a question i have for both gay people and homophobes?

[MagunBFP]

Define abuse of power. Deciding to use your power (what ever it is) in a manner that supports your beliefs regardless of the popularity of your beliefs?

100 years ago hiring a black person or a female over a white man would have been an abuse of power. These days it's considered to be affirmative action. People are just entitled to their views on homosexuality as they are on religion or evolution.

Isn't an individual entitled to be considered (for a job or position) on equal criteria as others?

I'd say that consideration trumps the employer's right to prejudice.

I may have misunderstood, here.

100 years ago it was accepted that certain people (black people and women as examples) were only good for certain tasks so hiring them for other things, especially at the expense of a white male, was at that time very wrong and would have been considered to be an abuse of power

These days in many countries popular opinion holds that white males should be disadvantaged to allow black people and women to get the jobs they may have been passed over for in the past. Employers who do this are considered Equal Opportunity Employers who support Affirmative Action.

EDIT: on second thought, even for the sake of keeping matters in perspective, I'm not going to support an argument that gives bigots a loophole to jump through. Carry on

So you're not saying the argument is flawed in any way except you don't like it because it says that people who have views that you find distasteful are just as entitled to their view as you are to yours?

 

[Heronblade]

EDIT: on second thought, even for the sake of keeping matters in perspective, I'm not going to support an argument that gives bigots a loophole to jump through. Carry on

So you're not saying the argument is flawed in any way except you don't like it because it says that people who have views that you find distasteful are just as entitled to their view as you are to yours?

Yes and no

Morality is a subjective matter on the whole, and people in general have a right to their opinions, whether or not I find them distasteful. But if an action based on personal opinions has a significant and unwarranted negative effect on other people's lives, (from a perspective that is as objectively neutral as I can manage) I will indeed jump through hoops to block it. Yes this makes me a bit of a hypocrite, but in this context, that is something I will gladly live with considering the alternative.

 

[Mr F.]

Incidentally "the whole black thing" didn't end in the 20th century. Racism is still a huge problem that we need to overcome.

True, but it became unacceptable to be racist. And now that bigotry isn't an accepted part of our every day life, it means it can now be dealt with slowly and gradually.

Say that to UKIP. Yeah, its ok to be racist. Large parts of the population are racist. Get a group of working class Brits together and ask them what they think of Polish people. Or "Pakis". Or Gyppos. Then find some EDL people and ask them what they think about Muslims.

Just so you know, UKIP are currently slated to get over 10% of the vote over here. And they crazy. And racist.

If someone were to say "Those damn filthy coloreds out to go back to the cotton fields where they belong", 50 years ago, depending on what part of the US he was in, his viewpoint would have been treated as legitimate and like-minded to those around him. Yet nowadays someone saying the same thing would be ostracized and viewed as some aging, bigoted dinosaur no longer fit to be in our world.

Not quite. But ok, I will roll with you

These people no longer wield the influence they had a half a century ago,

Well, Yes they do. They just don't spout the racist shit as much. We had a prominent historian state that the riots happened because youths were becoming more "Black". That's the UK, mind, but I struggle to believe that all the racists magically went away and no longer hold power.

and with that they realize they are becoming a dying breed in a world where their children are going to school with children of other ethnicity,

Unless they are rich, in which cases their children are going to private schools. Or unless they are in a majority white area. Or something like that.

or even mixed races and realizing at a young age that what their parents say is total bullshit. Racism isn't dead, but it's dying faster than you can think. The spike of racism in culture nowadays is just the death rattles of a system of ideals before it fades away.

A friend of mine at Uni had never met a black guy until he got to Campus. He knew of the two gay guys in the school, because everyone knew about the two gay guys. And he loved the "Paki family" that ran the shop, he wasn't racist at all! Racism and Islamophobia are on the rise.

And now that homophobia is coming under the same attack, it won't be long before the bible-thumping loons of today become the ostracized bigots of tomorrow from the rest of society.

The problem is not purely the religious. Seriously. I have received homophobia from just about every walk of life.

Human progress will continue to march on no matter how hard some will try to stop it.

Iran, China and Pakistan would like to have a word with you. Considering the stance of a hell of a lot of Muslims on homophobia and the fact that Islam is one of the few faiths growing faster than natural birth rates, as in there are plenty of people converting... Your statement is currently inaccurate. Hopefully it will one day be true.

If there's anything our understanding of the universe tells us, it's that nothing lasts forever.

We understand the universe at all? xD

Look, I didn't mean to be antagonistic at all, I just... Your hope is misplaced. Racism is not dying, its not dead and it shows no sign of dying. Whilst the legislature might currently be swinging in favour of gay rights and all the rest, that pendulum will shift. In the UK you are seeing the rise of more far right parties (EDL, UKIP), parties made up of the kind of people who do divide people with regards to race. Do divide people with regards to religion. Do divide people with regards to sexuality.

Have you not been in any of the Trans threads recently?

This site, made up of random people in their early 20's, the group that is supposed to be the most liberal and understanding, is going insane with regards to trans people and being utterly, utterly offensive. /r/adviceanimals is banning all "opinion" memes for a week in a desperate move to get away from all of the racist and homophobic shit that keeps getting on to the front page. I meet people on a daily basis who are scared of the threat Islam poses, you get the idea.

Saying its all getting better and we just have to wait is not the answer. Actively trying to shut these wankers up, tear their arguments apart, educate and, most importantly, make sure they do not feel welcome ANYWHERE, that is the only way this will change. Its an uphill battle. During times of crisis people become progressively more conservative and xenophobic. This world is in crisis.

 

[Silvanus]

100 years ago it was accepted that certain people (black people and women as examples) were only good for certain tasks so hiring them for other things, especially at the expense of a white male, was at that time very wrong and would have been considered to be an abuse of power

These days in many countries popular opinion holds that white males should be disadvantaged to allow black people and women to get the jobs they may have been passed over for in the past. Employers who do this are considered Equal Opportunity Employers who support Affirmative Action.

I'm well aware of all of this.

Something being popular opinion does not make it right.

I'm not entirely sure what your stance is, Magun. In your initial post, when you said this;

Define abuse of power. Deciding to use your power (what ever it is) in a manner that supports your beliefs regardless of the popularity of your beliefs?... People are just entitled to their views on homosexuality as they are on religion or evolution.

...I took you to be saying that you weren't against employers turning down people on the basis of their sexuality, because that's the employer's prerogative.

Was I wrong? Because you now seem to be arguing against Affirmative Action.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I don't know where "offense" necessarily comes into the equation. I'll use "acceptance" for the sake of keeping myself from ranting at a young OP who's posting yet another post about homosexuality.

I'm fully in agreement with the law guaranteeing and protecting the rights of all without exception based on gender, race, age, disability or sexual orientation. However my view of discrimination is likely different from everyone else's. To me, I believe treating someone negatively at work, in an academic institution or public service for example, is discrimination. I believe using a nasty epiphet designed to insult someone is bigoted. I don't believe however that stereotyping is bigoted, nor is making fun of someone for the sake of humour.

As for acceptance, I hope that most people raise their kids open-minded and accepting in this day and age, but that's not strictly the case. Saying that, I don't believe religious institutions like the Church or Synagogue for example should in any way be made to change their views on homosexuality. They've had their rules for thousands of years, literally and by the ostensiblly Divine origin of those rules, homosexulity is forbidden. I don't think a Catholic, Muslim or Jewish minister should be forced to marry a homosexual couple because the couple are to pig-stubborn to just go the civil route.

That is not to say I agree with the religious view on homosexuality. I don't, however that is their view and it cannot be changed because it was ordained by a higher power (regardless of whether you, I or anyone for that matter believes in said power). I hope however that they know better than to preach any homophobic dogma to their congregations, instead opting for a "live and let live" attitude.

I also disagree with ostracising people with homophobic views as to me, it's precisely the same thing as they're doing. Someone who discriminates against a homophobe is just as much a bigot as the homophobe. People are entitled to their own opinions, right or wrong. We're the products of our upbringing, education, faith, family and culture and the best way to win people over is by teaching them. Discriminating against someone because of the political or religious views is still discrimination.

 

[Ratties]

After having a room mate that was gay, it really opened my eyes up big time. Remember him being really helpful and acting normal. Kind of had this image in my head of him talking with a lisp and wearing pink for some reason. He was just a normal dude that like to screw men, lol. Eventually I felt really bad for thinking that way. Really would not of cared if he acted like that, to just assume he would made me feel like shit.

 

[Lieju]

If society didnt accept me for being straight would i care? No, fuck society

It's easy for you to say.
But would you really be okay with your family thinking you're a pervert and not talking to you, being threatened with violence, not having the same job opportunities or rights?

Growing up thinking you're evil and that your sexual attraction is wrong?

Society informs our opinion of ourselves, especially when we are young, and sometimes you don't have the priviledge to just not care.

 

[MagunBFP]

EDIT: on second thought, even for the sake of keeping matters in perspective, I'm not going to support an argument that gives bigots a loophole to jump through. Carry on

So you're not saying the argument is flawed in any way except you don't like it because it says that people who have views that you find distasteful are just as entitled to their view as you are to yours?

Yes and no

Morality is a subjective matter on the whole, and people in general have a right to their opinions, whether or not I find them distasteful. But if an action based on personal opinions has a significant and unwarranted negative effect on other people's lives, (from a perspective that is as objectively neutral as I can manage) I will indeed jump through hoops to block it. Yes this makes me a bit of a hypocrite, but in this context, that is something I will gladly live with considering the alternative.

It doesn't make you a hypocrite at all, you're not saying that they can't have their opinion, all you're demonstrating is that you'd "abuse" any power you had to ensure the outcome of that situation favoured your opinion. You stand in excellant company, many people you approve of have done the same... also people you don't approve of (for example Orson Scott Card) have done this as well. Just food for thought.

 

[MagunBFP]

I'm not entirely sure what your stance is, Magun. In your initial post, when you said this;

Define abuse of power. Deciding to use your power (what ever it is) in a manner that supports your beliefs regardless of the popularity of your beliefs?... People are just entitled to their views on homosexuality as they are on religion or evolution.

...I took you to be saying that you weren't against employers turning down people on the basis of their sexuality, because that's the employer's prerogative.

Was I wrong? Because you now seem to be arguing against Affirmative Action.

I'm deliberately not making concrete statements on my stance, but something that I do believe is that people do way too much bashing on opinions that aren't shared by the more vocal members of society. Just because an opinion has been around for a long time, or is currently popular doesn't make it right. Just because someone doesn't agree with the idea of Gay marriage doesn't make them a hateful person or a bigot, it just means they have an opinion that isn't popular at the moment.

What makes you think I'm against Affirmative Action? Was my description of it wrong? Or just not phrased in a manner that implies that no one is disadvantaged by it?

 

[Silvanus]

I'm deliberately not making concrete statements on my stance, but something that I do believe is that people do way too much bashing on opinions that aren't shared by the more vocal members of society. Just because an opinion has been around for a long time, or is currently popular doesn't make it right. Just because someone doesn't agree with the idea of Gay marriage doesn't make them a hateful person or a bigot, it just means they have an opinion that isn't popular at the moment.

It makes them in favour of discriminatory laws. That's the basis on which most people here judge the stances of others; not depending on the popularity of their opinions (at least from what I've seen). I'd be pleased to know people don't hold back from criticising those in favour of discrimination.

Being against gay marriage is not unpopular, anyway. It may be so here on the Escapist, but in the real world, many people share that view. Particularly in the US, I would imagine. Hell, here in the UK, those against gay marriage have almost the entirety of the printed press on their side.

What makes you think I'm against Affirmative Action? Was my description of it wrong? Or just not phrased in a manner that implies that no one is disadvantaged by it?

It was how you chose to describe it. "Popular opinion holds that white males should be disadvantaged". That's not how somebody in favour (or on the fence) would describe it.

 

[MagunBFP]

It makes them in favour of discriminatory laws. That's the basis on which most people here judge the stances of others; not depending on the popularity of their opinions (at least from what I've seen). I'd be pleased to know people don't hold back from criticising those in favour of discrimination.

Being against gay marriage is not unpopular, anyway. It may be so here on the Escapist, but in the real world, many people share that view. Particularly in the US, I would imagine. Hell, here in the UK, those against gay marriage have almost the entirety of the printed press on their side.

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. To include gay relationships into Marriage would be changing marriage. Enforcing definitions is not discrinimation. If there was something that was exactly the same as marriage, except it was between two people of the same sex and called something else would that be acceptible or still discriminatory because the marriage wasn't redefined to suit homosexual couples?

Given that there is a very vocal minority, and lets be honest for the most part in a public environment most people will sheepishly follow the loudest, most "popular" voices being against gay marriage is socially very unpopular. In private peoples opinions may be very different, from what they profess when part of a group.

What makes you think I'm against Affirmative Action? Was my description of it wrong? Or just not phrased in a manner that implies that no one is disadvantaged by it?

It was how you chose to describe it. "Popular opinion holds that white males should be disadvantaged". That's not how somebody in favour (or on the fence) would describe it.

You're right it does sound a bit negative, but is that description wrong? Also how is "Popular opinion holds that women and black people should be preferential treatment based on their skin colour or sex" any better? All the rephasing does is not mention the fact that for someone to recieve postive discrimination someone else has to be negativly discriminated against.

 

[MagunBFP]

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.

Definitions change. By now I'd say you're quite wrong to define it that way, as it's clearly moved beyond that.

Oh and 'enforcing definitions' is discriminatory when the real motive is bigotry. Definitions don't need enforcement, they are descriptive of how words are used, not some sort of divine mandate.

I see, so words can't be used incorrectly? If I said the elephant in the sky was burning brightly you'd just change the definition of elephant to include "a burning ball of gas illuminates the sky"?

Definitions do change, but you know what else happens, new words are created as well. Also how do you know someone's motives? If they have no problem with homosexuality, but want to preserve marriage as being between a man and a woman are they still a bigot? Is it still hate for the "vile homosexual lifestyle" if they don't actual hate it? Or is it just alot easier to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with changing marriage is an evil homophobic bigot?

 

[Silvanus]

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. To include gay relationships into Marriage would be changing marriage. Enforcing definitions is not discrinimation. If there was something that was exactly the same as marriage, except it was between two people of the same sex and called something else would that be acceptible or still discriminatory because the marriage wasn't redefined to suit homosexual couples?

You're right. It would be changing marriage. Why on earth would that be bad? If the existing definition is discriminatory, then enforcing the status quo (for no other reason than it is the status quo) is indeed discriminatory.

Given that there is a very vocal minority, and lets be honest for the most part in a public environment most people will sheepishly follow the loudest, most "popular" voices being against gay marriage is socially very unpopular. In private peoples opinions may be very different, from what they profess when part of a group.

Where you live must be very different from where I live.

You're right it does sound a bit negative, but is that description wrong? Also how is "Popular opinion holds that women and black people should be preferential treatment based on their skin colour or sex" any better? All the rephasing does is not mention the fact that for someone to recieve postive discrimination someone else has to be negativly discriminated against.

I'm not saying it's inaccurate. I'm merely saying that you described it in a way I would expect of somebody against affirmative action.

You've asked me twice, now, "Am I wrong?"

And my reply is, both times, "No; But I am inferring something about you from your choice of words".

Am I wrong? I took you to be against affirmative action (a fine, logical stance), but I also took you to be defending the right of an employer to judge somebody by their sexuality (which would seem to fly in the face of the earlier stance).

 

[manic_depressive13]

-

Wow okay. Why did you quote me? Did I really have to read that?

Go learn some basic history and biology please. There are obvious geographical reasons for why early societies developed how they did. There is also more genetic variation within races than there is between them, so your absurd theory that certain "races" or "ethnicities" evolved faster than others is just nonsensical and unsubstantiated.

And no, it's not healthy and interesting to be racist, even though you claim not to believe the twaddle you wrote. You didn't even bring anything new to the table. You're just rehashing colonial arguments from the nineteenth century that have long ago been refuted by logic and science.

 

[thethird0611]

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. To include gay relationships into Marriage would be changing marriage. Enforcing definitions is not discrinimation. If there was something that was exactly the same as marriage, except it was between two people of the same sex and called something else would that be acceptible or still discriminatory because the marriage wasn't redefined to suit homosexual couples?

You're right. It would be changing marriage. Why on earth would that be bad? If the existing definition is discriminatory, then enforcing the status quo (for no other reason than it is the status quo) is indeed discriminatory.

It is bad. Your never going to admit it though.

Forcing a culture to change itself to accommodate you is horrendous.

I say it exactly like that, because I have had discussions with people who fully support gay marriage and hate religion. I asked them "What if we find a compromise. What if under the government it is all civil unions, hetero, homo, etc."

"NO. We HAVE to have marriage or your a bigot"

The definition of marriage is not discriminatory, it is a definition that fits. Many people who are pro-gay marriage have made it discriminatory by forcing it to be what they want, like a child who cant have a toy that another is playing with.

Oh, and now that you think you know me by reading all that, I am pro-gay civil union with equal benefits. The only thing is, I fully respect religious culture, their traditions, their ideals.

 

[MagunBFP]

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. To include gay relationships into Marriage would be changing marriage. Enforcing definitions is not discrinimation. If there was something that was exactly the same as marriage, except it was between two people of the same sex and called something else would that be acceptible or still discriminatory because the marriage wasn't redefined to suit homosexual couples?

You're right. It would be changing marriage. Why on earth would that be bad? If the existing definition is discriminatory, then enforcing the status quo (for no other reason than it is the status quo) is indeed discriminatory.

How is your "all inclusive" definition any better? Would it allow for plural marriages? Would it all hetro or home incestual marriages? Changing the status quo for no other reason then gay marriage is the current "flavour of the month" and not because you want to fix the discrimination of marriage as an institution is not really much of a better idea then creating a new just as discriminatory definition of a couple.

Given that there is a very vocal minority, and lets be honest for the most part in a public environment most people will sheepishly follow the loudest, most "popular" voices being against gay marriage is socially very unpopular. In private peoples opinions may be very different, from what they profess when part of a group.

Where you live must be very different from where I live.

I live on the planet Earth, where do you live where everyone is always honest about their opinions?

You're right it does sound a bit negative, but is that description wrong? Also how is "Popular opinion holds that women and black people should be preferential treatment based on their skin colour or sex" any better? All the rephasing does is not mention the fact that for someone to recieve postive discrimination someone else has to be negativly discriminated against.

I'm not saying it's inaccurate. I'm merely saying that you described it in a way I would expect of somebody against affirmative action.

You've asked me twice, now, "Am I wrong?"

And my reply is, both times, "No; But I am inferring something about you from your choice of words".

Am I wrong? I took you to be against affirmative action (a fine, logical stance), but I also took you to be defending the right of an employer to judge somebody by their sexuality (which would seem to fly in the face of the earlier stance).

True, I am not in favour of affirmative action, I don't see it as empowering or helping in the long term.

For the record my original statement was defending the right of people to hold an opinion and support it with their actions. I do not support hiring/firing someone for their sexual preferences, or anyone supporting their opinions by breaking the law (which hiring/firing someone for their private life would be). Orson Scott Card is an example of this, regardless of if you agree with his belief or not, he has a right to believe as he does, he has a right to do everything legally within his power to support his belief, just as you have a right to do anything legally within your power to counter his belief.

 

[Worgen]

I don't understand homophobia myself, but it reminds me of a thread awhile back. It was a story about a brony air force squad patch. Over the course of the discussion, someone said that the sight of ponies made them want to physically assault someone and that kept him from going to 40k conventions or something, he was worried he would start beating up someone with a mlp themed army. I'm not comparing homosexuals to people who like mlp, but I am comparing the people that hate both groups and seek harm upon them, together. I still don't get the hate but maybe someone else can come up with a reason for the sight of something just making someone go beserk.