Hatred Toward Gays / Homosexuals

by garbonzo 65 Replies latest members adult

• 

  Quendi

  Thank you, Leolaia. I couldn't have expressed it any better myself. I certainly have never promoted a political agenda with anything I have shared here save for a plea that human rights be accorded to and respected by all. I don't think that is too much to ask. I must say that I find 144001's reasoning both specious and condescending. He speaks of 'imposing an agenda' but apparently does not understand that without that imposition the only people who would fully enjoy the privileges of American citizenship would be wealthy white males. I don't think that is the type of country he would want to live in.

  Have some advocates for their causes become far too strident and even intolerant of others' views? Absolutely, and I don't like that anymore than the next person. And it must be admitted that some love stridency and conflict for their own sakes. But it must also be acknowledged that they often arise when calm and rational appeals for justice and redress have been harshly denied. Minorities of every stripe have encountered that attitude in their respective struggles thus creating the excesses that both 144001 and garbonzo deplore.

  As for teaching the positive roles gays, blacks and other minority groups have played in history, what's wrong with that? Should their contributions be left out? And doesn't including them make for better citizens overall when they learn that a nation's greatness has arisen because of the contributions all, rather than some, have played? The answer to that question is self-evident.

  Quendi
• 

  AK MCGRATH

  I am loving this thread. There are so many beautiful, truthful remarks. I am not sure if the posters are straight or gay, and it doesn't matter. They are lovely just the same. And THAT is what is important. Someone's heart condition. Not whom they chose to love.

  And some of these laws needed to and should be changed. So, unless there is an "agenda", will they only be heard. For instance: The law about who is or is not allowed to visit someone sick or dying in a hospital. It is freaking ludicrous that a partner is DENIED seeing their loved one because some friggin law or stranger says, "No, you can't." It is BULLSHIT!

  What the hell right does ANYONE have to tell someone ill that the person they love, whom they share a life with, is denied this person's company and love while in the hospital, especially if it is a terminal situation? When you check into the hospital, you have the right to say who is allowed to visit you, or who is not. To deny each of these people that right is unexcusable and disgusting!

  That is just one example. Dont Ask, Dont Tell, Hate Crimes and many others ONLY get changed if people make enough noise. And even then, it is years down the road for something to come to fruition...maybe.
• 

  NewChapter

  Affirmative action actually increased the negative attitude of many whites against blacks, including some whites who would have otherwise been tolerant of black people.

  I see. So we practice generations of repressing a group, then decide not to do it any longer, and let them join the race. Only they don't get to start at the starting line, like white men did (affirmative action applies to women too), but they start 20 paces back. And they don't get to start at the sound of the gun either, they are forced to wait for some time after the sound. So when white men finally let them join the race, with all their advantages and headstart, they get angry when the oppressed cry foul. But we shouldn't do anything to correct that because it might make some people feel bad and piss them off.

  I am not buying that. There cannot be equal opportunity unless everyone starts from the same point and runs with the gun.

  So some people might get a little irritated when it's pointed out that a significant figure is a homosexual. Tough. We have put that group through centuries of wrong treatment, we could feel at least a little uncomfortable as we try to correct it.

  NC
• 

  NewChapter

  The law about who is or is not allowed to visit someone sick or dying in a hospital. It is freaking ludicrous that a partner is DENIED seeing their loved one because some friggin law or stranger says,

  My Pastor is a lesbian. When her partner was in the hospital, they denied her visitation. The conservative right had actually managed to change our state's CONSTITUTION! to allow this type of discrimination. Constitution aside, the hospital could have chosen a different policy. Instead they chose to block the most important person to this ailing woman, from coming to visit. The hospital has its own agenda and it's certainly not the well-being of this sick woman. From what I understand it was quite serious and life-threatening. She is fine today. My pastor was able to use her clergy status to see her anyway. But her point was that most people don't have clergy status. It's disgusting.

  Then we have people who get so upset when the inequality is brought out into the light. You're shoving it down their throats! Well it has to be pushed, otherwise it will be ignored. That's just the way it is.

  NC
• 

  AK MCGRATH

  New Chapter, your posts make me all warm and fuzzy. You hit the nails on the head in your comments above.

  I have worked in the healthcare field almost my entire life and I have seen the prejudice and gossip. So much for HIPAA.

  I have read horror stories of a gays being discriminated against not seeing thier boyfriend or girlfriend. I specifically recall one woman who was denied to see her cancer-stricken partner in the hospital. Although they allowed family members, some who were not even close to this woman, inside her room, they did not allow her. These poor women were kept apart after they had disclosed they were together..partners. So as the woman lay dying, neither could see the love of their life. No one was closer to this patient than her, and they were both robbed of such precious time. They would not hear each others' words, hold each other's hand or give a soft kiss to say, "I love you" and goodbye.

  I am ashamed and find it very hypocrital that we are ALL supposed to live in an UNITED States of America, with FREEDOM FOR ALL, when there has been a history of rasism, bigotry and such hatred for people. People we do not even know. When will it all stop? When will have the foresight and compassion to just accept people for who they are, even if they are a little or a lot different from us? If no one harming you or breaking any laws, then let people just BE. We would all be better for it.

  The Golden Rule seems so simple, yet so hard to follow.
• 

  NewChapter

  We just have to keep up the good fight. We are closer today than we were 50 years ago, and progress is speeding up. We'll get there.
• 

  144001

  Then we have people who get so upset when the inequality is brought out into the light. You're shoving it down their throats! Well it has to be pushed, otherwise it will be ignored. That's just the way it is.

  Yes, and the backlash against gays for pushing their agenda down our throats is also "just the way it is," and will likely grow. The militant attitude of many who advocate for gay rights antagonizes many straight folks who would otherwise have no disdain towards homosexuals.

  I don't care about your sexual orientation, straight, homo, or whatever you are. In addition to not caring about your sexuality, I don't want to hear about it and I don't want my child to be forced to learn about the history of heterosexuality, homosexuality, bestiality, transgenderism, or any other variety of sexual orientation/interests.
• 

  NewChapter

  Militants have always antagonized. What backlash do you speak of? Increased prejudice? It will even out in the end. Those that will choose to be prejudice had it simmering in there somewhere anyway. The children will be taught tolerance. The same claim has always been made through the years. When women pushed their right to vote, I'm sure others felt they had it shoved down their throats. When African Americans demanded their rights in the 60's, I'm sure others wanted them to just shut up. And today, homosexuals are pushing for equality. Others want it out of their face.

  And as far as heterosexuality being taught---it simply is. Everytime we study who married who, what children they had, what affairs, divorces, widowdom (is that a word?), and remarriages, we here about their heterosexuality. No one is talking sex acts---just the pattern of lives. I wouldn't equate bestiality with other types of sexuality, but you can be sure, if a notable person was into such things, it would be mentioned.

  NC
• 

  NewChapter

  You know this reminded me of something I haven't thought of in years. When I was a teenager, in the 80's, there were still people that would dismiss women for being pregnant. I don't know about the legalities of such policies at the time, but it was certainly tolerated. So I was reading an advice column, I think Dear Abby, where a writer wrote to complain that he had gone to a restaurant and the woman who seated him was pregnant, the waitress was pregnant, and one other employee was pregnant. He said he understood that pregnant women should be allowed to work these jobs, but wasn't this a bit ridiculous? Why did they have to shove it down his throat?

  So it's fine for pregnant women to claim their rights. He was good with that. But jeeeez, we are trying to eat here---why does it have to be in his face???

  LOL

  NC
• 

  144001

  I must say that I find 144001's reasoning both specious and condescending. He speaks of 'imposing an agenda' but apparently does not understand that without that imposition the only people who would fully enjoy the privileges of American citizenship would be wealthy white males. I don't think that is the type of country he would want to live in. -- Quendi

  Specious? Hmm . . . the pot calling the kettle black. Your claim that without the imposition of a homosexual agenda on the rest of us, only weatlhy white males would fully enjoy the privileges of American citizenship is entirely specious. Wealthy white males? What about black males? Surely, the enjoyment by African Americans of the privileges of citizenship is not dependent on the imposition of the homosexual agenda on Americans! In fact, the majority of African American voters did not support the homosexuals here in California. Statistics show that the majority of black voters in California voted in favor of Prop 8, which denied gays the right to be married in California (the validity and constitutionality of Prop 8 is still being sorted out by the courts).

  Condescending? Do tell, Quendi. Support this accusation with some substance . . . or it's as valid as the WT's claim that Armageddon is "just around the corner."