Disclaimer: I know opinions of gay posters on PF don't represent the gay community as a whole. There's been a flurry of debate on this site about President Obama's "evolving" change of heart on gay marriage. I see it as cheap political pandering on his part, but that's not the topic of this thread. So with all this much ado about nothing, it got me wondering about how my views on gays in this country jives with homosexuals. First of all, I could careless if gay folks get married. What two adults do in their own personal lives is no concern of mine. I'll take it one step further by saying, denying two consenting adults the right to marry seems very unconstitutional to me. I don't think government should be in the marriage business anyway. I also find this defense of marriage garbage, nothing more than a stinking pile of hypocritical crap. We live in a country with a divorce rate around 50%. It's kinda like kicking your dog on a regular basis, then getting mad when someone else kicks your dog. Secondly, I had no problem when DADT was overturned. If you want to serve your country so be it, you shouldn't be penalized because you hump on people of the same sex. I served in the Army for over nine years myself, and once I rose to a leadership position all I cared about was the job performance and wellbeing of the soldiers under me. I had a kid in my squad for two and a half years that I deployed with too Iraq once with. He was a decent soldier, never a " go getter", but dependable, and never had to be told twice to do something. Once we redeployed back to Germany, it was time for him to leave the army since his enlistment was up. Before going home, he told me in private that he was in fact a homo. My exact words to him were," I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) if you're a queer, you served honorably, you had your squad's back downrange. You have nothing to be ashamed of, and enjoy civilian life." And, that was that. I don't really care if gays adopt kids either. I'd rather be raised by two loving homos, than be stuck in some (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up foster care system. Now here's where I take issue with some folks and attitudes in the gay community. Hate crimes. Guess what, you're not anymore special than anyone else. A crime is a crime, and a victim is a victim. Some of you (*)(*)(*)(*) and moan about equality and not having it, but separate yourselves from mainstream society with these laws. I don't fully hold gays responsible for these laws, they're just another case of well intentioned retardation brought to you by liberalism. Forced acceptance and political correctness. There will always be people who will never accept you because you're gay. Sorry, but that's a reality. As long as your physical wellbeing and rights aren't infringed upon, why would you give a (*)(*)(*)(*)? Sorry, free speech is a rough, and your feelings aren't protected by our constitution. I remember that stupid commercial with that frizzy harked black chick lecturing a kid, because he said "that's gay". What a waste of time. Be gay all you want, but stop being such (*)(*)(*)(*)ing crybabies. Gay pride parades. You got the right to gather and express yourselves like anyone else, but some of your buddies take over the top. Bondage suits, and assless chaps, really? Some of these folks make themselves out to be freakshow (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s more than anything. Not helping your cause, just saying. I'm too lazy to make a poll, so in your opinion, do my views make me: a. Straight up homophobe. B. Slightly enlightened homophobe C. Just a straight person who doesn't get it. D. Opinionated (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). All feedback welcomed.
I struggle a bit with this one. I understand "a crime is a crime, a victim is a victim". But the theory behind a hate crime is that it impacts more than the victim... for lack of better words, it's considered a form of terrorism that creates a hostile environment for all members of that minority. Should that be something that warrants extra legal punishment? I don't really know... the exact purposes of law and punishment are hotly debated. If the purpose is to prevent future crime, or punish for the fear-causing nature, maybe. But if law is just meant to punish for an action, then no. I don't live in a community that (as far as I'm aware) suffers from much discrimination against homosexuals. I might feel more passionately about it in a community who's hostility made me fear going to work each day. Of course such a community likely wouldn't have hate crime legislation to begin with. My opinion, freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism for what you say. You should not be legally bared from speaking your mind, even if it's against homosexuals. But at the same time, gay-rights groups can't be legally bared from speaking against you speaking against them. And then you can criticize the gays for criticizing you and being crybabies. It's all part of the grand old free speech scheme. That said, yes, I agree the efforts of some PC campaigns are ridiculous. Agreed. And I don't believe that these shows represent the bulk of the community. Gay people generally "blend right in" fairly well. As a consequence, to outsiders looking in, these pride festivals may be all they see and know of homosexuals, and they end up defining our stereotype and image. lol, well. With those choices, I guess somewhere between C and D. It is possible that you just don't understand the need/purpose/effectiveness of hate-crime legislation. It's also possible that there really is no need/legitimate purpose/effective execution of hate crime legislation. So I would not say "you just don't get it", but I would say that these are complex and debatable topics. I would not demonize opposition, nor do I consider hate crimes completely enlightened forms of policy making. As for the political correctness issue, superficially, I agree... grow a pair, and get over it. As an adult, there's no need to get offended at every little thing. The PC campaign can certainly go overboard. But where I'm more sympathetic is with regard to kids...http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/stigma-and-discrimination.htm. I think it's possible that you, as a "straight person who doesn't get it", might have difficulty understanding the damaged caused by stigma, particularly in youth. The damaged caused by being unable to form long-term relationships, or be open about them and your feelings, even to your closest loved ones and family. The fear of rejection from your friends and family, and the inability to form support networks because of your secrecy. I don't mean to make this sound like a boo hoo fest, but gay youth is often highly secretive due to fear of stigma, which can lead them to get involved in the wrong crowds, bad habits, and limited parental guidance. To the extent that being "PC" is meant to support gay youth, I think there is a cause. But what's more important than that is providing opportunities for gay youth to form support networks, as, like you say, you will never get rid of all the non-pc flaming.
Still there are fairly 'universal' elements within the many opinions, which should be considered at all times. His speaking out was truly a form of political evolution. He could not have said that even 4 years ago and hoped to survive politically. I say that as President, he said the right thing. I want to see him back in office and letting gay people know he isn't against them in any way helps with that. Romney on the other hand... Let's see. I agree. But it IS in the "marriage business"... so let's with what we know/have. Yeah, you're absolutely correct about that hypocrisy. I'm a career military man, and have people under me as we speak. I love the fact that my assessments of who they are no longer involves their 'sexuality'. As long as they are decent human beings who do their duty, we no longer worry about 'sex'... as long as they do it in reasonably safe ways. Of course... and he would have loved to tell you that long before then, most likely. As a Senior NCO, I don't simply volunteer my sexuality to peers or subordinates, but I DO enjoy the reality that I don't have to pretend to be "straight" anymore. For example, when someone sees a nice looking woman... I don't have to ACT as if I care etc. I used to go-along with it and pretend I was somehow turned-on (as many guys are). Now, I just sit coolly and smile because I know the men/women are enjoying themselves. It's great!! BTW, the term "homo" is disparaging stuff. If you really care about homosexual people as human beings... don't use it in that manner. Good and accurate point! (Again, terms like (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*), homo and queer... are usually considered offensive; I'd avoid addressing anyone in that way.) Studies have been done. Being raised by homosexuals is no problem. Here we go... You need to look up the reasons for "hate crimes" statutes. It has more to do with its effects upon SOCIETY overall, than the people/victims they may address. No. I don't believe in that either. The actual idea is that LAW enforces an individuals access to certain RIGHTS as an American. Anyone wanting to affect another's peace, safety and liberties... can/should be affected by the law. Some may THINK that gays should be second-class citizens... but they are most assuredly not. Gay people KNOW that. Sorry, but we will not accept being treated as less-than-fully-human. So, if someone has a problem with us... they'd BETTER at least know they are dealing with another EQUAL human being. People aren't going to put up with being mistreated forever. Most people would agree to that. Even so, we are civilized human beings and when we see laws or other attitudes which affect us, we're going to address that stuff. NO ONE can say just anything they want with zero consequences (Constitution or not). Hey, you're the one advocating 'free speech' and I'm for that too. But you can't say that then not allow others room for expression, whether you want to hear what they have to say or not. Well, most gay people I have known have had nothing to do with such "parades". Even so, I do tend to agree that physical modesty is the best policy. No. It is up to YOU, to realize and accept that those in such events, do NOT represent the total spectrum of all homosexual human beings. Get that foolish thought/notion OUT of your mind. Remind others of the same. "D." is likely the best answer. You're welcome.
Not a fan of hate crime laws. But you're mistaken in characterizing them as "separating ourselves from mainstream society with these laws". The laws cover many traits, not just orientation. They also don't cover just same-sex orientation, but any orientation. That includes people targeted for their perceived heterosexuality. Just one example of the divide between what many people assume the law does, versus how it's actually worded. Gay people don't get special treatment under the law. I hold no delusion that society is ever going to embrace homosexuality. Seems like the acceptance thing is always brought up by people opposing anything gay-related. The freedom to speak does not include a privilege to be shielded from criticism for the things one says. If someone uses the word 'gay' in a derogatory fashion, I'm well within my rights to speak openly in criticism of that. It's a two-way street. Example: You just made a broad statement calling us crybabies, as if we all had hive mind and held the same opinions. That kind of behavior immediately makes me start to shut down and discount whatever else you might have to say, because it creates the perception that you think of yourself as superior to gay people through an act of condescension. If you want to talk to me with the due respect you would accord an equal, then we can continue to have a thoughtful discussion. But don't mistake rough talk with honesty. The latter doesn't require the former. There's no need to be pointlessly offensive. The tough guy thing doesn't impress me - quite the opposite, in fact. Two words for you: Mardis Gras. Gay people aren't the only ones who sometimes engage in over-the-top behavior. I don't have any control over what other people do. As for people who are fooled into believing that the most extreme examples from Pride somehow represent what all gay people think, believe, want, behave... well perhaps the less I say about that, the better. I personally have zero interest in these events. I vote for C.
as the voice of the "B" in the LGBTI,i would like to make clear that the gay and lesbian community dosen't exist separate from the upper middle class ,its the priviledged ,upper middle class lifestyle choice crowd squaking. The next GFC should shut them up.
You only speak for yourself. Funny to see you suddenly claiming membership in the LGBTetc after all your bellyaching about them.
hey from the unrepresentative bar set by the LGTI ,we B's want to leave as the only scientifically defined sexuality ,in a group of unscientific dross called the LGTI. gay is n't a sexuality , lesbian isnot a sexuality Transexual isn't a sexuality , intersexual Isn't a sexuality . Queer\questioning isn't a sexuality asexual isn't a sexuality nor is pansexual . the only 3 human sexualities \orientations are ,<<<mod edit>>>flamingcould you please tell the class the 3 and only 3 forms of human sexuality \orientation . <<<mod edit>>>flaming
I agree with you on marriage equality and adoption rights for same-sex couples, though I supported keeping DADT. Hate is unacceptable in a civilized society, and when it is used as justification for a crime, there need to be enhanced penalties. Again, hate speech has no place in a civilized society. People do not have the right to create the sort of atmosphere of hate which causes LGBTQ youth to commit suicide. So? They don't represent anyone but themselves. They are not representative of the entire LGBTQ community.
Sorry, you don't get to define the language. YOU must choose the terminology you prefer to use, but you cannot IMPOSE limitations upon others concerning the same. Please, stop trying to control how others talk about these things.
I'm not gay, but since I share your views (aside from blaming liberalism for everything) I'd say D. I think I am one hell of an opinionated (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).
Well, since you're gay, your opinions are automatically correct. Therefor it's not possible to talk about your opinions, you are merely confirming his
E.normal thinking Human that is not taken in by all the much ado about nothing ,you are OK un infected by post modernist Drivel called the LGBT Cultural identity politics ,liberalism by another name smells as foul.
Your opinion is noted/discarded as anti-social and/or anti-homosexual HYPE. Normal and astute human beings can/do think for themselves. You aren't the only person with reasonable or valid views.
