The stigma attached to heterosexuals supporting LGBT rights....

[fraroc]

I recently got into a fight with my friends over politics (I know, Politics bring out the WORST in people) And it was basically that my friends are big Romney supporters and I'm an independent (not a big fan of Obama or Romney, fucking hate Santorum) They thought that Obama coming out and saying that he stands by same-sex marriage was the stupidest move that he or any president can do because it'll make everyone hate them.

Now in case you don't know. I'm straight with a girlfriend, but I am a heavy-duty supporter of gay rights. And the thing that I noticed is...
If an openly gay man says that he supports same sex marriage and gay rights, people say "oh, that's good! He's supporting his community and his people!"
But when a STRAIGHT guy like myself or namely Barack Obama says they support gay rights. people absoluley freak out like this, "OH MY GOD! HOW DARE HE SUPPORT THE HOMOS, HANG HIM! KILL HIM! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE! HE'S A FAGGOTLOVER HE'S THIS AND HE'S THAT." People don't realize that the days of the Stonewall riots are over. It's no longer 1960, it's 2012! We as an American society should know better than this. And then theres possibility that next year in 2013, things could take a nasty turn for the worse for the LGBT community if Romney's gets elected turns out to be a total D-bag and makes gay marriage and sodomy unlawful in America (all 50 states).

[KKiryu007Joker]

I recently got into a fight with my friends over politics (I know, Politics bring out the WORST in people) And it was basically that my friends are big Romney supporters and I'm an independent (not a big fan of Obama or Romney, fucking hate Santorum) They thought that Obama coming out and saying that he stands by same-sex marriage was the stupidest move that he or any president can do because it'll make everyone hate them.

Now in case you don't know. I'm straight with a girlfriend, but I am a heavy-duty supporter of gay rights. And the thing that I noticed is...
If an openly gay man says that he supports same sex marriage and gay rights, people say "oh, that's good! He's supporting his community and his people!"
But when a STRAIGHT guy like myself or namely Barack Obama says they support gay rights. people absoluley freak out like this, "OH MY GOD! HOW DARE HE SUPPORT THE HOMOS, HANG HIM! KILL HIM! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE! HE'S A FAGGOTLOVER HE'S THIS AND HE'S THAT." People don't realize that the days of the Stonewall riots are over. It's no longer 1960, it's 2012! We as an American society should know better than this. And then theres possibility that next year in 2013, things could take a nasty turn for the worse for the LGBT community if Romney's gets elected turns out to be a total D-bag and makes gay marriage and sodomy unlawful in America (all 50 states).

Pretty irritating and backwards, like they are just trying to feel the gay person feel better and fall back on them anyway...... I don't understand why gay marriage is looked at as bad anyway by a lot of people. People as a whole aren't so smart though, they just think they are even when hit by a brick wall in the face. If a straight person supports gay rights then they should be looked on as more respectful and decent than one that doesn't.. it's just common sense.

[Saturnfly]

There is still quite a percentage of backwards people with closed minds, but when you compare today with 40 years ago, there has been a tremendous leap in the support for gay rights.
It has ultimately been recognised now that being gay does not make you ill in the head, so from my perspective, the only way on from here is up, even though it is still a slow progress and there is still way too much hate crime associated with one's sexual orientation.
Personally, I'm just waiting for the world to grow up (but then I'm also waiting for religion to become obsolete, lol).

[Shoosh Malooka]

No president has the kind of power to snap his fingers and have laws change instantly. The united states government was given its form specifically so that its people wouldn't be forced to abide laws they don't like, and laws can be changed or removed. Let's say that racist, intolerant romney became our next president, commited to nationally inflict his bigotry of the lgbt community. He pays some lobbyists to contact some house member to introduce it. If it isn't pideon-holed outright by the chairman of whatever lawmaking department it would fall under, then it must pass through procedure and actual human beings to be scheduled to go into research to be made into a bill, after a successful vote of both sides of congress. That's probably as far as such a thing could probably get. If it passes that point, it must go through and be reviewed a second time in earnest by the representatives and the senate and win a majority vote in both before it is ready to be signed by romney. If these seats were not already overly filled with the same kind as the president, then it can't successfully pass a vote in both and that's the end of it.

tldr: president is not god, congress is a mixture of conservatives, liberals, and those who are just more loyal to the people of their states, not full of yes mans.

Edit:
Also, romney is not nearly as charismatic as obama.

[whiterider]

What Shoosh said. It drives me batty how many people don't seem to have the slightest understanding of how the US system of governance works, which is particularly aggravating when the people in question are American. Obama said "I, personally, support gay marriage."; not "I, personally, am going to wake up tomorrow, sign a piece of paper, and suddenly, magically, legalise gay marriage throughout the US. Bwahaha!"
You can keep fighting your petty battles along the lines of "change is scary", Obama can't change that, get over it.

[SimsLover50]

I live in a pretty liberal place and work at a liberal place so there really is no 'outrage' over the gay marriage issue. HOWEVER, my family is very conservative and are anti-gay marriage. I confess I was too, when I was younger, but have since had my consciousness raised on the issue and am pro-gay marriage.

From my perspective marriage shouldn't even be a government issue. As long as everyone is legal and consenting, who cares?

I don't see a lot of stigma around here attached to being pro-gay marriage. I think the opposite is probably more true.

[fraroc]

I live in a pretty liberal place and work at a liberal place so there really is no 'outrage' over the gay marriage issue. HOWEVER, my family is very conservative and are anti-gay marriage. I confess I was too, when I was younger, but have since had my consciousness raised on the issue and am pro-gay marriage.

From my perspective marriage shouldn't even be a government issue. As long as everyone is legal and consenting, who cares?

I don't see a lot of stigma around here attached to being pro-gay marriage. I think the opposite is probably more true.

I'm very sorry if I'm disrespecting your privacy, but did you and your family have fights over your views or do they respect you?

Somehow, it is and kinda isn't about politics at the same time, granted there are few Reps that support gays and several Dems that do support them, but my point is that heterosexuals that say it's ok to be gay are looked down upon while the heterosexuals that don't support gays have no issues. It kinda goes the other way around, if a stereotypical giant gay bodybuilder guy says he supports gay rights, no one bats an eye, but if he dosen't,he's viewed as a self loathing hypocrite.

[SimsLover50]

I'm very sorry if I'm disrespecting your privacy, but did you and your family have fights over your views or do they respect you?.

Yes and no. I don't think they agree with my views... But they like me anyway and tolerate different views which is ok. My mother think I'm somewhat brainwashed and has said so. She blames the education system and political correctness for some of my views.

I have one sibling who thinks homesexuality should be illegal. I live with this sibling, so I try to avoid tense topics for sanity's sake. Her views are deeply entrenched and religious and I doubt I could persuade her to change her views so I don't disucss it. I already don't get along very well with this sibling as we are completely different in many ways. It is very appaling to me, her views, but there is little I can do to change her mind.

I've debated the gay issue with my mother quite a bit. I think I've worn her down some. She has had bad experiences with gays which color her opinion and prejudge her towards gay people. I think her views would be different had her experiences as a youngster been more positive.

I have a very liberal hippie sister who helped change my prejudiced views towards gays when I was a young adult. I'm sad to say that I was late to change my views on gay marriage.

[fraroc]

I have one sibling who thinks homesexuality should be illegal. I live with this sibling, so I try to avoid tense topics for sanity's sake. Her views are deeply entrenched and religious and I doubt I could persuade her to change her views so I don't disucss it. I already don't get along very well with this sibling as we are completely different in many ways. It is very appaling to me, her views, but there is little I can do to change her mind.


Kudos for being so patient with her. If I had a sister like that, I'd probably argue with her on a daily basis, then tell her to go fuck herself and stick her views up her ass.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

There is still quite a percentage of backwards people with closed minds, but when you compare today with 40 years ago, there has been a tremendous leap in the support for gay rights.
It has ultimately been recognised now that being gay does not make you ill in the head, so from my perspective, the only way on from here is up, even though it is still a slow progress and there is still way too much hate crime associated with one's sexual orientation.
Personally, I'm just waiting for the world to grow up (but then I'm also waiting for religion to become obsolete, lol).

this (bold parts, especially).

however, saying that bloodless diarrhea is less awful than blood-laced diarrhea sort of ignores the fact that its still diarrhea.

additionally, i dont have this problem with my friends.
i'll be the first to admit that the only friends i have are online. i play an online RPG (dont worry, we wont go off topic for long), and instead of playing on the west coast server (my "side" of the country), i choose to play the east coast server.
my friends are....country folk. not REDNECKS, mind you, but more or less along the lines of "i really like jesus". none of them are from/living in new york.

that being said, NONE of them are against homosexuality or homosexuals marrying. none. i think this revelation has actually brought me to conclude that...
1) the media hypes up the CONFLICT between mindsets more than the agreements between people...thus people are led to believe that less people agree with their initial feeling, whichever way that is (and i like to go to sleep at night to the thought that people ARENT basically d-bags)...
2) we paint each other with specific brushes, depending on what information we're fed. we've all seen the "blue and red" states map--ALL of my friends live in red state maps. none of them are against homosexuals marrying. i think when we see that red/blue map thing, we assume that ALL of the people inside of that state think that way...and its disheartening. it divides people, and we feel more like a collection of islands than a nation. thus both sides become more forceful in their message, regardless of what the message is, and it doesnt get us anywhere.

...that being said, i think a LOT if not most of the opposition to gay rights/gay marriage has to do with ignorance. willful ignorance also has a lot to do with it.
i think the common denominator between my friends and i, politically, is that we are not ignorant about homosexual people and homosexuality. we're all pretty well acquainted with the entirely reasonable psychology and biochemistry behind it. none of us see it as a sickness that needs to be treated, but as an aspect that we cannot and need not control in others. i think that acceptance might be more widespread than we initially thought, but the media will always go with what sells: drama. and focusing on the drama in no way makes it disappear or resolve quicker. :/

granted, we all also realize that it takes a certain level of maturity to differentiate between what we endorse and what we participate in, so.... im not sure what can be done about those who simply are not.

also, on the topic of the relationship "religion" (because whenever americans say that, theyre talking about christianity/catholicism...the major WESTERN religions) has with homophobia...i think this is mainly a problem of misinterpretation on their part. jesus said crap like "love thy neighbor" and "do not repay cruelty with cruelty", and "heal the sick" and "feed the hungry"....what could be less republican than that? and yet these people continue to use this text, and jesus--the pinnacle of "hippie" beliefs--, as excuses to validate their intolerant, hateful notions. i think these people are hypersensitive to tone when a person challenges their views: if one challenges them with obvious contempt and condescension, the person shuts down entirely and will not give them the time of day. but if genuinely, curiously questioned, and heard without immediately apparent judgment...there reaches a point where they feel more comfortable about assimilating new information. i dont know why--this is just something ive noticed.
however, most people dont have patience when it comes to achieving a state of equilibrium...rightfully so, but not conducive to results.


TL;DR:
people are taught to be sympathetic, not empathetic. when others are empathetic toward those who are unlike them, it boggles the rest.

[whiterider]

1) the media hypes up the CONFLICT between mindsets more than the agreements between people...
This is very true indeed. In the US context, it's generally a portrayal along the lines of "Christians hate gays, liberals don't". In actual fact, the situation is endlessly more complex than that. What about the liberal Christians? What about the liberal gay Christians? What about the atheist democrat party members who are homophobes? The problem is that you can't portray the whole diversity of viewpoints and beliefs in a half hour news bulletin - or even in a full length documentary... - so it gets simplified, and simplification makes things blunt.

In the UK, there's no broad "But what about gays?" controversy. That one has already been decided, in favour of "Whatever, yo". So now the big controversy is over a group of Anglican bishops who wrote a letter to The Times stating that they believe the church's official stance on gay civil marriage (opposition) is wrong - once again, we have two black and white sides, the conservatives and the progressives. Forget the fact that this debate has been going on for years within the church, forget the full range of views and concerns and questions of degree involved - once again, the media boils it down to "These guys say yes" and "These guys say no".

Sadly, this is often the picture that people base their own political responses on, meaning that they end up with a totally inadequate grasp of the issues and, as a result, a totally inadequate basis for forming their own opinions. Nothing is ever that simple.

[SimsLover50]

Kudos for being so patient with her. If I had a sister like that, I'd probably argue with her on a daily basis, then tell her to go fuck herself and stick her views up her ass.

that wouldn't solve anything, and if she were your sister, you'd likely feel bad for saying that to her and you'd have lost the debate to boot. Once it becomes personal.... You end up losing any arguement. Sadly, my sister believes the propaganda she gets from places like 'focus on the family and religious material she reads and this would not sway her.

A fair number of older people have firmly entrenched views about such things. I don't think I can change her mind about it, nor am I really that interested in tangling with her about it. We don't get along that well, and minimizing contact and hot button topics is key to survival. I will rise to the challenge waxes on about the topic, but usually she does not in my presence, and thus I simply igore it.

While I wish my sister would change her ways, I've learned in life that you cannot make people change, they have to want to.

I think some Anti-gay christians are this way because of fear and dogma. They are afraid of different things, and afraid of challenging the bible in any way. I also think they have limited experience with gay people, and believe the propaganda pushed out by preachers who preach against gayness being a sin. They are uncomfortable with sexuality in general.

I do not claim to be superior or have all the answers or to be right, however I do think gay marriage is inevitable whatever a persons' religious views are. It is not about religious views, sin or morality, but about equality.

[BlakeS5678]

I wonder if the NEW generation will have changed views. It seems odd that so many are have said to have closed minds bit yet this happened:

In my class we somehow got onto the topic of gay marriage. In MY class we ALL UNANIMOUSLY agreed that gay-marriage SHOULD be legal. 75% of my class agreed with the following statement:

"Anti-Gay Marriage is horrible, insensitive, disgusting and UN-Arguably WRONG. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and destroys 3 of Core Democratic values and several areas of our BASIC constitution.

1-Equality- Everyone is treated the same. They are not treated the same and looked down upon by OUR OWN government.

2-Justice-Denying the basic rite to someone to marry who they love is NOT just.

3-Liberty and Individual Rites- Gays will receive abuse and unfair treatment merely because of their sexuality. They do NOT have the rite to do what they feel is right without harming them-self or others. So therefore they do NOT have the Liberty or Individual rite."

Need I say more? :( :(

[whiterider]

It's interesting you should say that, actually; I was reading this Republican party internal memo the other day: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/top-gop-pollster-to-gop-reverse-on-gay-issues.html

[SuperSeanski]

A few years ago, when prop 8 was all over the news, I worked with a girl that was gay. One day she asked what my views on gay marriage were, I very calmly told her I was against it. She kind of tensed up and started to tell me off a little bit. I turned towards her smiled and said now ask me how I feel about straight people getting married.

[Petchy]

There is less attachment of Heterosexuals supporting gay rights than there is of Homophobia being attached to Christianity. Do people not realise that there are other religions in the world who may have similar issues? That you don't need to be religious to still be homophobic? That you can still have a religion and also be pro-gay rights?

I mean, just as much as a person is gay and has the right to be a person, someone can be of a faith and have an opinion like any human being.

Having a Gay, Christian teacher in school has firmly solidified that, yeah, guess what, humans are humans too, and even though /you/ might not be able to handle a religion doesn't mean that you should blanket-brush everyone else with an opinion expressed by a few loud voices. Everyone knows 'Bible Bashers' aren't the nicest of people out there so WHY would you take anything they say as being worthwhile?

[lionessgirl]

A few years ago, when prop 8 was all over the news, I worked with a girl that was gay. One day she asked what my views on gay marriage were, I very calmly told her I was against it. She kind of tensed up and started to tell me off a little bit. I turned towards her smiled and said now ask me how I feel about straight people getting married.

I presume this means you don't agree with marriage in any form (not sure why but...)?

Anyway, where I am (U.K.) I've never heard anyone be criticized for supporting gay rights if they're not gay themselves. And when you think about it it makes very little sense-a minority is going to have great difficulty in being treated equally if they are not supported by members of the majority.

[Chicken0895]

I wonder if the NEW generation will have changed views

You know, my dad made a similar statement the other day. He said something along the lines of "most of the people who are against gay marriage tend to be older, conservative folks. The younger and less conservative tend to support gay marriage. The thing about this is that old people will die, whereas young people will grow up and vote. This is why the general view of the population is changing from anti-gay to pro-gay."

[EliDawn]

You know, my dad made a similar statement the other day. He said something along the lines of "most of the people who are against gay marriage tend to be older, conservative folks. The younger and less conservative tend to support gay marriage. The thing about this is that old people will die, whereas young people will grow up and vote. This is why the general view of the population is changing from anti-gay to pro-gay."

That also depends on who the members of the younger generation listen to. Some will listen to their elders and just continue the cycle while others will make their own opinions.

[kattenijin]

...so WHY would you take anything they say as being worthwhile?

Because, at least in the US, our Congressmen and Senators do; and someone has to push back. Now that we finally got rid of DADT, its time to get rid of DOMA. Did you know that back in the 60s many of the same arguments that are used today against gay marriage and social status were used against blacks and mixed-race marriages? How well do you think desegregation would have worked if people had been allowed to vote on it (like Prop8)? Sometimes people need to be forced to... "grow up" for lack of a better term.

[BlackjackGabbiani]

I think any stigma comes from the bizarre view that civil rights are only supported by the people trying to get them. It makes no sense. No civil rights struggle has ever been one-sided, but we don't hear about it. We don't hear about the men who fought for women to get the vote. We don't hear about the whites who fought for schools to be desegregated. But they were there, and they were many.

It's from both sides, really. There's a strange view that these issues are "us vs them" and any "them" who fights for "us" has to be disregarded, no matter how important they were.

[Elyasis]

What about bisexuals supporting gay rights even though they are in a committed relationship with a member of the opposite sex?

Are they only half stigmatized or double stigmatized? The public deserves to know!

In all seriousness, this is nothing new. People can be regular knuckleheads about the darnedest of things. (Cleaned up ironically for this forums more impressionable members.)

[lisfyre]

To be honest, I've never run into that problem - being "stigmatized" as a gay/lesbian lover. I am straight and married but I have a few friends and some family that are lesbians and gay. For me... bottom line is, I'm there for the person - my friends, my cousins, my nephew not for the "gay" or the "lesbian". Those people are more important to me than the label that society gives them.

[Drakesecaravdis]

people are just stupid. a lot of them seem to be against it because of that ancient piece of toilet paper..I'm not saying that's always the case but it is often.

I don't understand the stigma against gays/gay marriage. so they don't think they should be married because they have the wrong kind of equipment down there? because really that's all it comes down to. I mean these people are ok with women marrying effeminate guys and men marrying butch women I'm sure so what's the matter with two gay people getting married?
because they can't procreate? what about infertile couples? should they not be married?
and it severely boggles me how these people treat marriage as such a sacred thing. as someone who has grown up watching a World War 3 marriage, I really find this stupid. marriages like that can be but not two gay people who are happy together, don't they have the right to be unhappy like everyone else? (I got that from a joke website)

I think we women have it easier when it comes to that (we have our own problems but when it comes to gay issues they're more accepting) kinda sad really..it's like people expect all straight guys to be aholes.

[SuperSeanski]

I presume this means you don't agree with marriage in any form (not sure why but...)?

I'm not the only one that doesn't agree with it, I'm just one of the few that refuses to do it.

The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.

If you love a person, than be with that person. You don't need a piece of paper saying that you will always be with that person, especially when half the people don't mean it.

[Mistermook]

You don't need a piece of paper saying that you will always be with that person, especially when half the people don't mean it.
You DO need a piece of paper to do important things like visit your loved one in critical care, qualify for insurance and tax benefits, and all sorts of other little quibbles that go with "married" and not "well, we plan on being together forever and ever."

It's a romantic notion, that marriage doesn't matter and only love matters. But as a practical issue, it's nonsense. If only love mattered then we probably would even have the sorts of issues that you're waving at like divorce as counters to marriage - because the fact of the matter is for very many people in very many situations love really isn't enough when faced with insurmountable practical or even supposedly trivial issues. People divorce people they still love but can't live with all the time. There's more to marriage than loving someone.

[SuperSeanski]

You DO need a piece of paper to do important things like visit your loved one in critical care, qualify for insurance and tax benefits, and all sorts of other little quibbles that go with "married" and not "well, we plan on being together forever and ever."

It's a romantic notion, that marriage doesn't matter and only love matters. But as a practical issue, it's nonsense. If only love mattered then we probably would even have the sorts of issues that you're waving at like divorce as counters to marriage - because the fact of the matter is for very many people in very many situations love really isn't enough when faced with insurmountable practical or even supposedly trivial issues. People divorce people they still love but can't live with all the time. There's more to marriage than loving someone.

Look I wasn't trying to start something, or "be romantic". The person said she didn't understand why I was against all marriages and I gave an example. Some of the stuff you wrote above are more examples of why I don't think there should be marriages. Too many people get married or divorced just to work the system. I went out with a girl who's parents got divorced just so they could get free lunches at school for there younger kids, and had the county pay there older daughter for there daycare (and they did not need the help). I realize my beliefs might be a little extreme, and I don't expect people write to there congressman because of what my dumbass says, I just felt the need to clarify why I said that.

[iCad]

You think that's bad? Try being a fairly conservative Christian who fully supports gay rights in all particulars. Then go to a Bible study and talk about it with fellow attendees. Ahhhhh, the trouble I deliberately get myself into, whacking away at hornets' nests... If it's not the anti-gay crowd I'm antagonizing, it's the creationists. It's fun! Thankfully, I have a small cadre of individuals who believe as I do. Screw the rest of 'em. :)

In any case, I've never really noticed such a stigma in the not-churchy, not-political realms. It's definitely there if you're in the "conservative Christian" stream, where if people DO support gays and gay rights, they generally won't talk about it out of fear of being ostracized. (I LIVE for being ostracized, apparently. :lol: ) But otherwise? I'm not seeing it, at least not where I am, which is a bizarre area with a large conservative Christian population, an equally-large hippie population, and a rather large smattering of movie people who have houses here. I'm just a weirdo who bridges the hippie/Christian gap. :) 'Cuz, y'know, Jesus was a hippie, a radical non-conformist who pissed off the conservatives who Had Stuff Wrong. And he's my ultimate role model.

But anyway, I do agree that you shouldn't, ideally, need a piece of paper to be married, but unfortunately the law of the land -- in terms of equal legal status -- says otherwise. Unless you're an American living in a common-law state. But I believe (though I may be totally wrong) that such common laws are not recognized for same-sex pairs. At least, I know they aren't in the state I live in or else my (female) housemate and I would be "married." Which would make taxes hella easier, but...alas. *sigh*

[Spitfire Mouse]

I grew up in a relatively Christian conservative home and had what I'd consider pretty conservative views on most issues. Luckily as I got older, looked around outside my "me" world and met the guy who would turn out to be my husband, my views broadened quite a bit. I contribute a lot of that broadening to my husband especially.

I grew up with the idea that homosexuality was wrong.
Then I started to think, why and why does it matter?

I realized, it doesn't matter. It's not something that adversely affects anything in my daily life.

As long as no one is getting hurt, what people choose to do in or with their lives is of no concern to anyone else. Period.

I view the obstacles and discrimination against the LGBT community as no different from that of the black community during the years of segregation. It's ridiculous for anyone to be treated so poorly and unfairly. We're all human no matter the color of our skin or sexual orientation.


Tolerance and open-mindedness is what needs to be taught, practiced and preached. I think especially tolerance because even if you don't "approve" of someone for whatever reason, you should be tolerant.

Like I said, if no one is getting hurt, why does anyone else care?

[fraroc]

Tolerance and open-mindedness is what needs to be taught, practiced and preached. I think especially tolerance because even if you don't "approve" of someone for whatever reason, you should be tolerant.

Like I said, if no one is getting hurt, why does anyone else care?


This. ^ :luff:

[ElementMK]

The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.That's hardly a consensus.

[PhenethyaSim]

First off I hate the way people treat me, as a straight woman, for supporting LGBT rights. I've been accused of being a lesbian because of it. Which is frustrating because while there is NOTHING wrong with being a Lesbian,or gay, or trans, or anything, I'm not. Why can't a straight person want everyone to have the same rights? my mothers cousin is gay and he and his partner don't get the same rights as married couples even though they have been together forever and are committed. Its not fair in my mind but if I voice that opinion there is something wrong with according to society.

You think that's bad? Try being a fairly conservative Christian who fully supports gay rights in all particulars. Then go to a Bible study and talk about it with fellow attendees.

I won't lie I thought I was the only person with this problem. Ever since high school when I decided I supported LGBT rights I've been terrified to go to youth groups or anywhere for that matter where I would have to discussing this sort of thing with my religious peers.

[minimogut]

Thankfully, I have a small cadre of individuals who believe as I do. Screw the rest of 'em. :)

I do, too. Most of my friends believe that, even if they don't agree with the idea of homosexuality, they have no right to judge what other people do with their lives, or to try and dictate how other people live. My non-christian friends are the same way.

[whiterider]

I still find that phrasing weird. "Don't agree with homosexuality" - it's like not agreeing with grass. Tough shit, take it up with God!

[iCad]

I won't lie I thought I was the only person with this problem. Ever since high school when I decided I supported LGBT rights I've been terrified to go to youth groups or anywhere for that matter where I would have to discussing this sort of thing with my religious peers.

*nods* It is definitely a difficult position to be in, especially if your church is more conservative in nature. I don't last in churches long, once I open my mouth and be honest, I'm afraid. Which is why I don't go anymore. I've got a group of like-minded individuals and we get together to study one a week(ish). That's our "church." One church I did go to for a while got really into the whole Exodus International thing. Their idea of reaching out to homosexuals...was to try to "fix" them. It made me ill, and I had a loud (but polite)...um, discussion with the pastor, and...Well, you can imagine what happened after that. :lol: I just cannot tolerate the lies that are told in churches about gay people, even though I am not, myself, gay. It's not necessarily "hate" -- at least not in non-Phelpsian churches -- but it is a genuine misunderstanding, fed by misinformation and encouraged by the brainwashing, and I just have a driving need to make people see the truth. Especially the Scriptural truth, the importance of reading in cultural/historical context rather than just the "plain words" on the page. (Those "plain words" were meant for people who lived 3500 years ago in a culture that most of us can't even imagine, for heaven's sake.) I can't say that I've had many converts, but I've made a few people think a time or two. Just a few, though. The brainwashing is very old, plays on a culturally-based abhorrence, and it's hard to overcome.

Anyway, I know how you feel: You want to be honest, but you know that being honest will just get you bucketloads of crap dumped on your head. So, generally, you sit there and stew in silence or you avoid youth groups and Bible studies and such altogether. It's really sad that this issue causes people -- gay and otherwise -- heartache. It doesn't have to be that way. But often I'm that lone voice, crying in my local wilderness. Well, OK, me and a few others. :) But we're not that loud, I'm afraid. We need more voices, but those voices are hard to find because most of them are afraid to speak up.

[fraroc]

First off I hate the way people treat me, as a straight woman, for supporting LGBT rights. I've been accused of being a lesbian because of it. Which is frustrating because while there is NOTHING wrong with being a Lesbian,or gay, or trans, or anything, I'm not. Why can't a straight person want everyone to have the same rights? my mothers cousin is gay and he and his partner don't get the same rights as married couples even though they have been together forever and are committed. Its not fair in my mind but if I voice that opinion there is something wrong with according to society.



I won't lie I thought I was the only person with this problem. Ever since high school when I decided I supported LGBT rights I've been terrified to go to youth groups or anywhere for that matter where I would have to discussing this sort of thing with my religious peers.

Same here kind of, I went to a Catholic school, Catholics I've noticed are much more supportive than regular Protestant Christians (probably why the Prots hate Catholics) However even though it was made eloquently clear that gays do not go to Hell, there was still plenty of gay jokes and using the word Gay as an insult and usage of the word "Fa**ot" (Im not even going to spell the whole word) Most of my religion teachers were surprisingly cool with me supporting gay rights and gay marriage even though some douchebags in my class didn't understand. They were all like "So you like watching gay porn, boy?" I got into a massive argument with him and in the end, I told him to go fuck his mother.

Here's the thing, I'm perfectly aware that somewhere right here right now, two gay men are having sex, and I think absolutley nothing of it. Granted I'm straight so I wouldn't want to see two hairy muscular guys get it on, but I'm not going to put on a suit and tie, go an a podium and personally ATTACK them or condemn them to an eternity in Hell!! That's not who I am.

[iCad]

Same here kind of, I went to a Catholic school, Catholics I've noticed are much more supportive than regular Protestant Christians (probably why the Prots hate Catholics)

Not necessarily. The Episcopalian church famously has gay priests in committed gay relationships. And I know of some Lutheran (and other denominational) churches that happily perform gay marriages/commitment ceremonies. (I don't personally know of any Catholic churches that will do that, but perhaps they do exist.) So it's really not a Catholic/Protestant thing. I know of some Catholics who are vehemently anti-gay, some who aren't. True, the most vehemently anti-gay churches ARE Protestant, usually Baptist, Pentecostal, or "non-denominational" (Which, you know, don't let that fool you. They are VERY MUCH a denomination. :lol: They don't have an official infrastructure, but they all tend to preach the same stuff.), but there are some Protestant churches that are very accepting of homosexuality/gay rights/etc. And there are some that very much aren't. It generally depends on how much they advocate a "plain reading" of the Scripture vs. allowing for "interpretation." Those who more strongly advocate what they call "plain reading" will generally be anti-gay, generally because of the passages in Leviticus 18 and 20.

Prostestants "hate" Catholics for a variety of reasons, most of them stemming from doctrine, particularly stuff that Catholics believe in/advocate that Protestants believe to be non-Biblical, like the concept of Purgatory or the necessity of saints and/or priests as intercessors. Protestants get ticked off by that stuff. But I think "hate" is a bit extreme, at least nowadays. There's more "disagreement" and "discomfort," I think, than hate. In the area where I live in, there are lots of interfaith events that happen, and the local Catholic church as well as the more mainstream Protestant churches participate and everyone seems to get along just fine.

However even though it was made eloquently clear that gays do not go to Hell, there was still plenty of gay jokes and using the word Gay as an insult and usage of the word "Fa**ot" (Im not even going to spell the whole word)

Like I said, many people have a visceral abhorrence of homosexuality that goes beyond religion. I know some very non-religious folks who are complete homophobes, most of them redneck cowboy folks who have a visceral abhorrence of the concept of anal sex and they've bought into the stereotype that all gay men are "effeminate," which they think is just unnatural. (I should say that these folks generally don't have much of a problem with lesbianism, but they are rather obviously and deeply threatened by gay men, for some reason, and it has NOTHING to do with religion.) And I know some very "religious" people who are completely OK with homosexuality and gay rights and such. (In fact, I'm one of them. ;) ) True, it's more likely that certain "religious" people will be anti-gay (And not just Judeo-Christian; other religions also are against homosexuality in at least some of their sects)...but it's certainly not a certainty, regardless of one's religion. People are people. Some of us -- perhaps most of us -- are more comfortable following a crowd and will therefore get sucked into brainwashing, religious or otherwise. Others of us find crowds abhorrent. But, in any case, I think homophobia goes deeper than religion. I think that even if all churches/religions were suddenly to become officially OK with homosexuality, I think there would still be many people unhappy with/repelled by it, and, unfortunately, they would be very loud about it.

[fraroc]

Like I said, many people have a visceral abhorrence of homosexuality that goes beyond religion. I know some very non-religious folks who are complete homophobes, most of them redneck cowboy folks who have a visceral abhorrence of the concept of anal sex and they've bought into the stereotype that all gay men are "effeminate," which they think is just unnatural. (.

And sometimes, they're the ones that are SO far in the closet that they found Narnia.

[iCad]

And sometimes, they're the ones that are SO far in the closet that they found Narnia.

Sometimes, yes. :lol: But sometimes not, too. I think it's kind of myth that homophobia covers up latent homosexuality. I'm sure it's true sometimes, but I don't think that's the case most of the time.

[SimsLover50]

I tend to find the faith-based objection to gayness, the most difficult viewpoint to deal with. "I know its wrong because the bible tells me so" In recent days with the advent of Obama's approval of gay marriage, there has been a lot of vitriol directed at gays and portrayal's of gays getting married from folks who seem compelled to tell others they are sinners, going to hell, etc. I cannot imagine, even if I Felt such a thing, ever telling someone that, I mean not only would I not know for sure, but its really impolite, and I mean what business is it of theirs? Do they tell everyone who they perceive as a sinner the same thing? (Oh lols, you backtalked your mom, you didn't honor your mom, you're a sinner and going to hell!) TO ME, it seems gays are particularly singled out, and they are singled out over something they don't have control over. They are also singled out because of the sexual aspect of being gay.

I think its also rather easy to talk. They (usually) aren't gay. So easy to tell someone who is gay, that they are evil and bad, when, heck, you are a member of the hetero majority. Its like telling someone who has red hair, they are demon spawn, because their hair is red, and you's is a brunette, and because the bible says red hair is bad, they must feel endlessly bad and guilty about it, when you never have to deal with red hair. Give that person red hair? And what happens. They'll feel rather differently about it, I should think.

I mean, what is the end result of the 'you are a sinner and going to hell?' Business? Guilt and misery on the part of the GLBT person? Forcing the gay person back in the closet? They will always be gay, nothing's going to change that.

I don't know.

I think any misery I've felt as a result of being a supporter of gays and lesbians, is nothing compared to what gay and lesbians deal with. If I can help in any way, by trying to raise the conciousness of people than I try. I really do.

[Drakesecaravdis]

Tolerance and open-mindedness is what needs to be taught, practiced and preached. I think especially tolerance because even if you don't "approve" of someone for whatever reason, you should be tolerant.

Like I said, if no one is getting hurt, why does anyone else care?

unfortunately a lot of the time open-mindedness is not something that can be taught. I hate saying this (because it makes me mad since it would be true to someone I know) but people don't really change unless they want to.

[whiterider]

I'm not sure about that, Drake. I think a lot of the time people just need to see the issue in a context which makes sense for them. I know one lady who is a special needs teacher; and for her, it was realising that a gay couple she was acquainted with were giving their adopted special needs children the best upbringing, and the best chance at life, that they could possibly have - far better than what they would receive in care or even from most heterosexual parents - which made her re-evaluate her views. I think far too often people don't see the human side of sexuality - it all comes back down to the rainbow trout that is anal sex - but that, if and when they do see it, that makes them think a lot harder about their views.

[PhenethyaSim]

I tend to find the faith-based objection to gayness, the most difficult viewpoint to deal with. "I know its wrong because the bible tells me so"
I completely HATE when people use that line. Because frankly it's hardly accurate there are several passages that may imply it's less that desirable but I'm nearly positive it never say being gay is wrong.

On top of that why is being gay any worse than other venial sins? As far as I can tell its not considered a mortal sin like murder, yet so many people treat it as such. I really bugs me.

[SimsLover50]

I completely HATE when people use that line. Because frankly it's hardly accurate there are several passages that may imply it's less that desirable but I'm nearly positive it never say being gay is wrong.

On top of that why is being gay any worse than other venial sins? As far as I can tell its not considered a mortal sin like murder, yet so many people treat it as such. I really bugs me.

It depends on who you ask. the catholic church for instance has a dim view on non-procreative sex.

I think labeling something a sin- for which a person cannot help, being gay, having red hair, etc. Seems too much of a gotcha.

Then you have folks say: being gay is not sinful, but having gay sex is sinful... Er... Well... What is the gay person supposed to do?

[fraroc]

It depends on who you ask. the catholic church for instance has a dim view on non-procreative sex.

I think labeling something a sin- for which a person cannot help, being gay, having red hair, etc. Seems too much of a gotcha.

Then you have folks sya: being gay is not sinful, but having gay sex is sinful... Er... Well... What is the gay person supposed to do?

The Catholic church,while more accepting, does advise gay people to live a chaste life and marry a woman and procreate. Kind of a catch 22 if you ask me.

[Spitfire Mouse]

unfortunately a lot of the time open-mindedness is not something that can be taught. I hate saying this (because it makes me mad since it would be true to someone I know) but people don't really change unless they want to.

Open-mindedness CAN be taught.

I think what you are possibly confusing it with is acceptance. Acceptance can't be taught, it's something that only an individual has control over.

However, acceptance is easier if open-mindedness is taught. If you teach your children that not everyone is the same as them and that's ok, you are teaching them the basics of open-mindedness. As they grow older and make their own decisions, they may choose not to accept something as it is, but if they have been brought up to be open-minded then at least they'll have learned that they can't change something they have no control over. Then hopefully acceptance will eventually happen.


But, this is why I think tolerance trumps both and why it's more important to teach and practice especially at early ages. To be tolerant you may not accept, but you are permissive in that you don't actively oppose. You know you can't change something you don't like, but you don't try to force that something to change. Basically, live and let live.

That's how I understand the terms. And you are right, you can't help people change or even simply consider other viewpoints if they refuse. :(

[iCad]

I completely HATE when people use that line. Because frankly it's hardly accurate there are several passages that may imply it's less that desirable but I'm nearly positive it never say being gay is wrong.

No, I'm not going to go into a huge treatise on why gay sex as practiced as an act of love isn't a sin even though Christians will tend to believe that it is. I'll try to give the summary. :) Basically, it comes down to this: In the (vastly more powerful) cultures that surrounded the Hebrews, sex -- homosexual and heterosexual, as well as sex with animals -- was used in the worship rites of, primarily, fertility gods. (Also, the Egyptians had a thing for marrying their siblings/close relatives, which is why THAT's harped-on excessively in Leviticus 18. The homosexual verse is a mere afterthought, really. :lol: ) Essentially, Yahweh's primary concern throughout the Old Testament was of Him being It. It's a recurring theme, the most recurring theme of the early books of the OT. And so, if one was going to worship Yahweh, one had to worship only Him AND one was expected to make it clear to others that one was different because of it.

That's the whole point of Leviticus 18. Really, it's the point of MOST of the Mosaic Law in general, which is why it goes to lengths to tell how people should or shouldn't wear their hair/facial hair or why they shouldn't wear clothing made of mixed fibers and all that other silly-to-us stuff. Verse 22 of Leviticus 18 is ALWAYS plucked out (out of context) and then cited by Christians as the be-all and end-all verse that makes homosexuals evil. But that's clearly NOT what the chapter as a whole is meant to be about at all. It's explicitly MEANT to be about Yahweh's followers making themselves different than the cultures that surrounded them at the time, namely the Egyptians and the Canaanites. It even says so, right from the get-go, as any "plain reading" will tell you. If you're honestly reading plainly, that is. It completely baffles me that Christians will quote the hell out of Leviticus 18:22 and COMPLETELY MISS Leviticus 18:1-3, which tells Yahweh's people (Who, it should be remembered, were people who lived in the Bronze Age, about 3500 years ago, in and amongst cultures completely different from our own.) WHY they shouldn't do the things on the long list of sexual stuff that follows. I quote:

The Lord said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. (NIV. Emphasis mine, of course.)

So, unless two gay people are having sex AS THEY DID AND FOR THE REASONS THEY DID IN EGYPT OR CANAAN (which generally meant "as part of worship rites for a not-Yahweh god" or "because they got horny and went and picked up a temple-sponsored prostitute"), then there's really not a problem, Biblically-speaking. True, Paul -- the other guy that anti-gay Christians will point to -- had "gay ookies," but he was in 1st-century CE Greece, for heaven's sake, where pederasty was a long-standing institution. (And, it should be pointed out, is something that we in modern times would consider child abuse.) Plus, Paul was a converted Pharisee, so he definitely had a certain mindset. :lol:

Anyway: Context, my friends, is EVERYTHING. But no, instead we get the whole "plain reading" thing. Yeah, whatever. But I'll stop, lest I rant. :lol:

In short, when someone pulls out the "The Bible tells me so" thing, my general answer is, "The Bible doesn't tell you that homosexuality is wrong. Christian brainwashing based on a misreading/misinterpretation of the Bible and fueled by centuries of ookies tells you that homosexuality is wrong." Plain and simple. If someone wants to go on believing the brainwashing, then more power to them, but I'll be damned if I'll let them foist it on me. Or, especially, on the general public.

On top of that why is being gay any worse than other venial sins? As far as I can tell its not considered a mortal sin like murder, yet so many people treat it as such. I really bugs me.

Actually the "Sin Hierarchy" is a Catholic thing. In Protestant thought, sin is sin, none worse than any other. Or at least, that's how it's SUPPOSED to be! Which is another reason why Christian harping on homosexuality bugs me. Jesus had a lot to say about divorce and nothing to say about homosexuality. Yet, I don't see many churches decrying divorce to the extent that they'll decry homosexuality. So what do you think their agenda REALLY is? :)

[Tempscire]

That's hardly a consensus.
The site divorcerate.org that bears that exact sentence (er, the one you quoted from the other poster, I mean) goes on to say
According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%
It also upholds the oft-stated "50% overall divorce rate" quote (and the CDC's data seems to bear that out, at least as of 2009), and perhaps someone with a better grasp of statistical analysis than I can explain it, but it seems that if you're dividing the population into 3 groups, and 2/3 of those groups have >50% rates, the overall average cannot remain at ~50% itself. So there's that.

Also, another set of random figures I saw said that 52% of married couples made it to their 15th anniversary. So there's also that. In any event, it's stupid to use population statistics to make personal decisions.

Do people not realise that there are other religions in the world who may have similar issues? That you don't need to be religious to still be homophobic? That you can still have a religion and also be pro-gay rights?
I don't remember everyone's nationality here off the top of my head, but at least for US-centric discussions, it's Christianity that's the major (and majority) religious voice, and the most ardent antagonists (or least the most loud/visible ones) are explicitly associated with Christianity and religion. It could arguably boil down to simple statistics: if the vast majority of a population claims some kind of spirituality/religion, and the majority of those claim to be Christian, then the majority of homophobes will also probably be Christian or at least religious. However, it doesn't help when, again, explicitly Bible-based arguments are used if not in the greatest quantity (I can't imagine anyone has an actual breakdown of figures on "arguments against gay anything" to prove it one way or another) then in the greatest volume.

I mean, just as much as a person is gay and has the right to be a person, someone can be of a faith and have an opinion like any human being.
Everyone's entitled to their opinions. They are not entitled to codify their own opinions to the detriment of their fellow citizens. You can hate the color of your neighbor's car without petitioning to have that car color banned or to make it a rule that everyone who lives one house to the left of yours must keep their car garaged except for important transportation needs, you know?

[Drakesecaravdis]

Open-mindedness CAN be taught.

I think what you are possibly confusing it with is acceptance. Acceptance can't be taught, it's something that only an individual has control over.

However, acceptance is easier if open-mindedness is taught. If you teach your children that not everyone is the same as them and that's ok, you are teaching them the basics of open-mindedness. As they grow older and make their own decisions, they may choose not to accept something as it is, but if they have been brought up to be open-minded then at least they'll have learned that they can't change something they have no control over. Then hopefully acceptance will eventually happen.


But, this is why I think tolerance trumps both and why it's more important to teach and practice especially at early ages. To be tolerant you may not accept, but you are permissive in that you don't actively oppose. You know you can't change something you don't like, but you don't try to force that something to change. Basically, live and let live.

That's how I understand the terms. And you are right, you can't help people change or even simply consider other viewpoints if they refuse. :(

so now it sounds like open mindedness is easier to teach than tolerance.
because actually I do actively oppose as much as possible. I know I probly can't change something I don't like but I try to anyway..if I believe in it enough esp since I'm stubborn. it comes with being highly opinionated.
but then again this isn't about me. you were using "you" in a general term and maybe the homophobes/people we need to teach aren't as stubborn as I am



Everyone's entitled to their opinions. They are not entitled to codify their own opinions to the detriment of their fellow citizens. You can hate the color of your neighbor's car without petitioning to have that car color banned or to make it a rule that everyone who lives one house to the left of yours must keep their car garaged except for important transportation needs, you know?
I would go a step further and say when it reaches that point, it is no longer an opinion but an immoral statement.

[SimsLover50]

I think not 'agreeing with homosexualtiy' is also a weird thing to say. Did anyone ask if they 'agreed' is gayness a yes/no question? Basically 'not agreeing' is not being honest. They are saying they do not like the gays or gay sexuality. There isn't anything to AGREE too. It's like rain. I may not like rain, but saying I do not 'agree' about rain, is basically strange.

[whiterider]

Gay lifestyle my ass. There is no such thing.

[SimsLover50]

Gay lifestyle my ass. There is no such thing.

yeah. perhaps I should've said they do not like gays. awkward wording, and I will correct it.... Sorry... =0

[BlakeS5678]

Gay lifestyle my ass. There is no such thing.

Agreed. They only say that because it's their only answer to this:

ME: What do you think gay people should do then? Die old and alone, never being in any sort of romantic relationship their ENTIRE life! That's insane. What if someone told you that marriage between a man and a woman is wrong, and not the way Jesus intended? How would that be any different?

HOMOPHOBIC: Then they should not be gay then. It's that simple, you <insert insult here>

ME: Being gay isn't a choice. Why are you so mean to LGBT people? What did they ever do to you? If you're so pro-marriage than isn't them getting married a GOOD thing?

HOMOPHOBIC: Shut up, you <insert homophobic slur> What the're doing is wrong. Why can't you understand that?

ME: Why can't you understand the're people too, and don't choose to be like that. You keep avoiding all the questions, because you have no valid answer.

HOMOPHOBIC: *Flips me off and tells rumor that "they" got to me and I'm gay.*

That's my daily conversation with an extremist catholic.

Anyways, they only say "Alternative Lifestyle" because they're so close minded and assume that what they're doing is a choice. A girl I know, told me that "If being gay is a choice, they should just stay in the closet their whole life, and be miserable because they deserve it."

WHAT!? That makes no sense! That's not fair to the wife that's left in the dark, the kids (the Catholics will force them to have), or anyone really!

I can't even *stand* America sometimes.

[iCad]

Gay lifestyle my ass. There is no such thing.

Yes, there is! According to my dearest friends (a gay couple), it goes like this: They get up in the morning. One of them goes to work (He's a surgical nurse at the local hospital), the other stays home with the kids. (They're fostering one 2-year-old and one 7-year-old, at the moment, plus they have two adopted young-teen daughters.) Work/do kid stuff all day. Mr. Nurse comes home. One of them (or one of the teens) makes dinner, whoever's night it is to cook. Or maybe they all just pick around in the fridge at their leisure. VERY occasionally, they'll go out to the Mexican place down the street, when the budget allows. After dinner, they make sure the kids' schoolwork, if they have any, gets done, play with the younger kids, maybe watch some TV, maybe engage in hobby-like activities or read the newspaper or a book or something. Then comes the usual battle to get the kids, especially the usually-recalcitrant two-year-old, into bed and asleep. Then they go to bed. Repeat ad nauseum. Oh, and a big part of the lifestyle is not having sex nearly often enough because they're both way too tired. :lol:

In other words, their "gay lifestyle" is pretty much the same as it is for any other couple raising young kids. Of course, the single "gay lifestyle" might be a little different than the committed-with-kids one, but I highly suspect that the single "gay lifestyle" is much the same (and as highly variable in terms of "wildness") as the single "straight lifestyle."

[Mootilda]

There are as many gay lifestyles as there are gay people, just as there are as many straight lifestyles as there are straight people, and bisexual lifestyles as there are bisexual people. That's why it makes no sense to talk about a "gay lifestyle".

[Spitfire Mouse]

so now it sounds like open mindedness is easier to teach than tolerance.


I just want to preface any further discussion on my part by saying that this is all my own understanding of terminology I throw around and that I'm not a student of philosophy or anything like that. I'm certainly no expert and I certainly don't want to come across as snooty. Just my opinions and how I view things. :) Oh and just to keep it in context, my statements refer to prejudice against homosexuality and prejudices in general, not opinions outside of that scope. And yes, when I say you it's in the general, not you specifically. ;)

Yes I would think open-mindedness is easier to teach than tolerance.

Tolerance requires a level of rationality and self-discipline or insight (it could be said apathy for some) that is hard for any adult to achieve who has already formed strong beliefs that are deeply rooted. Those that don't "approve" of gays, but they don't try to change them or interfere with their lives would be considered tolerant. It's close to acceptance, but not quite there.

I'll give my own example as how I define tolerance, acceptance, and open-mindedness.

Tolerance is how I think I was in my earlier years. I didn't "approve" because of my Christian upbringing, but I never actively did anything about it, no signing petitions, picketing or anything else. If asked my opinion I would have stated being gay was wrong.

Later I moved on to acceptance because of exposure to a gay couple who were mutual friends with someone I worked with. They were a hoot to be around and I started realizing they weren't all that different from everyone else I knew. I still didn't necessarily "approve", but didn't try to avoid them. If asked my opinion at that point I would most likely have said "I don't know" to a stranger or family. To my peers I would have been more honest that I didn't really "like" homosexuality, but that I liked the couple I knew.

After meeting my husband and being exposed to a much more liberal viewpoint and lifestyle, I finally became open-minded. I no longer view homosexuality as "wrong" and consider myself a supporter of the community. I don't have any gay friends only because no one in any of my social groups is gay. I definitely would not turn a friendship away because someone was gay.



Children are not born with prejudices, they learn them by familial and social exposure. That's why I believe if you start teaching them to be open-minded, tolerance won't be as crucial of a lesson to learn, but it will be easier to achieve if the situation arises.
I can only hope that when the time comes, I can teach and show my child how to be open-minded. It won't be easy. One thing's for sure, I'll be damned if my child learns any prejudice at home.


I could very well have a complete misunderstanding as to how open-mindedness, acceptance and tolerance relate to each other, so take my views with a grain of salt. :)

because actually I do actively oppose as much as possible. I know I probly can't change something I don't like but I try to anyway..if I believe in it enough esp since I'm stubborn. it comes with being highly opinionated.


If you're talking about opposing and trying to change something that currently infringes upon someone else (eg opposing laws that infringe on people's rights); something that causes harm, whether bodily, mentally or emotionally; or to protect, then that's a completely different subject.

So stand up for what you believe in, act on it if you are moved to do so even if you know you can't change it. Just as long as it is not to the detriment of or harmful to others.


Tempscire said it best.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions. They are not entitled to codify their own opinions to the detriment of their fellow citizens. You can hate the color of your neighbor's car without petitioning to have that car color banned or to make it a rule that everyone who lives one house to the left of yours must keep their car garaged except for important transportation needs, you know?

[BlakeS5678]

iCad! At first I thought you were being a total jerk, then I read the last part of your comment and was like: "Oh, now that's the iCad I know!"

Which I guess you can relate to closed mindedness. I could have read the first few sentences and then hit the "disagree" (Or as sometimes it feels, the f*** you button) But, instead I read the whole story and then ticked "funny."

I know the analysis is blurry, but, I'm just not good past 7pm.

[iCad]

iCad! At first I thought you were being a total jerk, then I read the last part of your comment and was like: "Oh, now that's the iCad I know!"

Which I guess you can relate to closed mindedness. I could have read the first few sentences and then hit the "disagree" (Or as sometimes it feels, the f*** you button) But, instead I read the whole story and then ticked "funny."

I know the analysis is blurry, but, I'm just not good past 7pm.

Well, you know, I wasn't actually trying to be funny. :) I was trying to point out that gay people's lives are essentially the same as straight people's lives. (I never thought of myself as having any particular "lifestyle." I just have a life. Sometimes. :) ) In my experience, that's just how it is. Sure, I've known some wild gay guys, too, who are/were into partying and swinging and casual sex out the wazoo and all that. (Hey, when you work in the entertainment field, you meet and interact with ALL KINDS of people. :lol: ) However, I've known more straight people who are/were into the same things. I really don't see where people get off putting other people into compartments like folks will do with gay people, especially gay men.

Well, of course, I know WHY they do it. As someone once said, "It's much easier to nauseate than it is to educate." But that doesn't make it right.

[Drakesecaravdis]

I just want to preface any further discussion on my part by saying that this is all my own understanding of terminology I throw around and that I'm not a student of philosophy or anything like that. I'm certainly no expert and I certainly don't want to come across as snooty. Just my opinions and how I view things. :) Oh and just to keep it in context, my statements refer to prejudice against homosexuality and prejudices in general, not opinions outside of that scope. And yes, when I say you it's in the general, not you specifically. ;)
just acknowledging to you that I read this part.



Tolerance requires a level of rationality and self-discipline or insight (it could be said apathy for some) that is hard for any adult to achieve who has already formed strong beliefs that are deeply rooted. Those that don't "approve" of gays, but they don't try to change them or interfere with their lives would be considered tolerant. It's close to acceptance, but not quite there.
ok but what about people that throw the f word around (and yes I know someone that does this constantly and if he's not saying that he will say that the people are weird and not in the good way)? I'm not sure they would be considered tolerant.

I'll give my own example as how I define tolerance, acceptance, and open-mindedness.

Tolerance is how I think I was in my earlier years. I didn't "approve" because of my Christian upbringing, but I never actively did anything about it, no signing petitions, picketing or anything else. If asked my opinion I would have stated being gay was wrong.

Later I moved on to acceptance because of exposure to a gay couple who were mutual friends with someone I worked with. They were a hoot to be around and I started realizing they weren't all that different from everyone else I knew. I still didn't necessarily "approve", but didn't try to avoid them. If asked my opinion at that point I would most likely have said "I don't know" to a stranger or family. To my peers I would have been more honest that I didn't really "like" homosexuality, but that I liked the couple I knew.

After meeting my husband and being exposed to a much more liberal viewpoint and lifestyle, I finally became open-minded. I no longer view homosexuality as "wrong" and consider myself a supporter of the community. I don't have any gay friends only because no one in any of my social groups is gay. I definitely would not turn a friendship away because someone was gay.
you know this may be strange but after reading your example, now that I think about it I skipped a step. I went from tolerance to open mindedness and the open mindedness only grew from there (now I like gay dudes more than straight dudes in general because straight guys like to think with their dick. of course I'm not going to be attracted to a gay dude so obviously I would still like a non-gay dude but I'm just saying that if I was going to have a friend that was a guy, I'd trust the gay dudes more to be my friends. if only I had gay friends. my friend has a few gay friends. she's so lucky.)



If you're talking about opposing and trying to change something that currently infringes upon someone else (eg opposing laws that infringe on people's rights); something that causes harm, whether bodily, mentally or emotionally; or to protect, then that's a completely different subject.
So stand up for what you believe in, act on it if you are moved to do so even if you know you can't change it. Just as long as it is not to the detriment of or harmful to others.
harmful to others that don't deserve it you mean...karma is a bitch
but that's a whole nother subject too I suppose as it also depends on the situation and method of getting the person back.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Agreed. They only say that because it's their only answer to this:

ME: What do you think gay people should do then? Die old and alone, never being in any sort of romantic relationship their ENTIRE life! That's insane. What if someone told you that marriage between a man and a woman is wrong, and not the way Jesus intended? How would that be any different?

HOMOPHOBIC: Then they should not be gay then. It's that simple, you <insert insult here>

ME: Being gay isn't a choice. Why are you so mean to LGBT people? What did they ever do to you? If you're so pro-marriage than isn't them getting married a GOOD thing?

HOMOPHOBIC: Shut up, you <insert homophobic slur> What the're doing is wrong. Why can't you understand that?

ME: Why can't you understand the're people too, and don't choose to be like that. You keep avoiding all the questions, because you have no valid answer.

HOMOPHOBIC: *Flips me off and tells rumor that "they" got to me and I'm gay.*

That's my daily conversation with an extremist catholic.

Anyways, they only say "Alternative Lifestyle" because they're so close minded and assume that what they're doing is a choice. A girl I know, told me that "If being gay is a choice, they should just stay in the closet their whole life, and be miserable because they deserve it."

WHAT!? That makes no sense! That's not fair to the wife that's left in the dark, the kids (the Catholics will force them to have), or anyone really!

I can't even *stand* America sometimes.

this actually reminds me of something i read in a comment on a horrific crime news report involving a gay man who was killed and...well, it was horrific. lets end it there.

the person had the nerve to say "its his own fault, if he hadnt been gay, he wouldnt have met that guy and wouldnt be dead now". ...............and i just gawped at it for about 20 minutes straight. i cant believe that there are people out there with thoughts like that in their heads, who are still able to put one foot in front of the other and operate machinery.

think about it: there are real people...flesh and blood, like me and you....out there, who ACTUALLY BELIEVE that psychopaths only happen to homosexuals.

my hope for humanity plummeted a little deeper, and i couldnt even form the words to how mindbogglingly wrong they are to say that. there is no logic to salvage in such individuals, so youre better off moving on to the ones who can be helped.

[Mistermook]

I'm so tired of this never ending war for something that every LGBT person humanely deserves. I'm SO TIRED of the fact that this is something that people have to fight for. I'm DONE with it. I'm making my myself a promise that the next person I hear say ONE HOMOPHOBIC WORD, I will make them regret it for the rest of their life.

I have one thing to say: GET THE HELL OFF AND DON'T FUCK WITH BLAKE BECAUSE I'M IN A SLIT YOUR THROAT MOOD. The homophobics shall pay. I will not stand to see the pain people like, MSD, The Creeper, and any other person who's ever been teased about their sexuality endure for one SECOND more.
Should we start tracking down your IP and reporting it to the relevant police authorities before we read about you in the news? Because that's pretty much what it sounds like. You're taking something that's irritating and wrong, and talking like you're about to go do things that are MOST wrong in almost every culture. You sound like a danger to yourself and others - Like you need to be stopped more than any homophobe.

[Zexxa]

I think the original message from the op was about being straight and being an advocate for the homosexual community. I'm pretty well versed in that. People constantly ask me if I'm gay because I support gay rights. I say, No, I'm not gay. I don't have to be an animal to support animal rights, why should I have to be gay to support gay rights?

I've kind of come to the point of just telling people who ask that that I'm bisexual, which in all honesty isn't a lie, since I don't believe I would specifically turn down someone just because of what organs they happen to posses. I just prefer men. :P

Anyway, that's my 2c. :)

[Prawler]

It wasnt that long ago that non-white people were treated the same way LGBT are treated now.
The problem is the way the generation was raised. I'm probably going to be attacked for this, but I think its because of how dominant Christianity was in schools. If children are told repeatedly that something is wrong,, then they are going to think it's wrong as an adult.
Christianity is less dominant in schools now, and (not sure if its the same anywhere else) the government is obsessed with political correctness and embracing all cultures, that the product should be 20 somethings that are open minded. I turned out that way, but there are still a lot of homo-phobic/biased/racist/ prejudiced people of my age out there.

More importantly, empathy should be taught in schools. When ever I hear someone bad-mouthing someone else or complaining, I have a habit of arguing the absent person's view, because if everyone understood everyone else's intentions or motivations there would be a lot less arguments. (In an ideal world)

[iCad]

It wasnt that long ago that non-white people were treated the same way LGBT are treated now.
The problem is the way the generation was raised. I'm probably going to be attacked for this, but I think its because of how dominant Christianity was in schools. If children are told repeatedly that something is wrong,, then they are going to think it's wrong as an adult.
Christianity is less dominant in schools now, and (not sure if its the same anywhere else) the government is obsessed with political correctness and embracing all cultures, that the product should be 20 somethings that are open minded. I turned out that way, but there are still a lot of homo-phobic/biased/racist/ prejudiced people of my age out there.

More importantly, empathy should be taught in schools. When ever I hear someone bad-mouthing someone else or complaining, I have a habit of arguing the absent person's view, because if everyone understood everyone else's intentions or motivations there would be a lot less arguments. (In an ideal world)

I'm not attacking you at all and I hope you don't interpret this that way, but...When was Christianity "dominant" in schools? I mean, apart from private Christian schools and parochial Catholic schools, that is. And I'm only talking about the US; I don't really know how things worked/work in other countries. Granted, Christianity did have an influence, sometimes a very strong one, in education in the 1800s, when schools were local and not "incorporated," so to speak, before the modern state-funded public school system was developed starting in the early 20th century, but I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people currently alive today didn't attend a public school where Christianity was "dominant."

I think it's safer to say that Christianity is still culturally dominant in the US, however, and that does have some influence on how the public (of any age) perceives homosexuality...although I still maintain that religion (of any stripe) is not entirely, much less solely, to blame for homophobia. But a state-funded public school is certainly not going to push a blatantly Christian (or other faith-based) agenda. Otherwise, certain Christian factions wouldn't be so big on pushing prayer and the teaching of creationism on the public schools. They wouldn't have to be because it'd already be there, yes? :)

I do agree that teaching empathy is important, though, and not just when it comes to this particular issue. It's an important skill in general and makes getting through life a lot easier. If nothing else, it helps with anger management. Speaking of which...

@Blake: You are coming off a bit fanatical there. It's fine to be riled about something but "making someone pay" for an attitude they have is just as dangerous -- perhaps MORE dangerous -- an attitude as the homophobia that's ticking you off. It's kind of the mindset of the extreme pro-lifer who gets it into his head that killing doctors who perform abortions is a really good idea. Sit back. Count to ten. Think about what you're saying. That's always a good policy.

[Drakesecaravdis]

although I still maintain that religion (of any stripe) is not entirely, much less solely, to blame for homophobia.
yes but it is the one of the main reasons for homophobia and maybe that's what Prawler meant.