I don't support the gay high school thing, and on a very technical level, I think its more appropriate to stick with "civil unions" than "marriages," but I fully support gays standing up for themselves, and I'm glad that they're building up so much homomentum.

To me, it shows that people think GBLT rights (and the rights of any other "minority" group) are all well and good in theory...but once those rights start to come to fruition they start to have second thoughts. It's very easy to SAY you agree that people should be able to marry whomever they want so long as they're consenting adults, but then when the reality of that is so close, we decide maybe it's not so important after all. I think it's incredibly sad that the code of morality of SOME has been placed upon the entire country.

This backlash doesn't surprise me ONE iota

I definitely worry about the safety of GLBT individuals/groups once they are afforded equal rights (protection under AA would be a start), though. Violence against GLBTs will probably be more common/widespread once they are considered "equal" in the eyes of the law. That worries me incredibly. Usually, progress comes with a price, but the fear of violence (and I do think it is inevitable) is ONE hefty price to be paid. I just wish people would wake up and realize that just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it is wrong and that just because something is made "legal" doesn't mean you HAVE to do it or be involved in it.

If the results of this survey are correct, this makes me very, very sad. I can't quite go with any of the choices on your poll. I don't think it's really hate that drives this alleged backlash (although there certainly is some of that; just today, in my rural part of the world, I saw a handmade billboard advocating a boycott of Wal-Mart because of their support for "sodomites.") Rather, I think it is discomfort. I hope that time will ease this discomfort.

I definitely think it's discomfort, for the most part. The word lesbian and gay were said in whispers in the mainstream 20 years ago and now we have our own tv shows. I think with any type of progression, you hit a plateau and it sits there for a while. You can't push progress to quickly, it will happen in time.

edit to add: For this to be a topic of discussion in the world shows the progress in itself.

Not the best choices, aquapub:

Too much progress, too fast for many Americans: What progress? What speed?
Shows how much hate still remains in the mainstream: "Hate" is a bit off, IMO; misunderstanding, ignorance, fear, irrational prejudice, misguided religious indoctrination, and self-loathing, to my mind, far outweigh outright hatred.
Shows how much America has its values straight: Pun intended? America hasn't had its values straight since we started undermining and eroding our founding values shortly after codifying them; sure our Constitution should be flexible - but that doesn't mean we should be amending or circumventing it to limit or proscribe individual rights, restrict the human rights of minorities, and cripple states' rights as we have been doing intermittently since the Civil War (if not much earlier) - and excluding any legitimate minority from the freedoms, duties, opportunities, and responsibilities shared by all others is part of that process.

I went with the second option, because it is closest to my opinion - but it's still not all that close...

I think that it is indicative of a general lack of willingness to understand whoever the "other" happens to be.

On the one hand are groups that have experienced prejudice for years, and the changes just can't seem to come fast enough for them.

On the other hand are people who have different priorities and can't understand why the big deal about sexual orientation when they're straight and trying to sort their own lives out.

True, but in effect there seems to me to be very little difference between active hate and casual indifference.

The attitude that I seem to see a lot is from people who don't like to acknowledge their own prejudice. They say they don't want us to be discriminated against, but when push comes to shove they don't want us to have the same rights they do. Look at the comments made re: gay marriage.

I would have to view the poll people took to conclude that ' a steep drop in support for gays' has actually occured. What sort of question would determine that? 'Do you support gay rights as much today as last year?' 'Have your views about gays changed recently?' Was it the same poll question given within the span of several years? Without knowing, I can't draw much of a conclusion either way.

I agree. I think I'd have to see the poll first before I could really make an accurate judgement.

In fact, I always assumed that general support for gays was climbing. The much televised "Queer eye for the straight guy" is a smash hit. If people are growing more and more uncomfortable with Gay rights, then why are the TV shows so popular? (Yes, I realize that every gay person on TV is a stereotypical gay person). Its just that shows like Will and Grace are growing in momentum, and if people had a general dislike of Gays, I would assume that their poll numbers would be slipping.

So black folks achieved equality in the 1950s because Amos and Andy was on TV?
The only gays on TV that are popular across the board are asexual clowns. The portrayal of homosexuals (at least men) in mainstream entertainment pointedly avoids the very thing that makes us homosexual in the first place. Hint: it ain't showtunes.

What about Dawson's Creek, Will and Grace (Will is certainly not a clown), Melrose Place? Those are all (or were) very popular television shows with openly gay and romantically involved characters.
Ellen (Degeneres) was cancelled when she 'came out' for the simple reason that her show stopped being funny...although she waved the 'homophobia flag' for the decline in popularity of her newly unfunny, agenda-based show.

Fair enough.

Your probably correct that people just love laughing at the stereotypical homosexual and thus watch the shows, avoiding what truly makes a gay man gay.

But obviously, there isn't an overwhelming hate for gay people if so many people watch these shows. If so, such "Gay" reality TV series would surely plummet in ratings and be quickly swept off the air.

Anyway, I dont believe that "hate" was the correct term to use in the poll.

Oh, I agree with you there.
I'm not sure what the proper word would be, though... "antipathy"?
I just find it odd to hear people say they are opposed to discrimination then say they are also opposed to us having the same rights (re: marriage). What definition of "discrimination" do these people use?

"Will and Grace" is a popular television show. I refuse to watch it because of the silliness and the "flaming" characteristics of some of the gay characters. Don't gays understand that it is tantamount to characterizing African Americans as eating watermelon and Moon Pies and sipping RC Cola? It is exploitation of a stereotype and doesn't contribute, indeed it detracts from the acceptance of gays in mainstream society. There are people who laugh at these shows while it reinforces their contempt for gays.

The dignity of gays will earn them more tolerance and acceptance from non-gays. Do gays want to be thought of as that 'Funny' Uncle Fred or as Uncle Fred who happens to be gay?

If I were gay, I would work to get the entertainment industry to portray gays as thoughtful, serious characters, rather than in silly updates of 'minstrel shows.'

By the way, I accept gays on an individual basis. I believe that it is the best way to accept a member of any group.

(edited)

Yes and no. Speaking from experience here, Will and Grace is funny as hell! If you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at? I know lots of silly little fags like Jack (Shawn Hayes). They're fun and colorful.

I'd say a more well rounded gay show that shows a more diversified and realistic look into gay culture would be Queer As Folk. But that's a drama. Will and Grace is a comedy, the characters are supposed to be outrageous! Gay people get it and if they don't, they're just too uptight to laugh at them selves. All gay men have a little bit of Jack in them!

I think what would detract from the acceptance of gays in the mainstream is if they showed a gay man who didn't have respect for himself and was ashamed of his sexuality and snuck around and wasn't honest. OR a gay man who made obnoxious passes at straight men and didn't take NO as an answer, or a gay man who preyed on little boys. THOSE are bad stereotypes.

Will and Grace is just fun. I know gay men who are that self absorbed and horny, for goodness sakes, they are MEN!

I understand the need for a person to remain true to her/himself. It is not without trouble, though.

I remember an SNL episode where Vlad the Impaler was depressed, and some people he knew decided to psychoanalyze him to find out what the problem was. They helped him reaffirm who he was so he would accept himself, and as a perk they told him about some tinkers in the valley he could do his particular "thing" with. I think Bill Murray was in that skit; it's that old.

If any group on earth has been psychoanalyzed to death, it is probably gays. But even after all that, the most self-actualized gay person may still be hurt by the prejudice s/he encounters in the everyday world.

I guess there just has to be more time.

I am a silly little fag like Jack, and even I have more depth than the characters on that show.

That's an OK show, but hardly realistic or well rounded. And is it really a crossover success? There's really only one reason to watch that show, and I'd imagine straight guys aren't so much into male nudity...

You mean, like this guy?

Alls I'm saying is that the mere presence of gay characters in mainstream entertainment does not mean we are accepted. Particularly when we are portrayed as non-threatening emasculated comic relief, or in the case of lesbians as sluts just waiting for the right man (who is Ben Affleck for some ungodly reason) to come along.

Paladin Elspeth writes:


Dignity will earn *EVERYONE* more tolerance and acceptance. Let's face it, when your normal Joe Blow thinks about homosexuals, what do they remember? Their dignified next-door-neighbor-type who happens to be gay, or the flamboyant, prancing, lisping stereotype that marches down Main Street in leather gear at the Gay Pride Parade? Fair or not, those stereotypes affect even those who don't fit them.

This isn't only a problem in the gay community, there are plenty of 'minorities' that think that they have to support things that they don't particularly like, simply because it's done by part of the 'community'. I think it's much better to stand up for what you believe in though, even if that means saying that you disagree with what someone in your 'group' is doing.

Honestly, I think it's much better to be the dignified next door neighbor who gets up, goes to work, mows his lawn and just happens to come home to a man instead of a woman at night. You stand a much better chance of being accepted that way.



You don't have to be gay to do that, silly.

What really needs to happen is that gay characters have to stop being gay characters. In most cases, they exist simply because they are gay. That's their contribution to the show. They play the gay stereotype. Shows need to have important characters that just happen to be gay. Their sexual orientation shouldn't have anything to do with their existence on the show. I think shows like "Gay Eye for the Straight Guy" do a lot to hurt the gay rights movement.



Absolutely true. There are no groups, only people. You can't stereotype people because of some characteristic they share. Blacks don't all like fried chicken and watermelon. Asians aren't all computer geeks. Treat everyone as an individual and life is much easier. Preconceived notions about someone's actions/beliefs/whatever only get in the way.

Well my definition is the same as everyone else. To summarize it, to deny a person opportunity based on a persons race, nationality....... The reason I'm against gay rights (being marriage, unions, and adoption) is that homosexuality is based on a sexual preference, nothing more nothing less. Why should we give two gay men rights that two straight men (or women) can't have. furthermore, if you give GLBT these rights then you have to give rights to bigamists, child molesters, those weird animal people and so forth. Where does it end. I'm all for people to do whatever floats their boat, but why should they have special rights.

So now the opportunity to marry the person I love is a "special right"?

To be honest, this cheesy semantic game really annoys me. A heterosexual man marries a woman, not because she is a woman, but because they are in love. Right now the law denies me that same right to marry the person I love, and there is absolutely no way to deny that it is discrimination.

There are several things wrong in this post. Lets brake them down one by one. I have inserted footnotes into the original post for simplicity.

1. No, it's not. At least according to a very sizeable portion of scientific evidence and personal experience which has been expounded on in other threads.

2. Utter absurdity. The government in Canada is going to pass a law (at some point in the coming months) to formally and permanently legalize gay marriage. They are not going to say that "two gay men or two gay women may marry," or anything of the sort; and I can't imagine how you would get confused here. Homosexual marriage does not expand marriage to people who are identified as gay, it just abolishes gender considerations in existing marriage laws.

3. You know, a lot of people have said that; and nobody has been able to demonstrate how it makes sense given the legal framework in which marriage is being discussed. There is no legal reason to think this. Since there is no legal foundation to this argument then one can only assume that it revolves around a fear of a sort of morality momentum... which makes no sense. Attitudes towards gay marriage have CHANGED; pedophilia and molestation are just as despised now as they were 50 years ago because they are crimes in which people are exploited. Nobody is exploited in a gay marriage.

I do think there's been a real backlash, one with a fair amount of breadth but not alot of depth. For awhile, it did seem like GLBT issues were dominating news and entertainment, at least compared to the old "whispered tone" days, and this probably makes alot of fairly moderate peole uncomfortable. Where this lacks depth, however, is the diatribes I hear these days are less visceral, more based on assertions that "it's a choice" or a sin that should be accepted but looked down upon and no way preferenced. This might very well be wishful thinking on my part, but maybe the higher profile has made people more uncomfortable with outright, violent bigotry as well. Anyway, if it's not off topic, 1.) do you think critics' tones have moderated lately and 2.) if we ever have conclusive proof of a genetic origin, will the "it's just a bad choice" crowd admit defeat or stonewall?

1. What scientific evidence? If you compare a gay person and a straight person of the same sex they are basically genetically the same. Can you tell the difference without getting to know them. If so how do many of them remain in the closet for so many years? The only exceptions are hermaphrodites.
2. If you want to get married, have a ceremony, wear the rings, and live together, go for it! I'm just against government sanctions ones for same sex. Why should two gay men get tax breaks and other consideration when two straight friends can't? Those marriages and the benefits result from them should be reserved for people that raise families. Something two people of the same sex cannot produce naturally.
3. Their are a lot of cultures that accept marriages with parters in their early teens, that some people here might consider considered pedophilia. There was a European soccer player who came to the US and couldn't be legally married to his wife because she was only 14 recently. Furthermore if the government can't control the sex of couples what makes you think that a person can't challenge what a marriage is? As far as exploitation goes look at the teeny bobbers out there. Brittany Spears, Christina Agulliera, Hillary Duff, and the "S8ter gurl." Whose to say that a person can't have multiple partners as well, if they can't say its between just one man and one woman. What about Bisexuals? How can they be married to a single person and still engaging sexually with another to fulfill their sexual appetite. They can't without committing adultery which usually is against the principles of marriage. Like I said its all about whatever sexually floats your boat. It's not about love. You can love many things in life and not marry them like, your cat, your mom, your 1998 Toyota Supra , and even your partner.

Really? Marriage only exists for breeding purposes? So I suppose infertile heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry? Should heterosexual couples be forced to divorce once the woman reaches menopause?
This shows a complete lack of understanding of sexual orientation. A bisexual person can certainly be monogamous, or even gasp! celibate. Orientation does not necessarily mean activity- I was gay when I was still a virgin.
Right. Because, of course, there is absolutely no difference between romantic love and the feelings you have for a pet.
It is about love. There is no other worthwhile reason to marry anyone, and frankly I really feel sorry for the spouses of those who argue that marriage is all about breeding and love has nothing to do with it...

The ignorance about the gay community is thinking that the only reason a couple wants to be together is to have sex, which is false. They are just like everyone else that are couples. Yes they love each other and yes one of the things they do is have sex just like people in heterosexual relationships do between adults.

Its time to give them equal protection under the law and not stereotype them like we do not any other minority, by not allowing them benefits like insurance for partners and everything else that is given to people of opposite sex in a marriage are allowed.

And this is an opinion of a straight guy.

I find it funny that the Christian right feels that it has been damaged because it cant enforce its bigot policy against the homosexual community, i think that may be the core of your backlash. Just like when the gay republican made his speech all the people got in their ritual positions and preyed, so obviously that may be a large part of it. Its rather stupid to not point this out, or i am not trying to aggravate any groups, its just that the bible only changes slowly in time, and i doubt that the part in reference is going to leave anytime in the future.

Just to add on why it is silly, we try to limit racism and bigotry in this nation i imagine, or try to build a somewhat equal public for the lands inhabitants. If a hate crime was to be employed against a religious person on just the base of its religion or just any difference that can be used, that crime is i hope for the most part frowned upon. If we then say, because you are a Christian you can hate or be bias against homosexuals, what else can we then say?

Segregation is not going to help anything in the long run, just add more corruption and strife to this system. What are you going to do, have certain groups of people that are to live in poverty or wall yourself away somewhere in the woods, overall the whole fiasco to me is rather silly, these same people preach humanity when it comes to certain groups, and then not against others. Peace will not come with inequality, its rather simple and i think reflects much in the world. I just don’t see how some group that is supposed to represent the "good" qualities of humanity can be so embracing of hate most of the time.

I chose, Too much progress too quick. I felt that people have come a long way and I don't expect too much from people all at once. I think Amy Grant said that "it takes a lot of time to turn the Titanic around". It's pretty stupid for people to ask that everyone else change their opinions over night just because they realize something is a moral wrong (judging people based on sexual preference) before the rest of society. Also it does not promote open mindedness to be upset at others for their beliefs when that is precisely what your accusing them of, let alone a realistic perspective of the world.

I would also like to point out that most gay people will tell any straight people that what they do with their partners behind closed doors is their business and to be honest most straight people could care less what is done behind closed doors. But then they have this lifestyle thrust upon them in the media and they pull back a little. Can you blame them? Maybe, but who are you to judge?

My realistic perspective comes from some Christians JL.

Just yesterday i got to listen to one talk about how secular America is wrong for being against the Christian stance on homosexuality. I don’t have to go very far and i am sure i don’t have to type much in on the internet to find such material

Anyways in my post i said that change for such a group of people will not come in a very long time

And again i will say i am not trying to start any aggravation, but the fact of the matter is many people in the Christian community feel little or nothing to air the stance on such an issue, or say how such people should be treated in society.

And as for people wanting to keep their sexual preferences hidden, i don’t think the use of fear is a very good thing. Many people will hide with "their" difference from society for fear of persecution by the current powers that hold a negative stance on it, i don’t like to stand for that. I guess that is the evils of the ACLU in reality, fighting the darker side of America.

Nile,
I think it's fantastic that you listened to a Christian talk and I hope something about Jesus rubbed off on you at some point, but I don't understand what this Christian's opinion of the G-d has anything to do with the matter at hand. To be honest to me it sounds like your using this thread as a platform to down Christians. I think that's particularly sad . However if that's how you feel, so be it. The point I'd really like to make here is that what you heard from one Cristian could and is easily be ignored by billions of other Christians worldwide, including a large portion of gays that are themselves devout Christians.

As for the other part of your post; just when exactly did I suggest that gay people hide their sexuality or "differences" as you say? I only made the claim that if gay people care about what mainstream America think, it would be wise to let them come to grips with the idea behind homosexuality first and then have the media throw it in their face all day. Anything more is just provocation and I don't think that being provocative is bad, but it's not the way to win affection from a group of people that have shown hesitation in acceptance.

I still believe that tolerance toward homosexuality is increasing in America and it's better than it has been in the past.

NO, it was the o’reiley show on fox.

I am not bashing Christians, i could if i wanted a strike, i think i have room for 2 more, but its not very constructive to say the least. The people that make such statements are either figureheads in Christianity in America or claim it to be the moral backing of such statements. Then like on the show, secular America is wrong for saying that you should not openly be a bigot against some people, just because some group claims to be toe moral fabric of something does not free them to designate individuals of groups to be less then deserving of typical human status in this nation. Then going against thus gets you the label of a bad guy, i guess it just comes around.

Yes, we have witnessed much positive change and movement to a more equal America for its populous, and for me the most strife that i have witnessed against comes from certain individuals that use said religion as the grounds for their statements, its almost like radical Islamic calling America the great devil, the overall nature of it is its root in ignorance and the acceptance of by the group mind. I tend to think for myself, i guess that’s why i get in trouble sometimes.

Nile,
I agree with the things you say, I just think it's less than wise to think that one persons rant on the O'rielly Factor really represents the foundation of a group of believers. I am just getting fed up with people saying that other people like gays and abortionists can have their lifestyles because it's a free country, but Christians and rightwingers can't. Not to metion that many Christians and rightwingers are themselves, homosexuals and abortionists.

Thank you.

Homosexuality and abortion are separate elements.

Once again, i don’t think any one would be going against the Christian right on such an issue if they did not practice such. America is still trying to get past skin color difference, so i know its not an easy process, but the same remark that can be made against not allowing for the Christian right to be bias against something could be used to why the kkk should be fine and dandy, and in light of it no one has tried to outlaw a person being able to hate another or a "group" of other. It more or less comes down to the public and related law, such as not allowing for such groups to be an offense by law, or making it so some group cannot get a job. If people did not work for freedom of all, America would hardly be the land of the free. Or to say it another way, if you want to hate someone, you can, you can do it with your family and in your place of worship, rally, whatever, but if a person reports that his/her life is being destroyed by such activates, then its a crime right? or if someone tries to outlaw being a Mormon, this is what people are really fighting for. I mean it would suck to live your life in hiding, or run from a pack of clan members with dogs and guns, the bottom line is such activates are hardly something to cherish.

Nile,
Your last post reminds me of when I was called Hitler in tenth grade for saying that the Skinheads and Neo-Nazis had every right to march in Illinois and everywhere in America, just as much as any other person might march against their ideals. In that class I was subject to abuse for the rest of that year and they drew pictures of me having sex with sheep and the like . It was funny to me that all these people in one class hated me based on the fact that I believed in being open minded, but to listen to them you would think they were absolutely being open minded. Let's not pretend to be open minded if we're not. If you don't think the Klan should march whenever they feel free, you should see what happens when you don't let them march and they start feeling reppressed that's how judges get shot coming out of court buildings if you know what I mean. What the Klan preaches is dispicable, but it's their right to believe it and assemble and march PEACEFULLY. When you allow a group to do something peacefully, it prevents the extremists within a group from having a good argument (from the others perspective) for acting out with violence.

Also, I am a Christian Rightwinger, yet I don't agree with the philosophies that you equate Christian Rightwingers with having. It's going to be very detrimental to anyone's arguement to keep classifying people into groups that don't fit them.

And lastly I only tied the two (abortin and homosexuality) because it is a common fallacy that all Christians hate both.

Yes in the governments eyes. Thats why they get tax breaks, FHSA, HUD, and other benefits.
I feel sorry for people who think a ring, cermony, and public acception has anything to do with love.

So who's going to be the one to tell all of the infertile couples they aren't married? What about those heterosexual couples who choose to remain childless?

Right, because it's simply a business arrangement. No one in history has ever gotten married because they love the person they are with.
No matter how many times it is repeated, a lie will never become the truth.

But this is really a sideline to the topic of this thread, there is already a topic about same sex marriage where this discussion would probably be better suited.

How about a fourth option, that large percentages of the population are unthinking sheep? I can also suggest a 5th option: people are quite liberal so long as their liberal policies don't touch THEM.

My father had never uttered a racist word in his life (no that I heard, anyway), but when his sister married a black man in 1968, suddenly a new word entered his vocabulary, and it wasn't very complimentary to blacks. "Negroes" were okay until his sister married one.

I have friends who tell me that they aren't homophobic, but they wouldn't mind queers so much if they didn't put rainbow bumper stickers on their cars or kiss in public. They have no problem with American flag decals on THEIR cars, or kissing THEIR loved ones on street corners, but that isn't acceptable for gays.

Gayness is a culture as well as a sexuality, as least for many of us. It is a culture that we have fought hard for - there is a long struggle still ahead - and we are proud of our accomplishments. The straight people who are the source of this supposed "backlash" must wish that we would go back in our closets, and only come out in June for parades, or on sitcoms. Now that they law is starting to give us as much real freedom to be visible as they have always enjoyed, they are frightened.

We aren't going back into the closet, the backlash will eventually abate, and then we can get on with the business of life, loving those whom we choose, buying homes with those whom we choose, holding hands IN PUBLIC with those whom we choose, and finally marrying those whom you choose.

Don't sweat the backlash: it is largely a media invention, anyway (I'm fairly active in the gay community, and it has affected none of my peers).

I think it is too much, too quickly. A belief system does not change easily, and there is a determined lobby against homosexual equality.

The same thing was felt after the Civil War towards blacks. Social progress and ending discrimination is relatively slow. I don't think honestly that it will still exist by 2100 though. I have to go through a few things in this thread.



What special rights do you speak of? Everything you listed is a right/privilege held by straight coulpes.

So of what special rights do you refer to? You seem to be mistaking special for equal.



The "If I give an inch, I'll also have to give a mile", is a relatively weak argument as far as human rights and ethics is concerned. We are not talking about child molesters. So why do you involve them? They are not even analogous, since it is a relationship based on rape, coercion, and a non-consensual foundation.



Have you evidence of this? And you are incorrect too. Lesbians have a different ear tissue than heterosexual women. Strange, but interesting.



They want the legal rights of marriage. Not the ceremonial ones. If these were your rights and equality in question, I don't believe you would be so dismissive.



I'm sorry, but what on Earth are you talking about? "Straight friends can't"?

Can't do what? All that is being asked are the same legal rights as those straight people Not extra rights. Your arguments were the same used by segregationists, believe it or not.



There is a surplus of babies for adoption from places like China.



How is this relevant?



Again, if it were your equality in question, I do not believe you would be so apathetic and dismissive.



I don't see how Christians can't have their own life. Afterall, I am one. We just cannot force ourselves onto others, in this case. There is a difference.



False.

Only 46.5% of all marriages have kids.

Modern shows do have their problems, but at least we've gotten beyond the Vince McMahon era where the only "gay" (He ultimately was heterosexual, but he acted stereotypically "gay") character on TV was a weird pro-wrestler who talked funny and wiggled his *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** suggestively over his (male) opponents.

Weren't the mid-90s just grand?

I personally feel like I am part of the "gay backlash" to some degree. I was extremely pleased with the Supreme Court ruling invalidating sodomy laws. I thought they were ridiculously archaic intrusions into people's privacy. I'm also generally in favor of the concept of gay marriage, if it's accomplished through state legislatures or Congress.

I have my reservations about homosexuality-related issues, however, and I feel like these had been forced to the surface by the incredible amount of attention they have received recently. For example, I think that the Episcopal church should back down and not ordain the gay bishop. I don't want to see the Anglican Communion split (for various other reasons) over this issue when I believe it will resolve itself eventually.

I must admit, it seems to me often times that the media and gay rights enthusasists are of a mind that everyone must love and accept homosexuals overnight. The topic of homosexuals and gay rights is becoming "trendy." They receive constant attention from the media--I don't know if I can remember an edition of Newsweek last summer that didn't contain at least one article about gay rights, gay entertainment, gays in politics, or something similar.

I hate trendiness and the herd mentality. I also hate being told what to think. My misgivings are probably heightened by the fact that I'm in college now. We're continually told by the Resident Life department how we must welcome everyone and using phrases like "that's gay" or "what a fag" with our friends is horribily "insensitive." They tell us to stop it because using them because it contributes to a "hostile environment." They've even threatened to have a guest speaker come in and lecture the whole dorm--payed for by our tuition! And all this despite the fact that not one person has been harassed!

The fact of the matter is I don't really like homosexuality. It makes me uncomfortable. Those views have worked for me for my entire life. I don't particularly feel like changing them now. If gays want equal rights, then they should work for equal rights based on rational arguments. Trying to get people to love you will just backfire. And the media shouldn't spend all day covering a tiny minority of people (about 2-3%) that really isn't that significant anyway. So they're being denied civil rights--big deal--so are tons of other people like ex-felons, residents of Washington D.C., and "terrorists" at Guantanimo Bay. Maybe you should cover them half as much.

It is. I'm assuming you don't call your friends "nigger" and "spic" when they do something dumb, why do you call them "fag"?
It's a big deal to deny civil rights to anyone. I think it's terrible that people are being held without cause at Guantanimo Bay, that doesn't mean I should just shut up about my own problems.

Gays have been working for equal rights based on rational arguments, but being seen and hopefully appreciated in the media has a humanizing effect, which is important for a group that was forced to exist behind closed doors for so long.



I guess I must have missed the part where the media was covering homosexuality all day.



Those other groups should be mentioned by the media as well, but it doesn't negate the idea that homosexuals should be fighting for their own civil rights.

I'm telling you it hasn't had a humanizing effect for me. They're being covered too much, and it *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** me off, nothing else. I'm telling everyone why I feel like I am part of the gay backlash. I'm trying to give a personal perspective that maybe connects to the broader statistical trends. I'm saying that for me at least, if they had been covered in the media LESS, than I would sympathize with their issues MORE.



I feel it's been covered far past it's due. This is not something I know where to get statistics to prove or disprove, but it has been my impression. I'll go to my original example of Newsweek, the news magazine I have always read. Over the past several months they had run a full story on the gay reality show Boy Meets Boy, a full story on the gay reality show Queer Eye for a Straight Guy, a full story on gay politics in Wyoming, a cover story about gay marriage after the Supreme Court sodomy ruling, a full story on debates between social conservatives and gay rights groups, etc. etc. This seems like too much to me, and it's annyoing because I don't think homosexuals are that signifcant. Newsweek is trying to be trendy, which they do a lot, but I still don't like it.



No, it doesn't. But it does negate the idea that the media should be covering gay rights as much as they are to the expense of other equally or more important issues.

I call them "fag" because I feel like it. I do other insensitive things too, like occasionally not returning phone calls or saying someone's an "########" to their face. These are probably things I should work on. But I don't want people I don't know telling me I "must" change just because it's a political issue. And if I was ever planning to stop using the words, I sure as hell don't feel like doing so because of this.

Not actually a political issue, but a social one. By continually using the word as a synonym for "#########", you're expressing a passive antipathy for homosexuals. It deprives them of their equality, especially when a child is brought up believing "fag" to be just another word for "stupid".



You suggest homosexuals should fight for equal rights based on rational arguments, yet on this issue, which fights an obviously irrational conservative view of homosexuals (the bible only states that homosexual acts are wrong. A homosexual can be as celibate as any heterosexual can), you suggest it should be ignored, so it can resolve itself somehow? That's interesting.

The Anglican Communion isn't being split by the ordination of a gay bishop, it's being split by prejudice and stubborn resistance to change.

I want to make this perfectly clear. I will say whatever the hell I feel like whether it's a political issue or a social issue or any other kind of issue. By telling me not to you are accomplishing one thing and one thing only--you're diminishing my opinion of the gay rights movement. If homosexuals are so fragile that my use of the word "fag" will be the deciding factor in denying them equality, then they don't deserve equality. I believe and hope they aren't that fragile.

I support the decision of the Supreme Court 100%. They had to fight hard to get there and finally get that decision for them. They were treated badly, humiliated, and made a media show.

As far as gay marriages, I do support their rights, but as I say this I must admit I do feel uncomfortable. I have mixed feelings. It does not support my upbringing, or morals. I wouldn't want my children to see this as a common thing in public.

The Supreme Court statement by Kennedy summed up the way I feel:

Gay marriage may or may not be a good idea, but leaving consenting adults alone in private is a constitutional idea. Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition, the State is not omnipresent in the home.

So, I really don't agree with any of the three choices, I don't think it is hate, or too fast progress. I would guess that maybe people are tired of it being a top issue like some have discussed, like the discussion of "hanging chads", you just can't take it anymore!

I try to be open minded and non-discriminatory. And, I enjoy privacy in my bedroom

Actually, I never said such a thing - nor would I ever. You have a right to freedom of expression and speech, just as I have a right to tell you exactly what I think of your freely expressed opinion. I'm simply stating why you should be a little more considerate in your language.



You misunderstand me. It's not homosexuals who are fragile. It's about social perception. If you commonly regard the word, say, "nigger" to mean "stupid", and your friends do the same, and then when you have a family, your family do the same, using it like a curse word, sparesely, but frequently enough so the meaning is understood... your children may just grow up to believe it.

"Too much progress, too fast for many Americans" seems like the explanation to me. Johnlocke's analogy of taking a long time to turn the Titanic around seems apt, though I'd choose a different ship name, one not doomed. Too much focus on gay issues in the media, too much pushing of gay issues in the school curriculums, too much pushing for gay marriage before people are ready for it have combined to produce a backlash.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the folks who wanted these changes, and I favor most of them myself. Nor do I think there's anything wrong with people who are turned off by them. It's just the way the culture is, and you can only push so fast without producing a backlash. I'd advise the activists to back off and let public opinion settle.

Why do I think that's what's happened? I can't give you an answer beyond that it's my intuitive understanding of the situation. In other words, a "gut feeling."

So do you suggest that the GLBT take this issue slow and try to sneak it pass everyone, whatever happened to loud 'n proud. I think the backlash is not a matter of "too much, too soon," but just "too much." As the GBLT are gaining more special rights the people who just assumed that someone else, like the supreme court, would stop the movement are getting more involved to make sure their disapproval is heard.