question. It seems most people are in favor of making the majority respect the rights of the minorities (it's kind of part of the definition of a right), but we disagree on what those rights are.
Many feel that homosexuals do not have a right to equal partnerships with heterosexual marriage. I disagree about denying them, but the "majority" (or at least the status quo) has the ability to block the legal sanctioning of equality (as I see it).
As to the idea that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies here, what were the mores (morays) in 1948 that would attach those rights to gay marriage?
People can also argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, Kevin.
And some people just want to argue about everything.
I think that the states are avoiding having the question being settled in the statehouses by holding referenda, and when the majority vote is against, they take no action. In no state has gay marriage passed on the vote of the people.
Dear Robert,
Trying to convince you that there is nothing different between people who are homosexual and people who are heterosexual is a wasted effort.
The reason for discrimination against homosexuals is based on hatred, ignorance and bigotry. There is no basis in science to separate people into those categories, as if one is good and the other is bad. The only basis for these ideas originates in ignorance.
You can't see that and you will never be able to see it.
Just like many people still around today say white people are superior to people with dark skin. Just like some people today say men are superior to women. Or women are superior to men. Just like some people say people with dark skins are superior to those with white skins.
There is no common agreement of facts, Robert, to even discuss this issue.
You will have your ideas; I have mine. That is not going to change.
Dear Kevin,
Taking your "relativistic" argument to its logical conclusion only means no one can prove they deserve any civil or human rights because there will always be someone opposing those rights.
IMO, there's nothing to be gained by trying to view human rights and civil rights that way.
This post was modified from its original form on 07 Nov, 16:41
Anyone who says the rights of homosexuals have to be voted on, by their own admission, believe there is something wrong, or different, or unnatural with being homosexual. Otherwise, there is no basis to ask for a vote.
Human and civil rights have nothing to do with what a voting majority wants.
To people who know better, it is obvious why there cannot be a vote for or against civil and human rights for homosexuals.
As to the idea that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies here, what were the mores (morays) in 1948 that would attach those rights to gay marriage?
"People can also argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, Kevin.
And some people just want to argue about everything."-Knate
The answer is 7 angels, and there is no room for debate.
As concerns, what human rights should be recognized, I agree with what I think is the sentiment of your second line. It's not a subject particularly amenable to fact-based debate.
Just because the majority has the physical power, Kevin, is the poorest possible reason for declaring that is, therefore, their right. Just because someone is more physically powerful than another, how does that make the oppression of the weaker a right?
Usually you argue for enlightenment, Kevin. I find this as baffling as anything I've ever seen here, seeing you argue in favor of "Might Makes Right."
Talk about scary, Kevin; you are truly scaring me right now. I'm serious.
Facts? Excuse my words, but give me a break.
Facts? Show me your facts, Kevin. Show me your facts that homosexuality is abnormal. Show me your facts that homosexuality is wrong or evil or bad. Show me your facts that homosexuality is unnatural.
You have no facts, Kevin, because those facts don't exist. No one has those facts because they do not exist. Ignorance exists; hatred exists; fear exists; bigotry exists. But there is no basis in fact for discriminating against homosexuals.
The facts are that there is nothing abnormal, unnatural, evil, wrong or bad in homosexuality or people being homosexual. It is natural; as natural as heterosexuality.
One can't say, only normal people deserve civil and human rights but other people, just as normal, don't deserve their equal civil and human rights.
Those are the facts.
This post was modified from its original form on 07 Nov, 16:56
The whole basis of the anti-homosexual rhetoric, Robert, is based on the idea - that you hold - that heterosexuality, a sexual orientation, deserves human and civil rights - like the civil and human right to marry.
Denial and obfuscation, Robert, doesn't make reality.
“Taking your "relativistic" argument to its logical conclusion only means no one can prove they deserve any civil or human rights because there will always be someone opposing those rights.”—Knate
I agree that the logical outcome of the statement I made (I wasn’t really making an argument) is that no one can claim any rights.
Once it is accepted that the powerful or the majority ultimately determines what rights it will respect, then protection from the powerful or the majority’s ability to define “human rights” is really a power to deny rights.
On the one hand it means that no rights exist at all, and on the other hand it means that rights exist regardless of whether the powerful or the majority recognize them.
Either one accepts the former conclusion, or the latter conclusion.
If a person argues that any right is not a right because the powerful don’t recognize the right, it means that you cannot claim there are such things as rights to free speech, trials, property, guns, etc. or you are wrong to say you are fighting other people, like Saddam Hussein, who deny rights. Such a person has already negated all claims to rights by saying there are only rights when the powerful recognize them—and a “right” is not a “right” if it needs sanction by the powerful.
Or, it means that others, such as homosexuals, may make equally legitimate claims to rights regardless of the desire of the powerful to claim those rights do not exist. A right is a right because rights exist regardless of powerful interests or popular opinion, or there is no such thing as any rights.
It's very simple, Kevin.
Homosexuality is a "scientific" condition, in a sense, like skin color; like gender. Is there a preferred gender? Is there a preferred skin color? Should there be when it comes to civil and human rights? No, there should not. Is there a preferred sexual orientation, in the sense that one is scientifically better than another? Science makes no judgment, Kevin. Science just shows that in every normal human population, at least 10% of that human population - and probably much more - are homosexual.
Science proves that homosexuality is common and normal throughout other animal species, too. It's normal. Just like skin being a certain color is normal. Just like being either male or female is normal. There is nothing negative about it. There is nothing destructive about it. There is nothing harmful about it.
Heterosexuality and homosexuality are both just as normal.
There is no scientific basis to have separate human and civil rights. None. The only basis lies in hatred, fear, bigotry and ignorance.
Is that how you want human and civil rights determined? By the vote of the most ignorant? Like they did when we enslaved people from Africa because of the color of their skin?
Remember how many "learned" and intelligent and scholarly people supported slavery and said it was natural and good and right. Just like so-called learned, intelligent and scholarly people say there is a difference, a bad difference, between gays and non-gays - and, therefore, gays can't have equal rights.
Look at facts, Kevin.
There is no scientific factual basis for this separation of rights.
This post was modified from its original form on 07 Nov, 17:19
“Just because the majority has the physical power, Kevin, is the poorest possible reason for declaring that is, therefore, their right. Just because someone is more physically powerful than another, how does that make the oppression of the weaker a right?”—Knate
Oppression of the weaker is not a “right,” unless you think of chaotic nature as a right. Oppression of the weaker in my opinion is just something that happens
“Usually you argue for enlightenment, Kevin. I find this as baffling as anything I've ever seen here, seeing you argue in favor of "Might Makes Right."
Talk about scary, Kevin; you are truly scaring me right now. I'm serious.”—Knate
Then I think you misunderstood me.
Perhaps I can put it more clearly and succinctly.
1. Rights by definition are claims that individuals or minorities can claim against the will of the powerful or the majority.
2. If the powerful or majority have the power to define rights, then they can revoke any right, which would mean that there is no such thing as a right as we understand the term.
3. Thus, if there are such things as rights, then they exist regardless of recognition by the powerful or the majority.
4. Which means that if the powerful or the majority are hones about any claims to such rights as free speech, fair trials, religion, guns, etc., or they want to fight other countries based on accusations about rights, then they cannot deny rights based on their position as the powerful majority.
Whenever they do so, they are admitting that it is all a hypocritical sham to mask the self-interest and desires of the powerful or majority.
“Facts? Excuse my words, but give me a break.
Facts? Show me your facts, Kevin. Show me your facts that homosexuality is abnormal. Show me your facts that homosexuality is wrong or evil or bad. Show me your facts that homosexuality is unnatural.”—Knate
I didn’t say there were facts that homosexuality is abnormal. I don’t believe that at all. I said the existence of rights is not amenable to fact-based arguments.
“You have no facts, Kevin, because those facts don't exist. No one has those facts because they do not exist. Ignorance exists; hatred exists; fear exists; bigotry exists. But there is no basis in fact for discriminating against homosexuals.
The facts are that there is nothing abnormal, unnatural, evil, wrong or bad in homosexuality or people being homosexual. It is natural; as natural as heterosexuality.”--Knate
I think the basis for discrimination against homosexuals is the desires or self interests of the powerful.
“One can't say, only normal people deserve civil and human rights but other people, just as normal, don't deserve their equal civil and human rights.
Those are the facts.”—Knate
I think that if someone makes any claims to any rights at all, they must recognize that the powerful or the majority do not have a right to define rights away for others. I’m not sure how that got miscast.
"It's very simple, Kevin.
Homosexuality is a "scientific" condition, in a sense, like skin color; like gender. Is there a preferred gender? ... "--Knate
I am having some troubles with Care2 posting and updating, and I think we are posting out of sync.
I think perhaps we a writing while the other is responding and the posts aren't going up in order.
I am going to wait, and if we still have a disagreement after you have had the chance to read my last few posts, then I will respond to any agreements/ disagreements/ questions.
I want to make something clear before I go - because I have to be somewhere else:
When I talk about bigotry and bigots - of which there are many bigots who base their ideas about homosexuals and homosexuality on their bigotry - I am in no way accusing anyone here of being an anti-homosexual bigot.
Robert, you and I have far differing ideas about this issue - and the issues within the issue - but I know that your opinions, your feelings and your understanding of this, for yourself, does not come from bigotry. I am not accusing you of being a bigot because I know you are not a bigot. At least, that is what I believe.
Just to be clear.
Dear Kevin,
I was posting rhetorically, as you know, and playing the ideas against the ideas of those who raise questions about the rights of homosexuals.
I think, when it comes down to what we believe in our hearts and minds, we believe the same thing.
But we both post, at times, in approaching the arguments as a debate. We both, at times, play Devil's Advocate to get to an understanding of the dynamics of issues.
I have an argument with the "arguments" against equal and identical rights for homosexuals in our culture. And that is what I am arguing against. You know I have no argument with you.
"I was posting rhetorically, as you know, and playing the ideas against the ideas of those who raise questions about the rights of homosexuals."--Knate
I noticed something like that was happening in the middle of the conversations.
"We both, at times, play Devil's Advocate to get to an understanding of the dynamics of issues."--Knate
You may have been Devil's Advocate, but I was in favor of those angels dancing on the pin (there are exactly 7 dancing angels).
Kevin said:
"...rights exist regardless of whether the powerful or the majority recognize them."
That is the entire argument in a nutshell. And that is a fact.
This post was modified from its original form on 07 Nov, 18:17
That, Elizabeth, has been my argument all along. Since long before this thread.
Rights exist, whether the majority agrees and recognizes them or not. The rights of homosexuals are not dependent on the votes of a majority and should not be. I have been banging my head against the wall here making that point.
"But there are also 5 angels who are used as substitutes when any of the 7 tire."--Robert
Sure, they dance on needles in the meantime.
Angels need practice dancing but devils are great dancers without practice. That must be hat Knate meant by being a devil's advocate.
Let me see if I can clarify something, Kevin.
I have been, for a long time in this group, an open, passionate and articulate supporter of equal rights for gays and lesbians - and are you now saying I have been faking my support and passion?
This post was modified from its original form on 07 Nov, 20:02
No, to be serious for a second, I don't think you have at all been faking your support or passion.
Your devil's advocacy is on other issues like pins and needle dancing. (See, I'm trying these emoticons)
Rights take place in one's mind and I hope I was articulate on that. So my main interest lies in what's best for everybody which I learned from being a father. If one of my children were gay I never felt that could take away from the whole family just as I feel that if part of society is gay it's the whole society that matters the most to me. I mean I had a daughter trying to kill herself which took a lot of effort to deal with but didn't cut me any slack from doing what was best for the rest of the family.
As far as I'm concerned you can take rights and put them where the sun don't shine. They are selfish and inconsiderate taking away time and effort on doing what's best for society. I could care less whether one is gay or heterosexual cause that's just sex and our society is already screwed up from thinking sex is a major part of life without even knowing how to relate to one another. This issue is intolerance to gays which I am not but I am intolerant to gays behaviors when they infringe on my life. I live in a society which gives me a chance to participate by voting in making decisions. Others vote the same way I do and that is the main importance in the way our country operates. We all are part of this and I completely understand that the majority rules. There are a lot of things the majority rules on I don't like but I doubt anybody can come up with a better system to live with in our country.
I don't play Devil's Advocate on anything I feel deeply in my heart and soul. Not on issues of civil and human rights. Not on issues of war and peace. Not on issues of poverty, of crime, of the responsibilities of government to our citizens and of our citizens to our government. Not on issues of religion, of Faith, of belief.
The few times I have played Devil's Advocate, on minor issues, I have announced my intentions.
Ken,
Since you don't have any respect for other people's rights - since you say that people can take their rights and put them where the sun don't shine - then don't expect people to respect anything you say. You claim they are selfish? You claim they are inconsiderate?
You think you have the right to rule by the dictatorship of the majority? That you, by voting, can deny the rights of others? That you have this idea that the behavior of gays infringes on your life? I find those ideas morally bankrupt and repulsive. And that's about the nicest thing I can say.
Lynn, you are right about scapegoats.
Yes, other animals are also gay. It is natural. Scape goats are gay?! I knew it, they are always up to no good!!!
Wow and I'm the one accused of twisting things around. I thought I started the post with rights take place in people's mind. So to me that means it's how one uses their mind that makes rights and I that is of absolutely no concern of mine. I am concerned with what's right for society as a whole which is made up of individual rights. I respect the fact that individuals collectively choose what's right for them as a whole. I'm sure my vote will deny the rights of others but I appreciate the process that voting offers everybody a chance to be part of collective choices concerning rights
.
Question; if I'm not suppose to expect people respecting what I write does that mean I have to send the green stars back???????
I'm curious as to what ideas you find morally right for society as a whole and not just one segment of it.
Ken, I am finding your points hard to follow to be honest. Also, in what way do "gays infringe on your life"??? How does someone else's sexual orientation affect you in an adverse way? I don't get it.
I'm curious as to what ideas you find morally right for society as a whole and not just one segment of it.
It's simple, really: Do not deny rights to anyone else that you wish for yourself. It's a version of the Golden Rule. If I wish to marry someone I love, then everyone should have that same right. Including gays.
Dear Dale, dear Lynn and dear Blackcat...
Thankfully, in the US, we have a living Constitution that, someday, will be changed - as it has been changed in the past - to correct the inequities of wrongheaded laws and/or add laws needed to protect the rights of all Americans.
Thankfully we are moving away from the control of people who would enforce the Fascist idea that the collective good overrules the rights of minorities; the Fascist idea that laws must be "morally right for society as a whole and not just one segment of it."
Thankfully, more people like the three of you are "getting it" and will continue to get it until we can banish bigotry from our societies forever.
When did sexual orientation become a human right?
Oh, probably right about the exact same time the first human had the innate human instinct to have sex.
Excuse me, Katii, for not including your name, too, to the above post I made - because you, too, certainly "get it."
Thank you.
I'm curious as to what ideas you find morally right for society as a whole and not just one segment of it.
In America what is morally right for a society is for society to embrace the basic tenet of Live and Let Live. Live as you are inclined in the pursuit of your own happiness but do no harm to others. Allow everyone the pursuit of their own happiness based on those tenets.
Gay/Lesbian relationships do no harm to others. Others do harm to gay/lesbian human beings and work tirelessly to obstruct their pursuit of happiness. It's pretty simple to figure out which segment is not allowing the other their pursuit of happiness and causing harm (hint: it's not gays and lesbians).
"but I am intolerant to gays behaviors when they infringe on my life."
How is it that gay people/gay behaviors exactly do this? 
Dear Spooky and dear Katii,
The answer to your question, IMO, is because homophobes feel the very existance of gays and lesbians somehow infringes on their life. Just like anti-black racists feel the existence of people of colour infringes on their life.
That is what, IMO, bigotry is and that is, IMO, part of the twisted justification of bigots. Somehow, in their minds, gays and lesbians are to blame.
Dear members,
Mostly I prefer to avoid censorship of posts, except in cases where people preach violence or break the Care2 CoC. People, mostly, can post what they want. However, my reaction to some posts will differ.
If anyone comes into this group to spread homophobia or racism or anti-Semitism - or to express support for discimination against gays & lesbians, against religious groups, support for racism and things of that nature, I probably will not censor the posts. But this is what I definitely will do:
Reasonable disagreements, for instance, about how society should deal with issues like gay marriage will be accepted as reasonable differences of opinions. But if I determine - and I will be the final arbiter of that determination - that the opposition, for instance, to equal rights for gays and lesbians stems from bigotry and/or homophobia, then anyone expressing those opinions will get no respect from me.
If anyone comes in here and tells us they do not respect the civil and human rights of others, they will get no respect from me.
Post like that, and be guaranteed I will make sure those ideas and opinions will be challenged and ridiculed. Racists, homophobes, anti-Semites (etc) will not feel comfortable here.
To repeat, those who have reasonable differences on issues, even issues of civil and human rights, are always welcome. But I will decide if any opinions cross the line.
Let me be very clear: Robert the Bruce and Barb (I think) and probably a few others here have different opinions about gay marriage than, for instance, I do. But their differences are reasonable, even though I feel the basis of their opinions are faulty. Their opinions are NOT based on hatred or bigotry and they do not support discrimination! We just have different points of view, perhaps, on this issue. They should always feel free to express their concerns and their points of view. They will not be accused of being bigots...because they are NOT bigots!
But for anyone expressing a lack of respect for the civil and human rights of others, will get disrespect in return from me. There will be no free ride for bigotry in this group. Bigotry will not find the welcome mat by the front door of this group.
Who in this country even knows what love is?????? Are all of these posts based on love and if so could any of you explain how???? Right, if you marry for love to me ought to be worded "if you marry looking for love." My own marriage started with sex being the main thing we were together with. It failed because we had absolutely zero trust and respect for one another. I take full responsibility for that failure because as a male I firmly believe that it was up to me to earn my wife's trust and respect. With the relationship starting with sex I enabled her to control and manipulate me so again I see this as my problem.
As for love when our children entered the picture I grew into the understanding that love is a choice the same as its opposite hate is. I choose to love or hate. It's as simple as understanding I and all human beings make choices to love or hate.
Marriage was only as good as individual choice making but when children enter the picture they bond individuals together where the choice making of love or hate enters the picture differently. With my daughters I experienced life in seeing my own ignorance in relationships as they would go through what I put females through. Plus I openly challenge anybody reading this to try to attempt to encourage just one human being to want to live instead of killing themselves. I doubt many would be capable of that. That bond that children bring into the picture was not there with my wife. She was there by a choice I made based on the affair starting with sex. The marriage lasted twenty-one years and I ended it because all I could do without trust and respect, was defend and protect myself. So to relating and relationships are based on either control and manipulation or earning trust and respect. Go back and read all the posts in this thread and ask yourselves while reading them if the post is based on control and manipulation or earning trust and respect. That shows how the author reasons.
As for marriage I heard my daughter's mother cry when she killed herself. I attempted to go into public speaking hoping to change the direction of relationships so nobody would have to hear a mother cry like that again. Our marriages end in failure and there is no focus on attempting to understand relating and relationships even though fifty% of marriages fail. It seems to me that we've found a comfort zone in being irresponsible and accountable with how we treat one another as I see these posts as arguing and not sharing. My reason for wanting marriage to be between a man and a woman is that bonding that children bring to the man and woman who become mothers and fathers. It in my opinion is stronger than a union by just choice, especially when the choice is made with sex being involved. The bonding children bring is there even when the choice sex motivated unions bring ends. For me I was divorced but my ex-wife was my children's mother forever. She died and that made me fully understand the meaning of "till death do we part." Yet I still have one daughter who I will be a father to till I die. For me that bonding only came from a union in a male-female relationship.
If I were a gay person, and I wanted to have legal rights, I'd form a corporation w/my partner. Then, if I were all that intent on religon, I'd find a clergyperson to marry me in the eyes of God/Goddess. I think that just about covers the waterfront, eh?
Wow, the rules were posted while I was writing! As I'm told enough about my thoughts about rights being wrong it sure is good to see some rules about that.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Dear Spooky,
Well-said.
I think any marriage or relationship is between the people in that relationship. They determine their relationship and it is their right to "relate" in whichever way they wish.
My concern is that there is an inequality - a discrimination - under law in this country when it comes to the rights of same-gender couples to marry - and have the same rights and privileges of other married couples.
That discimination, in our laws, is based on hatred, bigotry and ignorance and cannot be allowed to continue.
Dear Spooky,
I think a combination is a great position.
I think people should have a ceremony of their choice, if that is their wish, and create their marriage in whatever image they wish. It's not mutually-exclsuive.
But if the state is involved to give special privileges to married heterosexual couples, which it does - special rights for them - there should be no exclusive special rights for heterosexuals in marriage. There should be equal rights, IMO, for all married couples - and these rights should not be based on the genders of those being married.
Who in this country even knows what love is?????? ~Ken
All men, women and children who are loved knows what love is. I am loved, I love, therefore I know what love is.
Are all of these posts based on love and if so could any of you explain how???? ~Ken
Speaking for myself my posts are based on my love of equal rights, on my love of Liberty, and on my love I feel in my heart and soul for my gay and lesbian friends and family.
Ken, what are your anti-gay/lesbian marriage posts based on? Love of who or what?
When did sexual orientation become a human right?
Oh, probably right about the exact same time the first human had the innate human instinct to have sex.
Oh good, a facile retort rather than an answer. I guess that we'll find that human right in the Code of Hammurabi then. Thanks for clearing THAT up.
This is sad.... and I really dislike getting into debates like this.
Are we as a society less tolerant of gays these days?
Yes... we're less tolerant of everything differant these days, and as a society we've never been tolerant of anything that threatens our view of "how the world should be."
As a society we want the world to be one way.
As individuals we want the world to be one way.
Anything that runs differant to that view then threatens the way we see ourselves as individuals and as a society. It becomes an attack on our ownership of self. I can't see what the issue is about Gays or Lesbians because what really is normal? Even among straights the ideas of what is beautiful, what is right, and who is the right choice varies so dramatically as to often be incomphrensible to even our closest friends. We all have the right to find love and someone who truely cares for us. That is one of the rarest gifts that any of us will ever receive... so rare that few of us ever find the real deal. So why should it matter one single iota if that love is between man and woman or any other variation of the same?
As well why shouldn't gays and lesbians have the right to marry. Marriage is the glue of all soceities.. it is what makes civilization. It isn't marriage between just men and women but any civil bonding that creates family links and ties. Thos are the things that keep us from going savage and civilization from falling apart. Not the great books, not the great buildings, nor the great universities make our civilization but rather the family bonds between people. That we expend so much anger and emotion over something so simple and basic as the right... well no... the beautiful gift of the love of one person to another. Why fight and squabble over the happiness of one person and the gift of living a life with love? Isn't that the great spiritual truth that some of your religions teach? That life is meant to be happy.. to live a life loved? Yet we want to deny others that.... and then quibble a useless war of words on the simple beauty? I mean I'm just a godless atheist... and I know that the simple truth of this world is love and that love should not be reserved for only one segment of society.
I have nothing more to say on this... it disgusts me... this anger to our fellow humans. What bloody differance does it make? Gay, straight, black, white and on and on... all that matters in the end run isn't the words.. but rather that one person loved another. It absolutely disgusts me .... I have nothing more to say except that life is love and how you love is merely incidental but far more important is that you love and that you love for real without causing harm to the one that you love. The rest is pure egotistical petulant crying of voices afraid of differance.
Robert. Homosexuality ceased to be a crime in the 1960s (UK anyway) and in fact it never WAS illegal to be a lesbian. Therefore people do have a RIGHT to be homosexual, whether you happen to like it or not.
As to your comment "Since when did tolerance become a virtue?", well, that is just silly!!! Of course tolerance is a virtue. I suspect you are just being deliberately antagonistic.
Oh good, a facile retort rather than an answer. I guess that we'll find that human right in the Code of Hammurabi then. Thanks for clearing THAT up.
I guess you don't have any sex drive, then?
Since when did tolerance become a virtue?
Only someone looking for excuses to be intolerant would ask such a pointless question.
To put it simply, I don't beleive in fascism, racism, imperialism, genocide or any other form of mass murder, or homophobia either. And I don't tell lies, make excuses for evil deeds of my own country, post shameful extremist propaganda (except to expose and critique it) or try to paint something as evil that is good or something that is good to look evil.
Oh good, a facile retort rather than an answer. I guess that we'll find that human right in the Code of Hammurabi then. Thanks for clearing THAT up. ~Robert
No, you won't find that in the Code of Hammurabi. If you were familiar with it you'd know that already.
It is interesting to note, however, that the pre-Biblical Code of Hammurubi doesn't make any reference to homosexual activity or punishment for such. If it were a 'crime' it would be fair to conclude that it would be included as part of the Code of laws. But it's not.
Too, there is Gilgamesh, the earlist known Summarian text (believed to be the world's first recorded story) that presents two male friends who love each other passionately.
"There will come to you a mighty man, a comrade who saves his friend--
he is the mightiest in the land, he is strongest,
his strength is mighty as the meteorite(!) of Anu!
You loved him and embraced him as a wife;
And you're very welcome, Robert, for the facile retort to a question deserving or requiring nothing more in answer to it.
