I originally wrote this as a comment, but I liked it so much that I decided to give it a blog of its own...
To be honest, I hardly know where to begin. But, I'll take a stab in the dark and begin with the point that social tolerance and social intolerance are mutually exclusive philosophies. Progressivism as a socio-political philosophy does not include "tolerance" in its core values. Rather, it promotes "social justice," which is a very different thing.
The suggestion in your argument would seem to be that we (as a community) should "tolerate" attitudes that are essentially "intolerant." I find it interesting (and more than a little disturbing) when this topic comes up (as it invariably does) after a virulent anti-gay bigot is taken to task for his or her opinons in the blogs and comments of ProU. It disturbs me because it demonstrates how deeply ingrained the homophobia in our culture really is. If one were to attempt to pursure an argument of this sort in regards to equivalent statements made in support of racial discrimination, or which proclaimed that women were inherently immoral, or which expressed an anti-semitic point-of-view, that argument would be instantly dismissed as ludicrous. But for some reason, a lot of people (including a significant number of otherwise pro-gay supporters) seem to think that even extraordinarly virulent anti-gay slurs and direct calls to actively discriminate against gay and lesbian people is somehow more "tolerable" than similar attacks directed againt other identity groups. If there is a hypocrisy in this discussion, THIS is where it lies.
Take for example the common argument found throughout the ProU blogs comparing homosexuality to murder on a moral/ethical level. Now, really think about that comparison for a moment, and personalize its application. Turn to your significant other, look them in the eye, and tell us that if some yahoo came up to the two of you in the street and compared your love for one another to the crime of murder, it wouldn't upset you. Then, have that same person imply in none-too-subtle terms that you are a secret child molestor, that its your fault that people get diseases like HIV and Cancer, and that you and your family are systematically destroying all civilization as we know it. Now, add to that a rant where this person begins to detail out a plan by which the government should (in their "opinion") use its police power to systematically deny you the most basic rights of citizenship, up to and including seeing you arrested for the "crime" of having sex with your S.O. Finally, multiply that experience by a few hundred repititions, and then come back and tell me if you really think that the appropriate response to this kind of verbal assault is to pat the offending jackass on the head and say, "oh well, it's just an opinion."
The only way to prevent discrimination is to confront it. And, I don't mean that we just need to confront the obvious things (like the fact that gay and lesbian people suffer a significantly higher rate of violence directed against them than any other identity-based demographic). For every Larry King there is a Brandon McInerney, and for every Brandon McInerney there is a parent, a teacher or a priest that taught him that gay people are evil criminals that deserve whatever you do to them. I am sure there are those that will say that I am exaggerating, and I am (a little bit) in order to make a point. There is certainly a difference in believing that homosexuality is "wrong," and in translating that belief into the act of actually murdering someone because you perceive them to be gay, but when someone begins to compare homosexuality and murder as if they were moral equivalents, suddenly that difference seems a lot less queer (please, pardon the pun).
Think about it. If you saw someone about to commit a murder, and you responded with a violent action intended to prevent that crime from happening, would you think you were "wrong?" Most people would probably applaud your decision to act. What if you knew someone was a murderer...absolutely and without question...and for some reason the justice system was unable to bring them to heel? Many people (even most) would probably go so far to say that it would be wrong to take the Law into your own hand, but a LOT of those people would still feel sympathetic to your motivations. Now, consider the argument once again that murder and homosexuality are moral equivalents, and tell me If you don't see how attitudes like these contributed to the murder of Larry King (or Matthew Shepherd, or Brandon Teena, or Harvey Milk, and the list goes on, and on...).
As for the philosophical question of what is "right" and what is "wrong," there is certainly a wide range of standards against which one can measure any give situation or circumstance, and quite obviously not all of those standards are in agreement. However, in the United States of America we have a Constitution that for all practical and legal purposes trumps any other standard that might be offered up for consideration (and yes, it even trumps "the bible," no matter how much that fact might gall the religious right). So, while the philosophical argument over whether or not homosexuality is "right" or "wrong" may be somewhat subjective, the question of whether or not it is lawful to discriminate against gay people most certainly is not.
And finally, I think that many young bloggers make the mistake of not realizing that blogging is an interactive medium. Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinon, but If you decide to blog about that opinion, there is a part-in-parcel assumption inherent to the experience that you may have to defend that opinion in the comments that follow. Sometimes, these exchanges may be generally agreeable. But when you decide to blog about something that is controversial, well...this kind of verbal conflict is kind of the whole point behind the word "controversial," n'est pas?
So, turning back to the question I asked above, i.e. "Should we tolerate intolerance?" I think the answer is "no." People have a right to their opions. And the doctrine of Freedom of Speech ensures that they have a right to express that opinion, if they so desire, without being punished for doing so by the government. But, people do NOT have a right to simply fire off with their opinions into a crowd (such as the members of ProU) and then dance away without having to face the responses that their opinions evoke. It IS possible to have a calm and perfectly rational conversation about these topics, but once the flaming starts, well...things tend to "catch fire" (if you know what I mean).
TTFN,
percivale
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
your comment was so much more intellectually stated than mine. You have a true gift for rational debate. I enjoyed reading your comment and blog. :-)
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
So what to you is right and wrong? Dish out a couple examples....
Please I want to see if my way of thinking is really as absurd as your thinking!
p.s. thanks for the comments, you are a good writer, but hey I have to begin somehwere right...
Terms like "right" and "wrong" are completely subjective in the context of moral discussions. To paraphrase my Libertarian buddy Neal Boortz, "I believe in freedom." I have a very constrained view of "right" and "wrong." The way I see it, a thing is only "wrong" if it deprives another person of their life, their liberty or their property through an act of force or fraud.
Murder is the act of taking another person's life by force. Thus, murder is "wrong." Theft is the act of taking the property of another person...sometimes by force, and sometimes by fraud. Thus, theft is "wrong." Discriminating against citizens because of their identity deprives them of their Liberty. Thus, discrimination is "wrong." Lying in any context is an act of Fraud. Thus, lying is "wrong."
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
The way I see it, a thing is only "wrong" if it deprives another person of their life, their liberty or their property through an act of force or fraud.
Murder is the act of taking another person's life by force. Thus, murder is "wrong." Theft is the act of taking the property of another person...sometimes by force, and sometimes by fraud. Thus, theft is "wrong." Discriminating against citizens because of their identity deprives them of their Liberty. Thus, discrimination is "wrong." Lying in any context is an act of Fraud. Thus, lying is "wrong."
.
Well said :)
It is never too late to be what you might have been- George Elliot
ok ill try and continue my point with our you...
You might say racial discrimination..going along with that obiviously discrimating gay people...killing a man...some of the pretty obvious ones!! The thing is I cant really use those to make a point, becuase gerneally everyone agrees on just about all of those being wrong...
But let's take something like the death penalty...pretty 50 - 50 subject from what I understand...
O.K. so let's say a person, who disagrees with the death penalty, runs into some one that works for the, thingy majig, and says. I do not agree with what you are doing. I still love you. I will not hurt you. But hey if you want my opinion, it would be to please stop.
You see I couldn't even see my self going that far when it comes to telling people how to live their life. You say Im homophobic. Well I'm sorry friend, but I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about, and you don't know me.
If you think you're the right way! Go for it! Why are you worried about other people stopping you. There is alot of hateful people out there, not me!!!, but hey I do a whole lot of things that even more people woud disagree upon and I'm still truckin'.
When your intentions are motivated with love (which you say they are I guess), you will become fearless and act with bravery....or something like that.
It's up at my school...some Buddahist said it or somthing, but you might want to try it out...
I would appreciate a response even if I don't deserve one.. thanks
...but I'll try to unravel it enough to respond.
You say that "generally everyone" agrees that "murder" is wrong. But it isn't difficult to find examples where a culture that rejects "murder" simultaneously accepts and may even celebrate the killing of that culture's enemies and undesirables. You say that "generally everyone" agrees that "racial discrimination" is wrong, and yet we still see rampant racism even in our own relatively enlightened country. I mean, it was only 41 years ago (that's just one generation back for me, though it might be two for you) that we were still criminalizing interracial marriages. Discriminatory attitudes are quite subjective, and tend to be pervasive unless actively confronted.
To me, the death penalty is a clearly unconstitutional act. If the right to life is inalienable, then the government has no right to take that life from a citizens, no matter what he may have done to deserve it. But, more to the point, your comparison fails to address the construction of the comments I was criticizing. The people you seemed to be defending with your blog were not saying "I still love you. I will not hurt you. But hey if you want my opinion, it would be to please stop." Instead, you had a group of comments that included inflammatory insults, and that took the additional step of demanding that gay people be systematically discriminated against in our Laws and institutions. There was no "love" that I could see in their comments, and their plans to deprive myself and my family of their most basic human rights would most certainly "hurt" us if allowed to progress to their logical conclusions.
And yet, we still have the example of you (a supposedly non-homophobic person) defending discriminatory attitudes against gay people and asking that those attitudes be allowed to be distributed without confrontation. Based on your other comments (such as when you said above that "generally everyone" agrees that racial discrimination is wrong), your standards seem inconsistent. I'm not saying that you are an asshole. And I am sure you mean well. But my point was that the homophobia in our culture is so deeply ingrained, that oftentimes I encounter people who THINK they are on the pro-gay side, but actually still buy into some of the basic precepts behind the discrimination that is directed at the gay community.
There is an old Hindu/Buddhist proverb that says sometimes, a slap in the face is the most compassionate act (sometimes known as a Zen Slap). Many people trundle through their daily lives without giving any real thought to how their actions and attitudes effect the people around them. I believe that when it comes right down to it, MOST people do NOT want to be inhumane to their fellow man. But, sometimes you have to stand up and really make an ass of yourself in order to shake people out of the apathetic inertia and get them to realize how the things that they do (and that they fail to do) effect others.
TTFN,
percivale
EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to close one of my html tags.
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I completely agree with you. The saying "The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" is never more true than in this very issue.
It seems as if it's become commonplace to accept that some people hate gays and this shouldn't be. We shouldn't accept the hatred of any group of people and we should work to eradicate it, since it's usually based on ignorance. Allowing that ignorance to continue on the basis of allowing diversity of opinion is definitely not the solution.
Personally, I'm always shocked by how ingrained some people can be in their bigotry, though, and it's oftentimes hard to even talk to such people. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, however, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should be kept from trying.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
I don't know. I think I disagree. I think that if someone wants to be racist, homophobic, whatever, and they want to fire their opinions into a crowd and not defend themselves, they should still have the right to do that.
No, it's not a good thing but I don't see the sense in not allowing someone to express their opinion.
If I was a moderator on ProgressiveU, and I noticed someone who was causing some controversy by posting some blogs about how "gays are gross" and "mexicans should go back to where they came from," I would disagree with him and probably say so in the comments, but I wouldn't make an attempt to shut him down.
I say this because I used to be a religious fanatic, and it's only after really looking at myself and realizing that I need to start listening to other opinions besides those of my pastor that I finally "saw the light."
But we need to do the same for our views. Just because we don't think that homosexuality is anything to be ashamed of, or that racism is, like, so 1953... that doesn't mean that we should censor any opinions that say otherwise, no matter how little they care about the controversy they create. No matter how little they defend themselves or give good, valid arguments.
Sure we should talk to them, or argue with them, or whatever, but I don't think we should not let them speak, no matter how wrong we think them to be. Because we're all always on the other side of the fence until we climb over. Everyone should have the right to express their own opinion in any way they see fit, because nobody knows which opinion is correct.
I don't think that we should stop someone from saying whatever they want, even if it is racist. We have free speech in this country and that should be protected for everyone.
However, I don't think that we should let people get away with saying those things on the basis that they're an opnion and opinions should be respected. Those of us who see the comments for what they are should call them on it without fear of being called intolerant of others' opinions. This is our ability under free speech, but it is also something I consider to be a responsibility that's held by all people who value equality.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
...the doctrine of freedom of speech only applies to attempts by the government to shut you down. When travel onto someone else's property, they have a right to limit their speech in any way they wish, and to eject you from their property if you do not comply. I suspect that for ProU, the decision is completely mercenary (*aside* no offense, guys). ProU has a mission that involves the promotion of Progressive ideals, and letting some uses bash others with this kind of low-brow abuse chases away more members sympathetic to that mission than it attracts, making allowing it nothing more than bad business.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
On the other hand, I see the value of free speech as a progressive ideal, and historically this value has applied to anyone who wished to speak regardless of what they had to say. I don't think that someone with a prejudiced view should be kept from speaking about them, especially in a format such as the internet, as much as I'm disgusted by such people. If those remarks turn into threats, however, or cross the line into vulgarity, then they certainly should be stopped.
What I definitely disagree with is the idea that we shouldn't speak against prejudiced people.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
Some articles should be put in entireity instead of 4 paragraphs. The words get muddled. I mean you look at missing a few words can change the meaning.
Published Author and Poet
Teacher Education Student.
You've addressed a very relevant topic in this blog. There's nothing wrong with debating something controversial with someone, but honestly, there is such a thing as taking it too far. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what group it's against, and as such, it's intolerable. Sure, I'm one of those people who thinks homosexuality is wrong, but that has no impact on the way I treat gays. (In fact, some of my closest friends are gay.) If only some other people could apply the same principle... and not just on the issue of homosexuality, but every other controversial topic or lifestyle.
I'm in complete agreement with you that intolerance should not be tolerated.
And that's comin' at ya' from yer local redneck hippie.
--
The Story of Myself
"I am intolerant of intolerance"
Does this make me a hypocrite? Yes, but only in the literal sense. I guess the real question is what are we intolerant of? My list is:
1) Racism
2) Incompetence
3) Police who abuse on their own power
4) Republicaans (not a typo, just a reference to Apartheid)
5) Untrammeled greed
6) Texas oil men who become President
7) Texas politicians who lie to start a fight
Best Regards
Chuckhoek
and I must add...
8) Sexism
9) homophobia
10) willful ignorance
11) all manner of hypocrisy
If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed...nothing shall be impossible unto you. - Matthew 17:20
There is one point where you are right. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, as you said. However, they also have the right to "simply fire off with their opinions into a crowd (such as the members of ProU) and then dance away without having to face the responses that their opinions evoke." If I want to state my opinion and then "dance away," I have that right. You have the right to say what you want in return, but I don't have to listen.
As for your examples of discrimination against gay people, I agree that running up to them and yelling at them is wrong, as is murdering them. However, when it comes to things like allowing them to have sex, marry, etc. it is a gray area. You see, you can only discriminate (in a legal sense) when you don't allow them something because of something inherently different about them. Homosexuality has been shown to be a choice. In this article, http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/glbt_issues_life/59951/1, the author, a homosexual, contends that every person could be attracted to anyone, of either sex. They link to http://www.queerbychoice.com/, which is devoted to this idea. Now I don't agree, but it shows my point.
Heterosexuals (including "religious" people, which you seem to be "intolerant" of) are not all evil meanies that want to inhibit free choice. If they speak, they are merely doing what they see as right.
By the way, if a tolerant society is intolerant of intolerance, then they must, by their own rule, cease to be intolerant, and tolerate the intolerants.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
First off, the sources you list are neither peer-reviewed nor particularly reputable. The first article didn't even have an author that I could see no less credentials for that author.
But fine, let's accept your premise that homosexuality is a choice. There are other life choices we protect legally and you don't see people screaming about them. Religion for example. People choose a religion, it is part of their identity, yes, but in essence it's a choice. A person could stop being Christian without having to lop off a body part or change their skin color and yet we protect their rights to practice the way they want. We don't make Jewish or Muslim weddings any less valid than Christian ones, though people could choose which ceremony to have. We don't stop Jewish couples from adopting children because they chose to be Jewish.
So why are you saying that it's not "right" for a government to protect choices? Homosexuality is NOT a choice, and this has been proven by many different reputable sources, many of which are quoted in other posts all around this site so I won't bother to repeat them here. However, if it WAS a choice, what gives us the right not to protect that choice? It doesn't hurt anyone, it's not removing anyone else's rights from them, it's a choice between two consenting adults who want to be with the person they love. How is that NOT worth protecting with laws?
What scares me even more than you classifying allowing them to marry as a "gray area" is that you list "letting them have sex" as a gray area, too. Are you saying we should stop homosexuals from having sex? How do you propose we do that? Institute a military state with cameras in every home? It is none of your business, and even less the business of our government, who we love, who we marry, or who we have sex with. Government has no right to regulate these things in the name of religion and there is no gray area in that.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
Okay, look. My point with those sources was that not everyone agrees that homosexuality is a choice. It was not that "well, because these people say so, there is no room for argument."
As for the gray area, I do not support making homosexual sex a crime, I was merely saying that there is room for argument. I never said that it's not right for government to protect their choice to practice homosexuality. As for marriage, it is a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of forming a family and continuing the survival of the human race, at least without involving religion. Gay or lesbian couples do not procreate. If homosexuality were natural, we'd expect to find instances of homosexuality in the wild and the ability for same-sex couples to procreate. We do not find either of these, however.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
Well, next time you make an "other people don't agree statement" it will carry a lot mroe weight if it's someone who actually has some credentials. Just because there are some people out there who think homosexuality is a choice doesn't make it a fact that it is.
Also, your definition of marriage is nothing but religious opinion. Marriage itself started as a religious ceremony and for many it still is. Legally, however, religion shouldn't enter into it. Legally, there are rights and perks that married people get that those in a civil union don't. Legally, there was no definition of marriage having to be for procreation or having to be between a man and a woman until the religious nuts got a hold of it.
And we DO find many instances of homosexuality in nature; animals of all species exhibit same-sex relations, from penguins to primates. They can't procreate, true, but there are animals who have sex for pleasure, not merely to procreate...including humans.
Try as you and many others might, there is no airtight argument against homosexuality that doesn't include religious doctrine. Heck, there isn't an airtight argument that does include religion in my opinion, but I'm sure that others could debate that better than I.
I also notice that you didn't address the crux of my argument, either. Whether homosexuality is a choice or not, whether it's considered "wrong" by certain people or not, the government doesn't have a right to treat a group of people differently from the majority or deny that group any of the rights given to the community at large. Period.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
Marriage itself started as a religious ceremony...
This common assumption is simply not true. The form of the institution of marriage as it is practiced in this country originated in the Common Law of England, and existed for centuries before christianity was ever even introduced into British Isles. Historically speaking, marriage (at least as far back as recorded history permits us to explore) seems to have originated as a secular arrangement between citizens and their rulers. Even from a christian perspective, prior to the 10th century C.E. marriages took place completely outside the auspices of the church, and the church did not actually begin to preside over marriage as a sacrament until as late as the 13th century.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I didn't know that! Thanks for the info, Blackout.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
If I want to state my opinion and then "dance away," I have that right. You have the right to say what you want in return, but I don't have to listen.
You are correct. You DO have that right. However, I would suggest that doing makes it very difficult to respect your opinions, and THAT was what I was getting at.
However, when it comes to things like allowing them to have sex, marry, etc. it is a gray area.
I disagree that this is a "gray area." At least when it comes to having sex, the Supreme Court of the United States has issued a very clear ruling in that regard.
As for marriage, the same principles apply, and any lack of clarity on your part would seem to me more of the same failure to listen that you described above.
Homosexuality has been shown to be a choice. In this article...
Your sources are less than credible. Here is a source however that is credible...
But even if it were a choice, what difference would that make, really? In the U.S., we protect the rights of citizens from infringement regardless of biological considerations (such as race) OR ideological choices (like religion). The fundamental rights of citizens in this country are not subject to infringement simply because they make a "choice" that you don't like.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
What, so now because the Supreme Court, says something, they must be right, and we as stupid citizens must conform our beliefs to theirs? Just because they've issued that ruling doesn't prove anything. The Supreme Court is not God. Not to mention, the Supreme Court should do some more research. Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment (which is what they're referring to) does not provide any new liberties, it merely confirms the duty of the government to protect those already given. Whether the right to practice homosexuality is a "right" is not answered in the Constitution- it's up for grabs.
As for your source, notice in the last sentence the word "sense." ... "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." Just because you don't "feel" something doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Ever hear of the subconscious? Besides, there have been many confirmed instances where homosexuals went straight.
Since you doubted my first sources, try this one (which has many links to other credible sources)
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/genomics/2002/Pierce/gaygene.htm
It shows how much doubt there is about the scientific merit of research supposedly showing that homosexuality is genetically inherited.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
I'd just like to comment on one line of your response:
"What, so now because the Supreme Court, says something, they must be right, and we as stupid citizens must conform our beliefs to theirs?"
You're right, the Supreme Court does not control people's beliefs, nor does it presume to do so. However, it DOES control our nation's LAWS which definitely should conform to Supreme Court rulings.
I'd also like to point out that our laws haven't always coincided with people's beliefs, but there are certain basic principles that they should coincide with, such as equality, which is really what the SPIRIT of the 14th Amendment was. I completely support the Supreme Court's decision to rule based on the spirit of equality rather than the strict interpretation of that law.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
What, so now because the Supreme Court, says something, they must be right, and we as stupid citizens must conform our beliefs to theirs? Just because they've issued that ruling doesn't prove anything.
Acutally, yes...when the Supreme Court of the United States issues a ruling, it DOES prove something. Unlike many appeals to authority, an appeal to the rulings of the SCOTUS relies on an actual authority that has specifically be established to be the final arbiter of "who's right and who's wrong" when it comes to questions in U.S. Law. As someone who loves to cite court cases almost as much as I do, one would think that you would know this.
The Supreme Court is not God.
And, it doesn't have to be since, fortunately, our Constitution protects us from people who try to use "god" as an excuse to violate the basic civil rights of other citizens. Unlike your imaginary friend, the Supreme Court is a REAL entity, and one that in fact has the actual authority to make definitive legal statements about what is or is not consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
Not to mention, the Supreme Court should do some more research. Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment (which is what they're referring to) does not provide any new liberties, it merely confirms the duty of the government to protect those already given. Whether the right to practice homosexuality is a "right" is not answered in the Constitution- it's up for grabs.
Such a statement indicates that you know very little about Constitutional Law. What the Fourteenth Amendment actually says, is this....
"All persons"...not "all straight persons"...not all "christian" persons...but, "ALL persons" who are citizens have a right to the same "privileges [and] immunities," and must be afforded the "equal protection of the laws." Whether you like it or not (and it satisfies me greatly to know that you do not), the Suprme Court does have the authority to make these decisions regarding the rights of citizens, and they have in this case ruled firmly against your position.
And just to clarify that...THIS MEANS THAT YOU ARE WRONG. Your position is wrong. Your opinion of the law is wrong. Your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong. That you are wrong is not an opinion. It is a fact, based on the authority granted to the the SOCTUS in Article III of the Constitution of the United States.
As for your source, notice in the last sentence the word "sense." ... "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." Just because you don't "feel" something doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Ever hear of the subconscious? Besides, there have been many confirmed instances where homosexuals went straight.
I think it is remarkably disingenuous for you to suggest that the term "choice" as applied both in your own arguments and in your new friend's was offered in a context referring to subconscious "choices." This is typical of the shell game that often accompanies such arguments. The "sense of choice" mentioned in the APA source refers to exactly that...people who are gay are rarely aware of any sort of conscious "choice to be gay." The APA's statement does not in ANY way suggest that these people ARE making a choice, but simply aren't aware of it. The statement is offered specifically as a response to the very charge that you are making, i.e. that people do somehow "choose" to be gay. The APA is pointing out that the evidence does not show that, and that your conclusion is not supported by the APA's experience with patients.
Since you doubted my first sources, try this one (which has many links to other credible sources)
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/genomics/2002/Pierce/gaygene.htm
It shows how much doubt there is about the scientific merit of research supposedly showing that homosexuality is genetically inherited.
I would suggest that (as usual) your interpretation of the data is a bit skewed by your personal bias, not to mention the fact that it is more than a little out of date. The study of the root causes of same-sex orientation is of relatively recent interest, and it was (and is) valid to criticize the methodology of the studies that were done in the early nineties due to their small sampling sizes, and subsequently shaky conclusions. However, the study does go on, and the growing body of research is pointing to a complex array of causes...some biological and some environmental...however there is no credible, published and peer reviewed research that suggests that homosexuality is a "choice." Here is an article from DISCOVER Magazine that discusses some of the more recent studies in the literature...
If you read the full article, you may notice that several of the specific studies that your source criticized for lack of corrobaration have actually been repeated, and their findings confirmed by larger and more recent studies in just the last couple of years, such as LeVay's study of INAH-3, whose findings were recently replicated by William Byne at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
The bottom line is that you would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist who actually agree with your position, at least not to the way that you attempt to inflate legitimate questions regarding findings and methodology from what they actually are into some sort of "anti-conclusion" that gay people "choose" to be gay. The tactic is ignorant at best, and intentionally obtuse, even deceptive at worst...but that's to be expected, I suppose.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Everyone is intolerant of certain things and has their own predjudices, so "should we tolerate intolerance?" Yes, we do all the time as we should. We cannot be tolerant of everything, as no society is, but as far as ranting online...that would be a waste of time to spend efforts being intolerable to. You can't reach across your network and punish whoever pisses you off. If you want to be intolerant of certain opinionated bloggers who don’t always have the time to write long articles and retort to criticism, start your own website where you can regulate and monitor (and even delete) whatever you please. The owners of this website are the only people who can make the decision of what to tolerate and what not to.
Anyway, on a different note, since this blog does not seem to be about tolerating intolerance, it seems to be more about disliking people who dislike gays, I want to add my 2 cents.
I agree with Politae, that Homosexuality is a choice, therefore should not be categorized in the same field as race, sex, left-handedness, or any other genetically proven condition. As bad as scientists who support the gay cause want to find that "gay" gene, there just isn't the evidence that is needed to prove it exists. This is what turns me off about the gay argument (and yes I have gay friends just to make this clear): they claim it is genetic. OK: Where's the gene? There is a Y chromosome in a man to separate them genetically from women, there is a gene found in all true lefthanders, called the LRRTM1 gene (just throwing this out there) and as for skin tone...we all know that is genetic, but to be more specific it is a serious of 6 main genes that control skin color, the most powerful of the six is the SLC24A5 gene. I don’t have to prove to you that the gay gene doesn’t exist, because I am not claiming that is doesn’t. However, in order to claim gayness is genetic, YOU have to prove to me that the gene DOES exists. Until proven, I have reasonable right to believe gay is a choice concluding that you have no reason to place it alongside with race and sex. Until it is proven and isolated, the theatrical "gay gene" should not be used in arguments, leading me to conclude that "homosexuality" should not be categorized with race or sex.
Now, given that homosexuality is a choice, why should the state or federal government go out of it’s way to support and benefit the choice? Do they go out of their way to make laws for the Jewish society? If you are Roman Catholic and want to marry by the church, that is fine, but that would not be upheld in court. You would also have to be married by the state court and in a sense be married twice, in order for your marriage to be “legal”. You can choose your religion, just like your sexual orientation, however, to demand that the government go out of its way to support your personal life choices on a higher level is IMO a faulty argument. Gay people have as much rights as I do. They can get married if they want to (just not the same sex) Neither can I…since gayness is a choice, why should the state go out of it’s way to cater to it? I would like to add that I am left-handed and many things in life, like even cars and driving favor right-handers. It would be ridiculous for me to demand the government change the nature of driving to accommodate my left-handedness, since the majority or people are right handed and the roads favor that. And there is an isolated GENE scientists have found that PROVE I have no choice over what side of my brain I use more…you don’t see left-handers parading around and ranting about how they are so oppressed in a right-handed world, blah, blah blah…we deal with it and find bigger issues to address. I have the same rights as anyone else.
...and it is no surprise to me that we have found yet another blogger who defends the idea of "tolerance" as nothing more than an excuse to express their own personal bias.
I agree with Politae, that Homosexuality is a choice, therefore should not be categorized in the same field as race, sex, left-handedness, or any other genetically proven condition. As bad as scientists who support the gay cause want to find that "gay" gene, there just isn't the evidence that is needed to prove it exists.
I would suggest that you opinion is no more well founded in the scientific literature than in Politae's. I often find that my opponents in these debates tend to define "bad scientists" as anyone who doesn't agree with their pre-conceived notions, and I have YET to meet one who could actually discuss the subject on an intelligent and scholarly level.
To save time, I will point you opinion which is held by the overwhelming majority of scientists...
It has also been shown that sexual orientation can be manipulated through biochemical and genetic means...
The idea that homosexuality is just a causal choice that people make is really just silly, especially when one becomes familiar with the significant and ever-growing body of scientific data surrounding the subject.
This is what turns me off about the gay argument (and yes I have gay friends just to make this clear): they claim it is genetic. OK: Where's the gene? There is a Y chromosome in a man to separate them genetically from women, there is a gene found in all true lefthanders, called the LRRTM1 gene (just throwing this out there) and as for skin tone...we all know that is genetic, but to be more specific it is a serious of 6 main genes that control skin color, the most powerful of the six is the SLC24A5 gene.
Please be careful not to project your argument with your friends onto me. I believe that there is clear evidence to suggest that there is likely a strong biologically driven component behind human sexual orientation, but that opinion does not necessitate a direct link to a single genetic marker. And, I am also not one of those flighty fairies who is afraid of the possibility that there is likewise a component of choice to the matter (despite the preponderance of the evidence).
As to the evidence in support of my position, it is quite extensive. Here is a link to a source that give an excellent overview of the extant resesarch...
The Biology of Sexual Orientation
I don’t have to prove to you that the gay gene doesn’t exist, because I am not claiming that is doesn’t. However, in order to claim gayness is genetic, YOU have to prove to me that the gene DOES exists. Until proven, I have reasonable right to believe gay is a choice concluding that you have no reason to place it alongside with race and sex. Until it is proven and isolated, the theatrical "gay gene" should not be used in arguments, leading me to conclude that "homosexuality" should not be categorized with race or sex.
That you think that the only two options in the discussion are that homosexuality is either a conscious choice or that it must be linked to a single genetic marker in order demonstrates a rather shallow knowledge of the subject matter. Not all biological traits are genetic, after all.
But, that is somewhat beside the point. In terms of discrimination, homosexuality is like race of sex in that it represents an invidious categorization through which some people attempt to excuse the way that they infringe upon the basic rights of other citizens.
Now, given that homosexuality is a choice,
I don't think that you have objectively established this as a fact, but just for fun I will present a counter-argument that addresses your position.
why should the state or federal government go out of it’s way to support and benefit the choice?
I don't think it qualifies as "support" to ask the government to protect the fundamental rights of citizens from being infringed upon. In fact, that's kind of the whole point behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wouldn't you agree? The right to equal treatment under the law is a Constitutional guarantee, and not some favor that we have to satisfy you in order to receive. If that concept is arcane to you, please refer to the of the Supreme Court of the United States, which has ruled very plainly on the subject...
Do they go out of their way to make laws for the Jewish society?
Actually yes, they do...for example...
Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004
Gay people have as much rights as I do. They can get married if they want to (just not the same sex) Neither can I…since gayness is a choice, why should the state go out of it’s way to cater to it?
There are a couple of fallacies here. The first is the idea that fundamental rights can be denied to a citizen because of their sex. I am a man, and yes...I can technically marry a woman if I wanted to. However, my rights as a citizen supposed to be the same as those afforded to all other citizens, regardless of (among other things) sex. If you are also a man, a comparison between us does not reveal the disparity, but when you make the comparison with a female citizen, it becomes obvious. Why is a female citizen afforded a right that is denied to a male citizen?
But more than this, many people misconstrue the nature of the actual right which is being discussed in regards to marry. The way that the SCOTUS describes it is thus...
Marrige is a fundamental freedom in this country, and the idea that the federal government gets to interfere in the most basic choice associated with that freedom, i.e. the ability of two citizens to exercise this joint right, runs contrary to the very idea of living in a free society. You see, people don't have to convince you to let them exercise their basic civil rights. On the contrary, the burden in cases of this sort lies squarely on the shoulders of the government, who must provide a compelling interest of the State to limit that exercise, and any restrictions it lays must be free of any invidious form of classification. The current laws that restrict marriage and exclude gay people from exercising this fundamental freedom are not built around any such justification.
I would like to add that I am left-handed
As am I...
and many things in life, like even cars and driving favor right-handers. It would be ridiculous for me to demand the government change the nature of driving to accommodate my left-handedness, since the majority or people are right handed and the roads favor that.
The difference, of course, is that driving is not a fundamental right or freedom. If it were, and if the extant laws forbade you from getting a drivers license because you were left-handed, then your comparison would perhaps be valid.
And there is an isolated GENE scientists have found that PROVE I have no choice over what side of my brain I use more…you don’t see left-handers parading around and ranting about how they are so oppressed in a right-handed world, blah, blah blah…we deal with it and find bigger issues to address. I have the same rights as anyone else.
I think you might see a few more lefties up in arms (if you'll pardon the pun) if, for example, states started passing laws that made left-handed scissors illegal, or started singling out left-handed people and telling them, "you can be fired for being left handed" or "you can't visit your loved ones in the hospital because you are left-handed." Personally, I can't think of many issues which I consider "bigger" than an infringement of the basic rights that enumerated in the Constitution.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Note: Your argument of states passing laws to BAN INDEPENDENT free businesses from producing scissors for left-handers is a remarkably faulty comparison to forcing the state GOVERNMENT to PASS laws in order to ACCOMMODATE homosexuals. After all, we do allow independent churches and other facilities to marry gays anywhere in the country. We also allow independent bars/night clubs and whatever other business there is, to cater to the gay community. Now if that were BANNED, I would think that homosexuals are oppressed. But the truth is they have the same rights as I do.
And secondly, the manner of your reply, when involving personal attacks, gives me reason to question your credibility.
Finally, your reference to the government going out of their way to accommodate the Jewish society is nothing more then an act gathering reports of anti -semantic violence for record keeping, as the government does for various crimes including homosexuality, and to clear this up, my reference to the Jewish society was not racial, it was religious. I would not categorized homosexuality with race as I have elaborated on the reasons why (as stated previously, absolutely no scientific isolation or proof of the particular set of "homosexual genes").
To clear this up, for example Jewish, which can refer to ethnicity or religion, in my context, i am referring to religion, a personal choice, which your article has no reference to.
Please use the reply button to reply to comments. It makes the conversation flow much better and lets people know you're talking to them.
After all, we do allow independent churches and other facilities to marry gays anywhere in the country.
Unless they're in California or Massachusetts, they're still not legally recognized marriages. Every State has its own marriage laws. Two States recognize same-sex marriages, and even those marriages aren't recognized by the federal government.
And secondly, the manner of your reply, when involving personal attacks, gives me reason to question your credibility.
I'm not seeing any personal attacks made by Blackout. But if you see any, you're welcome to hit the "report this page" link and write out your complaint for the faculty to take a look at.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Don Williams, Jr.
Read my Blog!
The Sex Change Blog
Note: Your argument of states passing laws to BAN INDEPENDENT free businesses from producing scissors for left-handers is a remarkably faulty comparison to forcing the state GOVERNMENT to PASS laws in order to ACCOMMODATE homosexuals. After all, we do allow independent churches and other facilities to marry gays anywhere in the country. We also allow independent bars/night clubs and whatever other business there is, to cater to the gay community. Now if that were BANNED, I would think that homosexuals are oppressed. But the truth is they have the same rights as I do.
As is often the case with the opponents of same-sex marriage, you are fundamentally misconstruing the relationships between the various entities that perform marriage, and the government agencies through which provide benifits and issue restrictions governing that practice. A church that performs a marriage is very much like an independent free business that produces a product (like scissors). Where your counter-point fails is in the fact that the government regulates the application of ALL of the legal benefits that arise from these relationships. Marriage in this country is first and foremost a legal institution, and the legal rights and priveledges associated with these agreements have been clearly defined by our Supreme Court as a fundamental right that must be afforded equally to all citizens. A more accurate rephrasing our your counter-point would be a situation in which the government arbitrarily stepped in and told all businesses that they could produce scissors if they wanted to, but ONLY those companies that were favored by the government could actually SELL them legally to consumers. And with the exception of two states (three, if you count New York's recognition of same-sex marraiges performed out-of-state), these marriages ARE banned in every practical sense. I for one could not care less whether or not some church decides to perform a same-sex union. Our freedom of religion leaves that decision WHOLLY in the court of that religion's members to decide for themselves. However, since the government is a party to the licensing process, and designates through legislation the benefits and responsiblities associated with the institution, it has a Constituional obligation to ensure that all citizens have equal access to the process. And even the federal government has already acknowledged that same-sex couples are NOT afforded the same rights as other citizens, in this report from the General Accounting Office, which identified 1,138 federal statuatory provisions which the inability to marry freely clearly prohibits gay citzens from any reasonable chance of access.
And secondly, the manner of your reply, when involving personal attacks, gives me reason to question your credibility.
You may question my credibility if you like. I am certain that our readers are capable of discerning which of us has a more objective basis for our respective positions.
Finally, your reference to the government going out of their way to accommodate the Jewish society is nothing more then an act gathering reports of anti -semantic violence for record keeping, as the government does for various crimes including homosexuality, and to clear this up, my reference to the Jewish society was not racial, it was religious.
Anti-semitism is a blight that is both racial and religious in nature, albeit perhaps not both to all anti-semites. Nevertheless, the example provided met the conditions of your challege. If you wish to move the goal-posts, that's fine...both the The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed in part to address discriminatory situations that specifically targetted the Jewish community, and in fact, both pieces of legislation were originally "drafted in the conference room of Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, under the aegis of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, which for decades was located in the Center." (LINK)
I would not categorized homosexuality with race as I have elaborated on the reasons why (as stated previously, absolutely no scientific isolation or proof of the particular set of "homosexual genes").
You claim that there is "absolutely no scientific isolation or proof of the particular set of 'homosexual genes'" is blatanly false, as the research to which I directed demonstrates. That research is far from conclusive, but to suggest that there are NO findings that support this conclusion is the kind of willful ignorance that seems to ALWAYS characterize the advocates of the positions you espouse.
To clear this up, for example Jewish, which can refer to ethnicity or religion, in my context, i am referring to religion, a personal choice, which your article has no reference to.
This clarification really doesn't help your position, since our Constitution protects the rights of individual citzens regardless of their biological OR their ideological identities. The default assumption of our system of government is that ALL citzens are possessed of certain unalienable rights, and that to infringe upon those rights the burden of producing a compelling interest for doing so lies squarely on the shoulders of the State rather than the citizen. Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is biologically driven, or is rather the result of a conscious choice (an element which I entertain only for the purpose of argument, there is no scientifically credible data which suggests this to be the case), the fact remains that our Supreme Court has clearly expressed that the rights of gay citizens have the same right to pursue relationships with one another as do straight citizens.
Again, we really don't have to provide you with a justification to exercise our freedom to marry. That burden lies of those who oppose, and nothing that you have presented thus far seems to me to satisfy the compelling interest standard, or even the less stringent rational person test which will by necessity govern the eventual resolution of the legal questions involved. As for the question of biology versus choice (and I must note again that your desire to cling to the imagined necessity of a single genetic marker as the root cause of homosexuality is nothing but a desperate attempt to isolate your argument from the wider body of scientific knowledge surrounding this issue), that question will eventually answer itself through the usual scientific process as time marches on and the research into the matter progresses. Such questions only matter to those who are insecure about their own identies...i.e. gay people who are still driven to escape society's disapproval, and their opponents who erroneously think that being gay-by-choice would somehow excuse their inhumane treatement of their fellow citizens.
TTFN,
Blackout
P.S. Please use the reply button. It makes it easier for our readers to follow the discussion.
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
wow..more hostility ! I am beginning to feel like a homosexual....(jk) Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, however, it is annoying when my opinions are constantly copy/pasted and taken out of context. That kind of makes me feel like it is more of a personal attack . I! :
Homosexuality is a choice, therefore should not be categorized in the same field as race, sex, left-handedness, or any other genetically proven condition. As bad as scientists who support the gay cause want to find that "gay" gene, there just isn't the evidence that is needed to prove it exists. This is what turns me off about the gay argument (and yes I have gay friends just to make this clear): they claim it is genetic. OK: Where's the gene? There is a Y chromosome in a man to separate them genetically from women, there is a gene found in all true lefthanders, called the LRRTM1 gene (just throwing this out there) and as for skin tone...we all know that is genetic, but to be more specific it is a serious of 6 main genes that control skin color, the most powerful of the six is the SLC24A5 gene. I don’t have to prove to you that the gay gene doesn’t exist, because I am not claiming that is doesn’t. However, in order to claim gayness is genetic, YOU have to prove to me that the gene DOES exists. Until proven, I have reasonable right to believe gay is a choice concluding that you have no reason to place it alongside with race and sex. Until it is proven and isolated, the theatrical "gay gene" should not be used in arguments, leading me to conclude that "homosexuality" should not be categorized with race or sex.
Now, given that homosexuality is a choice, why should the state or federal government go out of it’s way to support and benefit the choice? (Is the choice benefiting society in anyway by creating more jobs, resources, ect? )
That is the premises for my stand on the issue. If the gene was discovered, found to be in most homosexuals and not in most heterosexuals, I think I might be willing to change my mind a little bit on the issue. Until then, I don't have time to read about scientists trying to imitate gayness in nature by mutating fruit flies! (Sorry, Blackout) Neither do I want to read about psychologists trying to support the "gayness is genetic" argument...I want to see GENETIC ENGINEERS isolate that particular gene(s) , just like all the other major genetic traits in humans. I think that homosexuals "victimize" themselves, with all the media attention. I have school and work to attend to, and I have learned that when you victimize yourself in life, you become an angry and bitter person. I am sorry if gays were ever the victim of any hate crimes...guess what? most violent crimes are hateful and disgusting, leading almost all victims, victims of "hate" crimes. I think everyone should be treated equally, and feel bad for victims of all severe hate crimes. But I stand where I stand on the issue as homosexuals have the same rights that I do (they can even get away with more sometimes). People with the least amount of rights are the silent ones. Like every year, far over 1,000 children die from child abuse. Why isn't that all over the media? Those are the real victims...people who are silent and do not have a voice, or name. Homosexuals have a huge voice and impact everywhere I look.
wow..more hostility !
I do tend to get "hostile" with those who think it is alright to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. I will neither deny nor apologize for it. I have little patience for ignorance, and none at all for invidious bigotries.
Homosexuality is a choice,
You keep saying this, but you have yet to point to even ONE piece of actual evidence, much less to a credible scientific study that would suggest that it is true. Considering that I have directed you numerous studies that do not support your premise, I an only at this piont assume that your unwillingness to budge from this fallacy is due to unreasoned bias.
I don’t have to prove to you that the gay gene doesn’t exist, because I am not claiming that is doesn’t. However, in order to claim gayness is genetic, YOU have to prove to me that the gene DOES exists. Until proven, I have reasonable right to believe gay is a choice concluding that you have no reason to place it alongside with race and sex. Until it is proven and isolated, the theatrical "gay gene" should not be used in arguments, leading me to conclude that "homosexuality" should not be categorized with race or sex.
This is a misapplication of an argument for the negative proof logical fallacy. In this example, you are incorrectly assiming that the "choice" argument is the negative default to the argument that being gay is genetic. This is not true. Claiming that being gay is a "choice" is just as much a positive assertion as saying that being gay is genetic. To advance either claim, one needs to provide some sort of actual evidence that would support the proposition. I have provided you with this sort of evidence...not conclusive evidence to be sure, but highly suggestive and I would suggest compelling evidence. You on the other hand have provided us with nothing at all in the way of evidence to support your position, which is not surprising considering the utter lack of support that your opinion carries in the legitimate scientific community.
Now, given that homosexuality is a choice, why should the state or federal government go out of it’s way to support and benefit the choice? (Is the choice benefiting society in anyway by creating more jobs, resources, ect? )
The most obvious reason is that the fundamental rights of citizens are not subject to disenfranchisement simply because you don't like that citizens choices. Even if one accepts the essentially baseless argument that homosexuality is a "choice," the legal argument that points back to the fundamental rights of citizenship as defined by Constitution applies regardless of whether the trait is biological (like race of sex) or ideological (like religion or creed). The burden of proof still lies with the State to provide a compelling interest in order to limit a citizen's desire to exercise any basic right. The citizen on the other hand carries no burden at all, and may exercise his or her rights for any reason that he or she wishes, and owes no explanation or justifcatio to you or anyone else. That's what it means to live in a free country.
That is the premises for my stand on the issue. If the gene was discovered, found to be in most homosexuals and not in most heterosexuals, I think I might be willing to change my mind a little bit on the issue. Until then, I don't have time to read about scientists trying to imitate gayness in nature by mutating fruit flies! (Sorry, Blackout) Neither do I want to read about psychologists trying to support the "gayness is genetic" argument...I want to see GENETIC ENGINEERS isolate that particular gene(s) , just like all the other major genetic traits in humans.
Of course you don't want to read them...that would require you to expose yourself to the evidence and to try to actually understand the issue in more depth than the intellectual wading pool of your current opinion allows. If you are too lazy to educate yourself, oh well...you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
The friut fly experiments are pretty conclusive in demonstrating that sexuality traits are heavily grounded in the biology of the subject. The most relevant fields to the question of what causes same-sex are psychology, sociology, and biology (of which genetics is but a single sub-discipline). The prevaling opinion in ALL of these fields is the same regarding the question of whether or not homosexuality is a "choice." It is an outdated, and widely rejected opinion that is not supported by the evidence.
I think that homosexuals "victimize" themselves, with all the media attention.
Ah yes...blame the victim. Where have we heard that before?
I have school and work to attend to, and I have learned that when you victimize yourself in life, you become an angry and bitter person.
The only think that provokes me to be angry and bitter are people who go out of their way to fuck up the lives of other people who have done nothing to harm them.
I am sorry if gays were ever the victim of any hate crimes...guess what? most violent crimes are hateful and disgusting, leading almost all victims, victims of "hate" crimes.
You seem determined to to have an argument with me that began with someone else. I am not a supporter of hate crime legislation. I think that a violent attack is a violent attack. Punishing people for their motivations is not "blind justice." I must however, point out that many people seem to think that gay people invented the idea of a hate crime. This is false. The earliest hate crime legislation in this country was passed in response to crimes that were motivated by anti-racial and anti-religious motivations. I don't really like these laws, but they are firmly entrenched in our legal system, and applying those laws to gay people is just a recent add-on.
But I stand where I stand on the issue as homosexuals have the same rights that I do (they can even get away with more sometimes).
*stares blankly* With the exception of two states, (three if you count New York), our government sytematically denies many of the most basic privleges and immunities of citizenship to gay citizens. The fact that we even NEEDED a Supreme Court decision just to tell the people that you can't arrest and imprison gay couples for sleeping together speaks VOLUMES about how pervasive and severe the abbrogation of our rights really is. If you don't see this, then you really must be living under a rock somewhere.
People with the least amount of rights are the silent ones.
And this was the case for gay people, untill we started standing up for ourselves after Stonewall.
Like every year, far over 1,000 children die from child abuse. Why isn't that all over the media? Those are the real victims...people who are silent and do not have a voice, or name.
A straw-man argument? Tsk, tsk... Oh, and this IS discussed in the media quit a bit. Do you read the news every day? You see more about gay rights in the media right now because frankly, we're wining our fight. Its a hot-button political issue and let's face it...bigots rarely go quitely when you give them the the ole' heave-ho.
Homosexuals have a huge voice and impact everywhe