Posted: Thu 29 Jun 2006 00:12 Post subject: Gay Agenda(s): Who's Been Marginalized?
This is a continuation of a discussion that started on another board.
I think it's safe to say that the face of the homosexual (or non-heterosexual) agenda in the West is:
1. Liberal to moderate
2. In pursuit of marriage rights
3. Male - as in attention is focused on gay men rather than lesbians, bisexuals or transsexual/transgendered people
GLAAD's (http://www.glaad.org/)website paints this picture, and I think it is the most recognized LGBT advocacy group in the US at least.
What I'm less clear on is whether this show of LGBT unity masks massive differences in agenda on the sub group level, because there definitely are differences. For example:
4. Issues of race and gender also don't seem to get much airtime unless it is about the "down low" phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down-low).
I'm sure there are more.
My question is this: Is it fair to say that there is one gay agenda, when the group seems pretty diverse? The only common theme seems to be that their sexuality/gender identification marginalizes them from mainstream society once they declare it. Especially since the nature or nurture debate over whether people are born with a predisposition towards a certain sexuality continues. It seems like moderately liberal White men are declaring their agenda as the gay agenda. What do other people think?
Last edited by sagascend on Sat 15 Jul 2006 14:44; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sat 15 Jul 2006 04:56 Post subject: Re: Gay Agenda(s): Who's Been Marginalized?
sagascend wrote:
This is a continuation of a discussion that started on another board.
I think it's safe to say that the face of the homosexual (or non-heterosexual) agenda in the West is:
1. Liberal to moderate
2. In pursuit of marriage rights
3. Male - as in attention is focused on gay men rather than lesbians, bisexuals or transsexual/transgendered people
GLAAD's (http://www.glaad.org/) website paints this picture, and I think it is the most recognized LGBT advocacy group in the US at least.
What I'm less clear on is whether this show of LGBT unity masks massive differences in agenda on the sub group level, because there definitely are differences. For example:
1. There's no discussion of the gay people that renounce their sexual orientation and "turn" heterosexual ([url]http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/menus/faq.html [/url] )
I saw a few things on this, it was pointed out that the newest leaders of a group called Exodus were heterosexual because the 2 original ex-gay leaders fell in love and ran off together.
2. I saw a disclaimer of NAMBLA ([url]http://216.220.97.17/pederasty.htm[/url]) on GLAAD's website ([url]http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_detail.php?id=278&), [/url]but yet it seems that they were once closely aligned with mainstream gay rights groups and that wasn't acknowledged. This renunciation also didn't happen until 1990.
3. I don't even think gay conservatives get airtime on Fox News ([url]http://www.gaypatriot.net/)[/url]
4. Issues of race and gender also don't seem to get much airtime unless it is about the "down low" phenomenon ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down-low[/url]).
That's a funny one, why is it a phenomenon because the men happen to be Black? Isn't it just men who happen to be black in the closet?
I'm sure there are more.
My question is this: Is it fair to say that there is one gay agenda, when the group seems pretty diverse? The only common theme seems to be that their sexuality/gender identification marginalizes them from mainstream society once they declare it. Especially since the nature or nurture debate over whether people are born with a predisposition towards a certain sexuality continues. It seems like moderately liberal White men are declaring their agenda as the gay agenda. What do other people think?
It seems like moderately liberal White men are declaring their agenda as the gay agenda.
I would amend that by changing moderately liberal White (gay) men to liberal to leftist white gay men (that's how I see things). In my opinion, these are the gay men who are declaring their agenda the gay agenda and are attempting to speak for some idealized, monolithic gay community.
Gay writer and conservative (to his critics, but sensibly liberal) , Bruce Bawer writes extensively about the crowding out if you will of other voices in the "gay community" by the aforementioned.
Sadly, these are the people who get to define how gays are supposed to think and feel on a whole host of issues, so our perception of gays is shaped largely by these men..... And the gay men we see on televison.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Wed 19 Jul 2006 22:01 Post subject: Gays are not an ethnic group
Hi,
What makes me feel upset about this thing of the "gay movement" is that they call themselves a "minority". They classified themselves in the cathegory of "opressed minorities", together with Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Indians and other people.
Well, gays are not a minority. It is a group of persons of any ethnic group that have sexual behavoir in common. They are not an ethnic group and I believe they should not be treated like an ethnic group at all.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 20 Jul 2006 14:19 Post subject:
Omar wrote:
What makes me feel upset about this thing of the "gay movement" is that they call themselves a "minority". They classified themselves in the cathegory of "opressed minorities", together with Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Indians and other people.
Well, gays are not a minority. It is a group of persons of any ethnic group that have sexual behavoir in common. They are not an ethnic group and I believe they should not be treated like an ethnic group at all.
People define themselves in all sorts of ways, not just ethnically or "racially." To some, their sexual orientation is more important. To others, their religion trumps everything else. To still others, status and wealth (or lack thereof) carry the most weight. Any group can protest or start a movement. The question is which movements will be honored and taken seriously. In America, "racial" issues seem to be the most important.
The question is which [self-identity] movements will be honored and taken seriously.
Interestingly, the notion of solidarity in homosexuality as a self-identity (as opposed to being a mere hobby or personal experimentation) dates only from around the 1930s. National-origin ethnicities arose about a century before that. And "Blackness" as self-identity arose about over a century before that. I wonder why demands for rights on behalf of a "gay" self-identity took so long to coalesce. After all, homosexuality (as behavior, not self-identity) goes back to before the chimp-human split 5 mYA. It also makes you wonder what on earth will be invented as the next rights-demanding self-identity?
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Thu 20 Jul 2006 14:47 Post subject: Suggestions
fwsweet wrote:
...It also makes you wonder what on earth will be invented as the next rights-demanding self-identity?
Some suggestions:
Nerds self-steem association,
Chess players against sportmen.
Stamp collectors rights.
League against discrimination of Rich people.
Test tube children ethnicity.
Mafia's heritage.
The question is which [self-identity] movements will be honored and taken seriously.
Interestingly, the notion of solidarity in homosexuality as a self-identity (as opposed to being a mere hobby or personal experimentation) dates only from around the 1930s. National-origin ethnicities arose about a century before that. And "Blackness" as self-identity arose about over a century before that. I wonder why demands for rights on behalf of a "gay" self-identity took so long to coalesce. After all, homosexuality (as behavior, not self-identity) goes back to before the chimp-human split 5 mYA. It also makes you wonder what on earth will be invented as the next rights-demanding self-identity?
I think it's because heterosexual society, in general, has extreme distaste and fascination about homosexual behavior. Gays themselves, especially those who are religious Jews/Christians/Muslims, must struggle mightily with accepting their behavior and its effect on other people.
An otherwise reasonable person who is heterosexual may honestly think that gay people are "flaunting their sexuality" by holding hands in public or displaying pictures of their significant other at work. There is something about homosexuality that is threatening to a lot of people.
IMO, most gay people wouldn't form a gay self-identity if homosexuality was seen as natural variation of human sexuality, which it seems to be.
The question is which [self-identity] movements will be honored and taken seriously.
Interestingly, the notion of solidarity in homosexuality as a self-identity (as opposed to being a mere hobby or personal experimentation) dates only from around the 1930s. National-origin ethnicities arose about a century before that. And "Blackness" as self-identity arose about over a century before that. I wonder why demands for rights on behalf of a "gay" self-identity took so long to coalesce. After all, homosexuality (as behavior, not self-identity) goes back to before the chimp-human split 5 mYA. It also makes you wonder what on earth will be invented as the next rights-demanding self-identity?
I think it's because heterosexual society, in general, has extreme distaste and fascination about homosexual behavior. Gays themselves, especially those who are religious Jews/Christians/Muslims, must struggle mightily with accepting their behavior and its effect on other people.
An otherwise reasonable person who is heterosexual may honestly think that gay people are "flaunting their sexuality" by holding hands in public or displaying pictures of their significant other at work. There is something about homosexuality that is threatening to a lot of people.
IMO, most gay people wouldn't form a gay self-identity if homosexuality was seen as natural variation of human sexuality, which it seems to be.
I tend to agree with you. The overall point at least.
The question is which [self-identity] movements will be honored and taken seriously.
Interestingly, the notion of solidarity in homosexuality as a self-identity (as opposed to being a mere hobby or personal experimentation) dates only from around the 1930s. National-origin ethnicities arose about a century before that. And "Blackness" as self-identity arose about over a century before that. I wonder why demands for rights on behalf of a "gay" self-identity took so long to coalesce. After all, homosexuality (as behavior, not self-identity) goes back to before the chimp-human split 5 mYA. It also makes you wonder what on earth will be invented as the next rights-demanding self-identity?
I think it's because heterosexual society, in general, has extreme distaste and fascination about homosexual behavior. Gays themselves, especially those who are religious Jews/Christians/Muslims, must struggle mightily with accepting their behavior and its effect on other people.
An otherwise reasonable person who is heterosexual may honestly think that gay people are "flaunting their sexuality" by holding hands in public or displaying pictures of their significant other at work. There is something about homosexuality that is threatening to a lot of people.
IMO, most gay people wouldn't form a gay self-identity if homosexuality was seen as natural variation of human sexuality, which it seems to be.
True, certain ancient societies such as egypt roman & greece to name a few seem to had it as an integrated part of society.
I saw a program called Love in th Ancient World:Egypt Greece & Roman and they pointed out some interesting things, even in the mythology which I love mythology.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Thu 27 Jul 2006 14:16 Post subject:
Some folks might think my views on this issue as not mainstream. While some may support some aspects of the homosexual agenda, when the issue of homosexual marriage comes before the people, it is overwhelmingly rejected. I can't stand it when the left, particularly White leftists, compare this with so called "interracial marriage". That is like comparing apples with peanut butter. Here is an article from WorldNet Daily:
Quote:
Same-sex marriage
on rocks with voters
20 out of 20 times, Americans choose
to protect institution from changes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 27, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Yesterday's stunning decision by Washington's Supreme Court upholding traditional marriage is not the only setback dogging same-sex marriage advocates.
In fact, 20 out of the 20 times it has come before voters, Americans have chosen to protect by constitutional amendment the idea of limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
So this year as it's brought before voters in another six – or eight – states, what do opponents plan to do to get their first single?
Obfuscate.
"The best that they (traditional marriage opponents) can do is confuse the issue," States Issues Analyst Mona Passignano, of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family Action, told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive look-ahead at this fall's election season.
"What they're running up against is that people just want traditional marriage protected," she said.
"We have six states that will have marriage amendments on their ballot (in 2006)," Passignano said, identifying them as Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Two more, Arizona and Colorado, still have yet to reach either deadlines for turning in petition signatures or decisions for whether enough signatures have been turned in. Arizona's marriage supporters turned in 300,000 names, for a requirement of 184,000, but they still are being verified. In Colorado, the deadline to turn in names is Aug. 7, and 68,000 verified names are needed, she said.
"The atmosphere (around the issues) right now is actually positive," she said. "But you can expect that to change in October." Then, the campaigning will get confusing.
Colorado's potential battle already is typical of what she expects.
There probably will be four ballot initiatives on the fall Colorado ballot addressing marriage or civil unions and the like. One would think that would be confusing, and Passignano said that's the plan.
"The campaign in Colorado already is to confuse the voters. The more confusion, the better the chance (for same-sex marriage being endorsed)," she said. "It's not exactly a new campaign, it's exactly the strategy that unfolded in Texas last year."
During that battle, same-sex marriage supporters actually "tried to get people to vote against the marriage amendment by pretending they were from the attorney general's office and telling people they were going to nullify actual marriages with their vote," Passignano said. Senior citizens, especially, were targeted.
She said she took calls in her office at Focus Action from Texans who would hesitate. "I think I voted the wrong way," they would tell her. "Yes, you did," she told them.
The salvation of the Texas amendment came from Christian pastors, she said.
"What's going to be the key is church participation," she said. "The IRS has said pastors have the right to talk about that, despite what we commonly hear, because it is a nonpartisan ballot issue. Pastors can talk about it all they want.
"Just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you checked your rights at the door," she said.
Focus Action is a cultural action organization that is separate from Focus on the Family, the Christian broadcasting, publishing and ministry powerhouse. It was set up for Christians to have a platform for informing and rallying about moral issues.
Baptist Press earlier had cited a homosexual publication's report about a multi-point plan devised by the Democratic National Committee to combat the marriage protection plans.
Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the DNC told Baptist Press the committee opposes Republican efforts to use the issue to get voters to ballot boxes. But he didn't confirm or deny the homosexual publication's report about a plan that calls for labeling such initiatives "divisive" and training operatives in all 50 states how to campaign against them.
That report also said the plan included working with a homosexual advocacy group and campaign organizations in each state fighting marriage protection plans.
During 2005, Texas and Kansas voters approved marriage protection amendments, and in the sweep of the 2004 vote, 13 states took the same action, including voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Utah, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon who did so on the same night. Five states had done so in earlier elections and another two dozen states have taken the same action, but by statute, not constitutional amendment.
Representatives are especially tenacious in pursuing this particular issue, too. In Wisconsin state lawmakers went through the process a second time after first passing a Defense of Marriage law in 2003, only to see Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle veto it. The second time around, for this year's election, they pursued the constitutional amendment process, which does not require a governor's signature.
State lawmakers in Washington also battled back to overturn a veto by Gov. Gary Locke in their pursuit of their 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which limits marriages to couples of one man and one woman.
That battle was crowned with victory this week when the state's Supreme Court affirmed its constitutionality. The court noted that there may be homosexual weddings at some point in the future, but it will be because people have brought it about, not because of a judicial opinion.
The underlying conclusion of the Washington state court was that the Legislature had a legitimate interest in protecting traditional marriage and that action did not violate equal protection and other laws.
Even in Massachusetts, where the state's highest court created a right to homosexual marriage to become the only state ever to recognize such situations, supporters have collected 170,000 signatures and court approval and hope to have a marriage amendment on the ballot in 2008.
One defeat for the traditional marriage supporters came in June in the Senate, which failed to endorse a change in the U.S. Constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But that wasn't even on an up-or-down vote; only a procedural move.
It is "inconceivable" the U.S. Senate refused to even vote, said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America.
"If the founders could have imagined a time when same-sex 'marriage' would be forced upon the people by judicial fiat, they would have established a uniform rule of marriage in the Constitution just as they did for naturalization and bankruptcy," she said.
However, just in the past few weeks, other courts in Georgia, Nebraska, Tennessee and New York have endorsed the legality of protecting marriage.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Thu 27 Jul 2006 16:03 Post subject:
gemini072 wrote:
True, certain ancient societies such as egypt roman & greece to name a few seem to had it as an integrated part of society.
I saw a program called Love in th Ancient World:Egypt Greece & Roman and they pointed out some interesting things, even in the mythology which I love mythology.
I appreciate mythology too, and I saw those programs as well. If I recall the only evidence in Egypt was a painting on wall in some kind of room or cave structure. It was of the creation myth of seed being poured into the earth. I founded that flimsy evidence myself.
True, certain ancient societies such as egypt roman & greece to name a few seem to had it as an integrated part of society.
I saw a program called Love in th Ancient World:Egypt Greece & Roman and they pointed out some interesting things, even in the mythology which I love mythology.
I appreciate mythology too, and I saw those programs as well. If I recall the only evidence in Egypt was a painting on wall in some kind of room or cave structure. It was of the creation myth of seed being poured into the earth. I founded that flimsy evidence myself.
There actually isn't much 'sexual' representation in Egyptian art, but I believe it was Ramses I or II that had a wife as well as a male lover. He also brought in the period of belief in 1 god
Some folks might think my views on this issue as not mainstream. While some may support some aspects of the homosexual agenda, when the issue of homosexual marriage comes before the people, it is overwhelmingly rejected. I can't stand it when the left, particularly White leftists, compare this with so called "interracial marriage". That is like comparing apples with peanut butter. Here is an article from WorldNet Daily:
But how is gay marriage not like the struggle to legalize interracial marriage? Bigots used the Bible and pseudo-scientific theories to justify anti-miscegenation laws similar to the anti-gay marriage leaders. Isn't a majority pushing its beliefs on who can't have their relationships recognized by the state oppressive?
Often, the anti-gay marriage proponents talk about the sanctity of marriage yet discount the very real 50% divorce rate.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1763 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 11 Aug 2006 14:27 Post subject:
Quote:
But how is gay marriage not like the struggle to legalize interracial marriage? Bigots used the Bible and pseudo-scientific theories to justify anti-miscegenation laws similar to the anti-gay marriage leaders. Isn't a majority pushing its beliefs on who can't have their relationships recognized by the state oppressive?
Because marriage has been defined as the union between the male and female part of our species for thousands of years. This has been so in all cultures throughout the world and throughout history. The struggle to legalize "interracial" marriage was not a world wide struggle. It was "local" if you will. The quest for homosexual "marriage" is a world wide quest. Race is arbitrary, homosexuality is not.
You are correct that bigots grossly misinterpreted the Bible. The Bible contains no such reference to modern day racial perceptions, perceptions that did not exist in Biblical times. However, homosexuality existed, and they well understood that it was an act against nature.
triguy wrote:
Often, the anti-gay marriage proponents talk about the sanctity of marriage yet discount the very real 50% divorce rate.
Yes the divorce rate is 50%. Marriage as an institution is in a state of peril. How will changing its definition to reflect modern trends help the institution of marriage in its adverse condition?
But how is gay marriage not like the struggle to legalize interracial marriage? Bigots used the Bible and pseudo-scientific theories to justify anti-miscegenation laws similar to the anti-gay marriage leaders. Isn't a majority pushing its beliefs on who can't have their relationships recognized by the state oppressive?
Because marriage has been defined as the union between the male and female part of our species for thousands of years. This has been so in all cultures throughout the world and throughout history. The struggle to legalize "interracial" marriage was not a world wide struggle. It was "local" if you will. The quest for homosexual "marriage" is a world wide quest. Race is arbitrary, homosexuality is not.
You are correct that bigots grossly misinterpreted the Bible. The Bible contains no such reference to modern day racial perceptions, perceptions that did not exist in Biblical times. However, homosexuality existed, and they well understood that it was an act against nature.
I think using the term 'Homosexual & Gay' in terms of the scriptures is as wrong as using 'Black & White' in the scriptures.
Sodomites/Sodomy is generally what's being interpreted as Gay/Homosexual. Which is wrong.
triguy wrote:
Often, the anti-gay marriage proponents talk about the sanctity of marriage yet discount the very real 50% divorce rate.
Yes the divorce rate is 50%. Marriage as an institution is in a state of peril. How will changing its definition to reflect modern trends help the institution of marriage in its adverse condition?
But how is gay marriage not like the struggle to legalize interracial marriage? Bigots used the Bible and pseudo-scientific theories to justify anti-miscegenation laws similar to the anti-gay marriage leaders. Isn't a majority pushing its beliefs on who can't have their relationships recognized by the state oppressive?
Because marriage has been defined as the union between the male and female part of our species for thousands of years. This has been so in all cultures throughout the world and throughout history. The struggle to legalize "interracial" marriage was not a world wide struggle. It was "local" if you will. The quest for homosexual "marriage" is a world wide quest. Race is arbitrary, homosexuality is not.
You are correct that bigots grossly misinterpreted the Bible. The Bible contains no such reference to modern day racial perceptions, perceptions that did not exist in Biblical times. However, homosexuality existed, and they well understood that it was an act [i]against nature[/i].
Paul was the only one who used that statement.
lol I've heard many talks on monogamy and that same term(unnatural) used in reference to that. I don't think that was a world wide concept at all.
Sodomy was a term that dealt with anything outside of copulation for sake of having children. That term dealt with M/F who engaged in anal sex, oral sex and any other sex. The Catholic church presents the use of condoms as not the way of nature as well.
triguy wrote:
Often, the anti-gay marriage proponents talk about the sanctity of marriage yet discount the very real 50% divorce rate.
Yes the divorce rate is 50%. Marriage as an institution is in a state of peril. How will changing its definition to reflect modern trends help the institution of marriage in its adverse condition?
But how is gay marriage not like the struggle to legalize interracial marriage? Bigots used the Bible and pseudo-scientific theories to justify anti-miscegenation laws similar to the anti-gay marriage leaders. Isn't a majority pushing its beliefs on who can't have their relationships recognized by the state oppressive?
Because marriage has been defined as the union between the male and female part of our species for thousands of years. This has been so in all cultures throughout the world and throughout history. The struggle to legalize "interracial" marriage was not a world wide struggle. It was "local" if you will. The quest for homosexual "marriage" is a world wide quest. Race is arbitrary, homosexuality is not.
So what if some people have defined marriage as a union between different sexes? Marriage has also been defined to include bigamgy and polygamy and the enslavement of woment and legalizing rape of women. Also, people have had same sex lovers throughout the ages and some cultures have allowed gay marriages (some Native American cultures). Moreover, not all cultures have formalized marriages.
You are correct that bigots grossly misinterpreted the Bible. The Bible contains no such reference to modern day racial perceptions, perceptions that did not exist in Biblical times. However, homosexuality existed, and they well understood that it was an act against nature.
First, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Secondly, people pick and choose what sins they recognize. Again, doesn't the Bible say that a disrespectful child should be stoned to death? And, saying it is against nature is a judgement and not fact. Homosexuality exists in nature, and it's unscientific to claim otherwise when facts speak differently. How can the gay penguins, monkeys, chimps, and swans be unnatural? How do you know for certain that evolution didn't provide homosexuality as an adaptation for the survival of species?
Moreover, how do dismiss the scientific explanations that point towards in utero and genetic factors that provide an explanation:
Again, bigots used the Bible to justify committing attrocities and subjugation of others.
triguy wrote:
Often, the anti-gay marriage proponents talk about the sanctity of marriage yet discount the very real 50% divorce rate.
Yes the divorce rate is 50%. Marriage as an institution is in a state of peril. How will changing its definition to reflect modern trends help the institution of marriage in its adverse condition?
But how does gay marriage imperil heterosexual marriage? Are heterosexuals so weak and simple that watching two lesbians in a monogamous, loving relationship dissuade them from marriage?
Again, the definition of marriage has always had plasticity in its definition to meet the whims of people. Henry VIII had no problems dumping or executing his wives to meet his needs. Thomas Jefferson had no problem cheating on his wife with her sister. Rudy Giuliani had no problem moving his mistress into the New York City mayoral mansion while his family lived there.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
