Real gay rights...

Chesspieceface · Post by **Chesspieceface** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:16 am

How is it that it is still not completely obvious to everyone that it is improper to disparage homosexuals or deny them equal rights? How is it that the "enlightened" amongst us still shrug and cock their heads when such heinous views are expressed in mixed company? It is so clearly unacceptable from a moral standpoint that I find it revolting.

What the fuck is wrong with people?

Texian · Post by **Texian** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:46 am

Where ever fundamentalist religionists exert disproportionate influence on a culture, gays will find it difficult to be completely accepted into that culture.

Chesspieceface · Post by **Chesspieceface** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:47 am

And I don't really mean "How is it that..."? I understand the socio-political issues which is why this thread is in R&P. I just don't understand why those of us who know better even tolerate the suggestion.

Its San Diego Pride this week. I won't be going down there as I am allergic to mobs... but why should this even be necessary? The fact that they need to do this just to shout down the ignorant minority is offensive in and of itself.

Just say no to ignorance.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:28 am

It gets tolerated because it takes time to really change someone's beliefs on a matter, especially when they think god doesn't want them to change. Any sort of heavy handed instant change is more likely going to further entrench them in their current views, as they see it as proof of them being right and god testing them. Sadly it will likely take a few generations to truly have equal rights for gays in the US.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:54 am

On the plus side, the advances in gay rights (and views of homosexuality) over the past decade have been nothing short of astounding. We still have a ways to go, of course, but it gives me hope for the future.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:06 am

Also, I think you'll find that among participants in any Pride event, there are a lot of different takes on it, from militant activism to those who just want an excuse to have a raucous party.

Texian · Post by **Texian** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:16 pm

In time, I think 99.9% of society will stop the persecution of and discrimination against gays. African-Americans and Women of all races are still trying to solidify the societal gains they made in the 20th century. Some people (racists, homophobes, anti-atheists, super-patriots, etc.) just need an enemy to hate in order to make themselves feel better and not so outcast ("someone else is lower than me on society's totem pole") - that insecure minority will never be won over.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:44 pm

You can't pin all of this on religion. Not everyone is against gay marriage because God told them it was wrong, or even because their church-going neighbor told them it was wrong.
You've got a lot of tradition and old prejudices you're dealing with.

I know plenty of people who've never stepped foot in a church who still oppose gay marriage because well....they think it's disgusting and they don't like gay people, and marriage should be between a man and a woman "just because."

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:15 pm

YellowKing wrote:You can't pin all of this on religion. Not everyone is against gay marriage because God told them it was wrong, or even because their church-going neighbor told them it was wrong.
You've got a lot of tradition and old prejudices you're dealing with.

I know plenty of people who've never stepped foot in a church who still oppose gay marriage because well....they think it's disgusting and they don't like gay people, and marriage should be between a man and a woman "just because."

Good point. But many religious communities are currently in a state of flux, trying to decide whether they can adapt to modern understandings of human dignity or must stay with traditional bigotries enshrined as "God's law." Religion provides an big, convenient target because intentionally secular people are less anchored to those traditions.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:19 pm

Well, the Californians will now be teaching gay history in public schools:

California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill that would require that public schools teach gay and lesbian history. The legislation is preceded by similar requirements in the state of California to promote women's history, African-American history and other minority groups' history in public school curriculum. ... Now that the Democratic governor has signed the bill, come January, the state-approved curriculum of public schools across the state will include the study of gay rights figures such as Harvey Milk—the first openly gay, publicly-elected official in California.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:55 pm

Well, the Californians will now be teaching gay history in public schools:

This is where I start getting a little perturbed.

I'm all for gay rights - I've been saying A-OK to gay marriage ever since I can remember on these boards, despite my conservative leanings. However, at the end of the day we're just talking about a person's sexuality.

Why can't we just teach "history?" Isn't that what true equality is all about? This one group is not singled out from this other group as being different? Reminds me of the old "we were all created equal, but some were created more equal than others" line.

silverjon · Post by **silverjon** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:19 pm

I'm not so sure the point of these bills is so much to single groups out for eternal special treatment as to get them acknowledged in the first place. The kind of progress you're talking about historically kinda sorta requires the special interest variety to occur first.

Remember that the first group of "more equal than others" is straight white men with money.

Texian · Post by **Texian** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:52 am

YellowKing wrote:You can't pin all of this on religion. Not everyone is against gay marriage because God told them it was wrong, or even because their church-going neighbor told them it was wrong.
You've got a lot of tradition and old prejudices you're dealing with.

I know plenty of people who've never stepped foot in a church who still oppose gay marriage because well....they think it's disgusting and they don't like gay people, and marriage should be between a man and a woman "just because."

Good point but wouldn't you agree that secular people are more likely to sooner adopt a "live and let live" attitude towards gays than the religious would?

paulbaxter · Post by **paulbaxter** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:19 pm

Chesspieceface wrote:How is it that it is still not completely obvious to everyone that it is improper to disparage homosexuals or deny them equal rights? How is it that the "enlightened" amongst us still shrug and cock their heads when such heinous views are expressed in mixed company? It is so clearly unacceptable from a moral standpoint that I find it revolting.

What the fuck is wrong with people?

Do you think you are able to accurately articulate how conservative Christians understand homosexuality? If so, do you feel that Christians shouldn't be allowed to express their convictions on that topic?

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:31 pm

YellowKing wrote:You can't pin all of this on religion. Not everyone is against gay marriage because God told them it was wrong, or even because their church-going neighbor told them it was wrong.
You've got a lot of tradition and old prejudices you're dealing with.

I know plenty of people who've never stepped foot in a church who still oppose gay marriage because well....they think it's disgusting and they don't like gay people, and marriage should be between a man and a woman "just because."

Yes, as he states, non-religious people can be homophobic too, or merely very ignorant about homosexuality. Additionally, there are also those who aren't homophobic, and support gay rights in the form of civil unions but don't support gay marriage.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:33 pm

YellowKing wrote:
I'm all for gay rights - I've been saying A-OK to gay marriage ever since I can remember on these boards, despite my conservative leanings. However, at the end of the day we're just talking about a person's sexuality.

Why can't we just teach "history?" Isn't that what true equality is all about? This one group is not singled out from this other group as being different? Reminds me of the old "we were all created equal, but some were created more equal than others" line.

Perhaps we should eliminate the civil rights movement or the suffragette movement from the curriculum, since they're not, uh, "history", but rather race or gender?

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:51 pm

paulbaxter wrote:
Chesspieceface wrote:How is it that it is still not completely obvious to everyone that it is improper to disparage homosexuals or deny them equal rights? How is it that the "enlightened" amongst us still shrug and cock their heads when such heinous views are expressed in mixed company? It is so clearly unacceptable from a moral standpoint that I find it revolting.

What the fuck is wrong with people?
Do you think you are able to accurately articulate how conservative Christians understand homosexuality? If so, do you feel that Christians shouldn't be allowed to express their convictions on that topic?

At some point, their attitudes are going to be looked at the same way we now see Biblical justification for slavery.

Chesspieceface · Post by **Chesspieceface** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:06 pm

paulbaxter wrote:
Chesspieceface wrote:How is it that it is still not completely obvious to everyone that it is improper to disparage homosexuals or deny them equal rights? How is it that the "enlightened" amongst us still shrug and cock their heads when such heinous views are expressed in mixed company? It is so clearly unacceptable from a moral standpoint that I find it revolting.

What the fuck is wrong with people?
Do you think you are able to accurately articulate how conservative Christians understand homosexuality? If so, do you feel that Christians shouldn't be allowed to express their convictions on that topic?

Abomination. I can accurately articulate that conservative christians do not at all understand homosexuality. I feel that under the first amendment they should be allowed to say whatever they want. I am shaming the rest of us who don't tell them how wrong they are every single time. People should be allowed to say whatever they want but... but this should not be tolerated or validated as a notion. Conservative christian views on homosexuality are immoral and disgusting.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:27 pm

Good point but wouldn't you agree that secular people are more likely to sooner adopt a "live and let live" attitude towards gays than the religious would?

I notice you tend to lump "the religious" into this block of people that all think the same way, when in fact the degrees of belief are as varied as the degrees of belief in any other population, including the non-religious.

I think when you say "the religious" or "Christians" you really mean fundamentalist Christians, which is a small slice of the overall pie.

I know Christians who oppose gay marriage, support gay marriage, or support civil unions, and every flavor in between. I know Christians who believe the world was created in seven days and Christians who believe evolution is scientifically valid and that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. These people are all "religious" yet their beliefs run almost as wide a spectrum as anybody else.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:22 pm

YellowKing wrote:
Good point but wouldn't you agree that secular people are more likely to sooner adopt a "live and let live" attitude towards gays than the religious would?
I notice you tend to lump "the religious" into this block of people that all think the same way, when in fact the degrees of belief are as varied as the degrees of belief in any other population, including the non-religious.

I think when you say "the religious" or "Christians" you really mean fundamentalist Christians, which is a small slice of the overall pie.

I know Christians who oppose gay marriage, support gay marriage, or support civil unions, and every flavor in between. I know Christians who believe the world was created in seven days and Christians who believe evolution is scientifically valid and that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. These people are all "religious" yet their beliefs run almost as wide a spectrum as anybody else.

Fellow secularists, listen to YK! He's right. "Religious" is a very broad category and a very broad identity, most of it admirable.

But, YK, you have to admit that the ultra-traditional religious are doing everything they can to claim that religion belongs to *them*. That's mostly why the non-religious see the category this way.

wonderpug · Post by **wonderpug** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:32 pm

Defiant wrote:
YellowKing wrote:
I'm all for gay rights - I've been saying A-OK to gay marriage ever since I can remember on these boards, despite my conservative leanings. However, at the end of the day we're just talking about a person's sexuality.

Why can't we just teach "history?" Isn't that what true equality is all about? This one group is not singled out from this other group as being different? Reminds me of the old "we were all created equal, but some were created more equal than others" line.
Perhaps we should eliminate the civil rights movement or the suffragette movement from the curriculum, since they're not, uh, "history", but rather race or gender?

The civil rights movement counts as history. What YellowKing is saying is that the civil rights movement shouldn't have to be taught in February because that's when black history month is.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:42 pm

YellowKing wrote: Why can't we just teach "history?" Isn't that what true equality is all about? This one group is not singled out from this other group as being different? Reminds me of the old "we were all created equal, but some were created more equal than others" line.

I guess this is what YK is referring to:

California law already requires schools to teach about women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, entrepreneurs, Asian Americans, European Americans, American Indians and labor. The Legislature over the years also has prescribed specific lessons about the Irish potato famine and the Holocaust, among other topics.

The new law, SB48, requires the California Board of Education and local school districts to adopt textbooks and other teaching materials that cover the contributions and roles of sexual minorities, as soon as the 2013-2014 school year.

So yes, we're learning about all the different/unique histories of various groups of people. Personally, I think learning about that is good. Should we teach that every group is the same? Or are you worried that a group is missing?

Toe · Post by **Toe** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:26 pm

Not sure how valid it is, but Dan Savage said that in school systems where this is already been implemented, the bullying of gay kids has decreased.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:47 pm

Predictable thread is predictable.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:27 am

So yes, we're learning about all the different/unique histories of various groups of people. Personally, I think learning about that is good. Should we teach that every group is the same? Or are you worried that a group is missing?

It is a good thing. What I'm saying is that true equality would have us learning about diverse groups of people and minorities in general history. We wouldn't have to have this separate class out here that singles them out for special attention.

I admit I'm probably talking about a utopia fantasy world. But I don't believe true equality can ever be achieved in groups are continuously singled out and spotlighted for being unequal. It's a vicious Catch-22. In a truly equal world, there would be no black history month. And there would be no Gay History 101. Instead, those people and events would be incorporated into every day knowledge.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:05 am

YellowKing wrote:
So yes, we're learning about all the different/unique histories of various groups of people. Personally, I think learning about that is good. Should we teach that every group is the same? Or are you worried that a group is missing?
It is a good thing. What I'm saying is that true equality would have us learning about diverse groups of people and minorities in general history. We wouldn't have to have this separate class out here that singles them out for special attention.

The article linked to isn't super clear, but I think that's what's happening - the bill isn't mandating a separate "Gay History 101" class, it's mandating that Gay History be incorporated into the curriculum:

California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill that would require that public schools teach gay and lesbian history. The legislation is preceded by similar requirements in the state of California to promote women's history, African-American history and other minority groups' history in public school curriculum. The bill was originally put forth in 2006 but vetoed by then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. However, since then, there has been a great deal of public outcry in response to the recent suicides of many gay teens across the state, attention to which no doubt helped to push the bill forward. Now that the Democratic governor has signed the bill, come January, the state-approved curriculum of public schools across the state will include the study of gay rights figures such as Harvey Milk—the first openly gay, publicly-elected official in California.

The curriculum will include it, but that doesn't mean a separate class. Similarly, there aren't separate mandatory classes (I believe) for women's history or minority groups' histories.

So I think the way this will work is that when they're learning 20th century U.S. history there'd be a unit on the gay rights movement, similar to units on the civil rights movement and other significan social change movements and effects. Given time constraints I'd wager that it would wind up being no more than a day or two of class time (at least, that's all the time they'd have for it in my U.S. history class from high school, anyhow).

George · Post by **George** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:58 am

Its not going to happen any time soon where there is true equality. When one of the most liberal presidents in american history doesn't even support gay marriage we aren't even close.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:28 am

Toe wrote:Not sure how valid it is, but Dan Savage said that in school systems where this is already been implemented, the bullying of gay kids has decreased.

Any school that's already implemented this is probably a fairly proactively progressive school that might well be doing other stuff to end bullying (eg, having teachers keep an eye out for it to stop it, or be more approachable), so that might not necessarily be reflected in other schools.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:34 am

George wrote:Its not going to happen any time soon where there is true equality. When one of the most liberal presidents in american history doesn't even support gay marriage we aren't even close.

When we're complaining that the President "doesn't even support gay marriage", that in itself reflects a pretty seismic advance in gay rights. Gay marriage was virtually crazy talk as recently as five or so years ago - now there's legal gay marriage in several states including New York, covering a very significant amount of population. And gay marriage in NY came via legislation, which is pretty significant.

Not saying that we're on the verge of 100% full equality, but I'm not sure that we're as far away as you think. I'd wager that most people will live in jurisdictions with gay marriage at some point 10 - 15 years from now.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:37 am

YellowKing wrote: I admit I'm probably talking about a utopia fantasy world. But I don't believe true equality can ever be achieved in groups are continuously singled out and spotlighted for being unequal. It's a vicious Catch-22. In a truly equal world, there would be no black history month. And there would be no Gay History 101. Instead, those people and events would be incorporated into every day knowledge.

As pointed out, this would presumably be incorporated into a general American history class. It would be very rare to see a class that concentrated on the topic in high school, though you would see them as electives in many colleges.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:40 am

On including gays in the history curriculum: one function of a state policy is to invalidate local challenges by reactionary parents and reactionary school board members when the history teacher *does* include it.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:43 am

El Guapo wrote:
George wrote:Its not going to happen any time soon where there is true equality. When one of the most liberal presidents in american history doesn't even support gay marriage we aren't even close.
When we're complaining that the President "doesn't even support gay marriage", that in itself reflects a pretty seismic advance in gay rights.

He also wasn't willing to fight for Don't Ask Don't Tell (thankfully, Lieberman was) which is a pretty big step backwards compared to a president from 18 years ago.

That said, I'd argue that the Obama isn't really "the most liberal", and those areas where he is more liberal than other presidents has to do with areas where the country has become more liberal, and has less to do with how liberal he is in it.

I do think we'll probably see gay marriage available in a majority of states within 10 years, though.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:51 am

Chesspieceface wrote: Its San Diego Pride this week. I won't be going down there as I am allergic to mobs... but why should this even be necessary?

Because it's a huge massive party.

Gays could occupy the White House and 51 seats in Congress and there would probably still be Pride events because they are so damn fun.

Chesspieceface wrote:The fact that they need to do this just to shout down the ignorant minority is offensive in and of itself.

Just say no to ignorance.

Are St. Patrick's Day parades a sign that the anti-Irish minority still needs shouting down?

I guess what I'm getting at is that Pride events aren't indicative of ignorance and prejudice. Ignorance and prejudice are indicative of ignorance and prejudice.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:24 am

Texian wrote:
YellowKing wrote:You can't pin all of this on religion. Not everyone is against gay marriage because God told them it was wrong, or even because their church-going neighbor told them it was wrong.
You've got a lot of tradition and old prejudices you're dealing with.

I know plenty of people who've never stepped foot in a church who still oppose gay marriage because well....they think it's disgusting and they don't like gay people, and marriage should be between a man and a woman "just because."
Good point but wouldn't you agree that secular people are more likely to sooner adopt a "live and let live" attitude towards gays than the religious would?

Signed, China.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:17 pm

::twitch::

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:44 pm

Chesspieceface wrote:And I don't really mean "How is it that..."? I understand the socio-political issues which is why this thread is in R&P. I just don't understand why those of us who know better even tolerate the suggestion.

Its San Diego Pride this week. I won't be going down there as I am allergic to mobs... but why should this even be necessary? The fact that they need to do this just to shout down the ignorant minority is offensive in and of itself.

Just say no to ignorance.

I am not aware of how they do it in SD but I can see how the SF parade would make some people really uneasy. It is not about "gay rights" so much as "freak rights". I sometimes think it is a case of not all exposure is good exposure.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:47 pm

Texian wrote:In time, I think 99.9% of society will stop the persecution of and discrimination against gays. African-Americans and Women of all races are still trying to solidify the societal gains they made in the 20th century. Some people (racists, homophobes, anti-atheists, super-patriots, etc.) just need an enemy to hate in order to make themselves feel better and not so outcast ("someone else is lower than me on society's totem pole") - that insecure minority will never be won over.

Look how long it has taken to get where we are with racial equality..legally and socially. If someone has trouble accepting a black/white marriage how easy can it be to accept a same sex marriage?

The curriculum will include it, but that doesn't mean a separate class. Similarly, there aren't separate mandatory classes (I believe) for women's history or minority groups' histories.

So I think the way this will work is that when they're learning 20th century U.S. history there'd be a unit on the gay rights movement, similar to units on the civil rights movement and other significan social change movements and effects. Given time constraints I'd wager that it would wind up being no more than a day or two of class time (at least, that's all the time they'd have for it in my U.S. history class from high school, anyhow).

As I understand the law it will just add a chapter to the history books and will not be implemented until new history books are ordered in 2-3 years. And while I have nothing against gays (famous last line) I do think continually adding things to an already failing curriculum is not necessarily a good idea.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 2:43 pm

Cue the Onion!

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:22 pm

USNS Harvey Milk

A Navy vessel will travel the world bearing the name of gay rights icon Harvey Milk, the most prominent gesture towards the LGBT community in military history.

The U.S. Naval Institute News obtained a leaked Congressional memo from July 14, showing that Navy Secretary Ray Mabus signed plans to name a Military Sealift Command fleet oiler “the USNS Harvey Milk.”
...
Navy Times reported that California Rep. Bob Filner was also instrumental in pushing Navy officials to name a ship after Milk.

Milk came from a Navy family and served as a diving officer before he became the first openly gay elected official as a member of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors — the city’s legislative body — in 1977.
...
Milk’s namesake vessel will be one of several fleet oilers in the John Lewis Class of ships — named after civil rights activist and congressman Rep. John Lewis — to be named after civil rights leaders.

Other names include Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, whose court ruled to desegregate U.S. schools and women’s rights activist Lucy Stone and abolitionist Sojourner Truth.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Jul 29, 2016 3:26 pm

I did not see that coming.