Explaining what "gay" is to my DC. Advice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Having gay feelings may not be a choice, but acting on them is. I'm not saying that it is the right choice or the wrong choice, but it is a choice. And as such, it is a choice that other people have the right to look upon favorably or unfavorably. The color of one's skin, on the other hand, is in no way a choice. You cannot compare the two.

And you are very wrong that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone and that it can't lead to selfish behaviours.

I do not think that the rights of homosexuals should be limited. However, I cannot agree that a man going on a date with another man is not a choice.

Oh, I see what you're saying. You mean that it's ok to BE black but ACTING black is crossing the line. Now I think I follow you.

There is not such thing as "acting black". One black person's behavior in no way represents another one's. The same is not true of gays. In order to act on being gay, one needs to have romantic relationships with someone of the same sex. The end. That is what, at the core, defines a gay lifestyle.

If a person disagrees with those actions, that is their right.

[Anonymous]

Well, I guess it's true what they say: "You can't argue with ignorance."

[Anonymous]

I guess it's true what they say, "it's okay to hurt other people and be selfish if you're a minority". It's also it's true what they say, "free speech is only welcome when you're hearing a viewpoint that matches your own". And don't forget that "logic is never welcome if it disproves what you want to believe"

So I guess it's pointless for me to continue arguing with your ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Yay!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I guess it's true what they say, "it's okay to hurt other people and be selfish if you're a minority". It's also it's true what they say, "free speech is only welcome when you're hearing a viewpoint that matches your own". And don't forget that "logic is never welcome if it disproves what you want to believe"

So I guess it's pointless for me to continue arguing with your ignorance.

It is certainly not okay to hurt other people if you're a minority. Neither is it okay to hurt others if you are in the majority. Yet, you seem eager to do so.

Before making yourself a martyr in defense of free speech, please show where you have not been allowed such freedom. You have the right to say what you want. You don't have the right to have everyone agree with you. If you decide to post anti-gay messages in a gay and lesbian forum, you should not expect expressions of appreciation. Indeed, those engaging you have been far more polite than I'd expect.

As for logic, you seem to have some short-comings in that area yourself. You concede that having gay feelings -- or in other words, being gay -- is not a choice. By implication, you must not consider heterosexuality a choice either. Yet, when one group acts in accordance to its nature you consider it selfish, but in the case of the other group, not selfish. That seems inconsistent and, if you will, illogical. Why should one group have limits on doing what comes natural while the other group doesn't? Moreover, why do you even care? Why do you feel any need -- let alone right -- to have a say over what happens in the bedroom between consenting adults?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it's true what they say, "it's okay to hurt other people and be selfish if you're a minority". It's also it's true what they say, "free speech is only welcome when you're hearing a viewpoint that matches your own". And don't forget that "logic is never welcome if it disproves what you want to believe"

So I guess it's pointless for me to continue arguing with your ignorance.

It is certainly not okay to hurt other people if you're a minority. Neither is it okay to hurt others if you are in the majority. Yet, you seem eager to do so.

Before making yourself a martyr in defense of free speech, please show where you have not been allowed such freedom. You have the right to say what you want. You don't have the right to have everyone agree with you. If you decide to post anti-gay messages in a gay and lesbian forum, you should not expect expressions of appreciation. Indeed, those engaging you have been far more polite than I'd expect.

As for logic, you seem to have some short-comings in that area yourself. You concede that having gay feelings -- or in other words, being gay -- is not a choice. By implication, you must not consider heterosexuality a choice either. Yet, when one group acts in accordance to its nature you consider it selfish, but in the case of the other group, not selfish. That seems inconsistent and, if you will, illogical. Why should one group have limits on doing what comes natural while the other group doesn't? Moreover, why do you even care? Why do you feel any need -- let alone right -- to have a say over what happens in the bedroom between consenting adults?

Thank you, everything I wanted to say and more - and better! I just didn't have the energy to try tonight!

[Anonymous]

school stuff that is out of hand:
1. same standards on PDS for gay and straight interested couples PLUS- if a guy shouldn't touch a non-receptive girl then neither should another girl
2. ability to use the word boyfriend if straight without demeaning reprimand...no getting $hit if not using the term partner
3. no insults by staff if a girl doesn't enjoy specific sports
4. is it ok for a boy to enjoy dance - good haircuts-fashion but not a girl?

Simple. Respect and no double standards.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it's true what they say, "it's okay to hurt other people and be selfish if you're a minority". It's also it's true what they say, "free speech is only welcome when you're hearing a viewpoint that matches your own". And don't forget that "logic is never welcome if it disproves what you want to believe"

So I guess it's pointless for me to continue arguing with your ignorance.

It is certainly not okay to hurt other people if you're a minority. Neither is it okay to hurt others if you are in the majority. Yet, you seem eager to do so.

Before making yourself a martyr in defense of free speech, please show where you have not been allowed such freedom. You have the right to say what you want. You don't have the right to have everyone agree with you. If you decide to post anti-gay messages in a gay and lesbian forum, you should not expect expressions of appreciation. Indeed, those engaging you have been far more polite than I'd expect.

As for logic, you seem to have some short-comings in that area yourself. You concede that having gay feelings -- or in other words, being gay -- is not a choice. By implication, you must not consider heterosexuality a choice either. Yet, when one group acts in accordance to its nature you consider it selfish, but in the case of the other group, not selfish. That seems inconsistent and, if you will, illogical. Why should one group have limits on doing what comes natural while the other group doesn't? Moreover, why do you even care? Why do you feel any need -- let alone right -- to have a say over what happens in the bedroom between consenting adults?

I'm not making myself a martyr. I believe that both sides have the right to express their views. And they have. I do not believe people need to agree with me. They do not need to appriciate me. However, nor will I be silenced when saying that I see both sides of this issue. And I do not believe that people should be automatically judged as ignorant because they see more than one side of an issue.

Four years ago, I would not have seen both sides. I would have been as equally vocal in my support of gay rights as you have. As it is, I have both celebrated at Town Hall in Cambridge, MA the night that gay marriage became legal and have recently protested side-by-side with the gay community against Prop 8 and similiar laws. I do not believe that the homosexual community should be legally barred from the same rights as heterosexuals. Nor do I believe that laws should be based on any religion's set of standards and beliefs. Believe it or not, but I am probably as politically liberal as you are, Jeff. I would also say that I probably have a significantly higher percentage of gay friends than the average person.

And as a liberal, though, I must defend the right of both sides to put an opinion out there - even if the opinion is not politically correct. And as someone who has been very much surrounded by homosexuals, I cannot say that I do not see that there are some specific behavior patterns with homosexual men that I find to be very selfish and which get written off as "you have to allow it because he's gay". I do not find the simple act of being in a romantic relationship with a person of the same gender selfish.

While I do not think that it is selfish to engage in a same sex relationship, I do think that it is a choice. It absolutely is. And that is not why it is entirely accurate to make comparisons to being black. Some homosexuals chose to embrace their inclinations. Others chose not to. One cannot say that a person with a different skin color can do this. And additionally, nobody could say that there are "acts" involved in being black which could be considered immoral.

And, in a country with freedom of religion, it IS within a religion's right to dictate te standards and morals that they chose to adhere to. And it is within the right of a person to think that someone else's lifestyle is immoral or unnatural. Subsequently it IS within an organization's right to determine who they think is a good role model and why. The government should not base their decisions on such teachings and subjective viewpoints, however, private organizations should not have to justify their decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it totally right to exclude your child from activities that he would enjoy because of your political views?

OP here. If you - PP - just substitute "black" for "gay" regarding who is being excluded (loudly and publicly) I think you'll answer your own question. Wrong is wrong and I want my son to grow up knowing that. Thanks for all the input. I'm beginning to see it isn't that complicated. We have gay friends and family so he probably already gets it even if he hasn't thought about it, and he can understand more than I'm giving him credit for. Thanks.

Black isn't a lifestyle choice. Blacks don't control the level of their blackness. Blacks don't hurt others through the selfish actions of their blackness. Being black can't be looked at as a sin.

If people want to keep their children away from many of the implications of homosexuality, that is their right.

Great! We're in agreement then since being gay isn't a choice or selfish and doesn't hurt anyone! Happy to see you on board!

Having gay feelings may not be a choice, but acting on them is. I'm not saying that it is the right choice or the wrong choice, but it is a choice. And as such, it is a choice that other people have the right to look upon favorably or unfavorably. The color of one's skin, on the other hand, is in no way a choice. You cannot compare the two.

And you are very wrong that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone and that it can't lead to selfish behaviours.

I do not think that the rights of homosexuals should be limited. However, I cannot agree that a man going on a date with another man is not a choice.

Based on this logic, the Supreme Court never should have overturned laws against interracial marriage in 1967. That's like saying that two people of different races may love each other but they shouldn't act on their feelings because it's selfish. And certainly the majority of Virginians considered interracial marriage unnatural and thus the Lovings were thrown in jail for getting married. Mildred and Richard Loving could have "chosen" to fall in love with someone of their own race rather than each other. So, based on your logic, why shouldn't interracial marriage still be illegal in Virginia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Based on this logic, the Supreme Court never should have overturned laws against interracial marriage in 1967. That's like saying that two people of different races may love each other but they shouldn't act on their feelings because it's selfish. And certainly the majority of Virginians considered interracial marriage unnatural and thus the Lovings were thrown in jail for getting married. Mildred and Richard Loving could have "chosen" to fall in love with someone of their own race rather than each other. So, based on your logic, why shouldn't interracial marriage still be illegal in Virginia?

Actually, that is not based on my logic at all. In fact, if you actually read my post at all, you would see that what you've said is a pointless argument in light of my post. I have already stated that gay marriage should be legal and I have protested against Prop 8. So my logic does not, in any way, indicate that interracial marriage laws should have never been overturned.

I also said never said that the act of entering a romantic relationship with a person of the same sex is selfish.

My point was that private organizations have the right to dictate what they consider to be moral or immoral. It falls under the rights of religion and free speech. And it is as wrong to say that the Boy Scouts shouldn't be able to dictate their own standards of morality as it is for the government to withhold equal rights to individuals based on those same standards.

Did you actually read anything that I wrote? Because you're arguing all the wrong points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Having gay feelings may not be a choice, but acting on them is. I'm not saying that it is the right choice or the wrong choice, but it is a choice. And as such, it is a choice that other people have the right to look upon favorably or unfavorably. The color of one's skin, on the other hand, is in no way a choice. You cannot compare the two.

And you are very wrong that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone and that it can't lead to selfish behaviours.

I do not think that the rights of homosexuals should be limited. However, I cannot agree that a man going on a date with another man is not a choice.

PP, I was responding to this section, which, if you reread it, sounds a lot like someone arguing against gay marriage. Even saying "I do not think the rights of homosexuals should be limited" is the kind of statement people have used to say that gays shouldn't get any more rights than they have now. Furthermore, you seemed to argue that it is wrong to have unfavorable feelings about something that is not a choice (skin color) but it is okay to have unfavorable feelings about something that is (dating people of the same sex).

I can see now that you are trying to argue a specific point about choice -- and I have argued the same point myself in that it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is a choice, same-sex couples should be allowed to marry -- but I can hardly have been expected to guess at your strong stand in favor of gay rights based on the statement above, which features themes that anti-gay rights advocates have attempted to exploit as fully as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids have their rights. From the moment a gay couple is adopting a child, he or she is forced to live in an homosexual environment, meaning they are not giving the right to live with a mom and a dad.
Gays don't bother me. What does bother me is when they put someone else in their lifes who doesn't have an option.

But I am torn about the morality of homosexuals having their own children.

So would you sterilize all gay people so that they can't have kids, or have the state seize them upon birth?

As for the role modeling of two opposite sex parents, should heterosexual single women be barred from adopting or having kids on their own? Should they be sterilized too to save kids from the "danger"?

[Anonymous]

Maybe we should sterilize divorced heterosexuals, so we could ensure that they don't have any more kids because they have shown that they're unable to remain married. If the only decent family is one with a mom and dad, maybe we should take kids away from divorced people entirely and give them to a married heterosexual couple who can raise them in the "proper" environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
My point was that private organizations have the right to dictate what they consider to be moral or immoral. It falls under the rights of religion and free speech. And it is as wrong to say that the Boy Scouts shouldn't be able to dictate their own standards of morality as it is for the government to withhold equal rights to individuals based on those same standards.

So you would be okay if the Boy Scouts refused to let parents in interracial marriages lead troops? And I take it you were okay with Bob Jones University prohibiting interracial dating and prohibiting anyone from advocating interracial dating. Because interracial dating, in the eyes of some people, is immoral. If you are consistent in this regard, I have more respect for you -- even though I disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should sterilize divorced heterosexuals, so we could ensure that they don't have any more kids because they have shown that they're unable to remain married. If the only decent family is one with a mom and dad, maybe we should take kids away from divorced people entirely and give them to a married heterosexual couple who can raise them in the "proper" environment.

Can we please not put words into my mouth? I'm not some sick and twisted Nazi who wants to run around sterilizig everyone whose life is different than my own. And can we please accept that just because a person does not fully agree with choices that you have made, that they are automatically evil?

The truth is that as much as I believe that gay people can be, and often are, wonderful individuals, I am not totally sold that a single sex family is the best case scenario for a child. I do believe that men and women have basic differences and a balance of the two is usually the best situation for children.

Truth be told, I am also a big fan of parents who "stay together for the sake of the children" unless there are extreme situations.

I'm also not really sold on the concept of a single woman undergoing fetility treatment to have a child on her own.

I'm also not a fan of parents who work so many hours that they have little to no contact with their children.

I think that once you choose to have children, it's their needs that come first. Not the person who chooses to bring them into the world.

I believe that in this day and age, we have tricked ourselves into thinking that we can make any choices that we want and have all the things we want. Fifty years ago, most family structures were different, so having children was not so much of a moral dilema. Now we're in a society which gives an individual many more options, however, those options do come at a price. And it's a price that many are not willing to acknowledge.

A lot of families bring children into the world into situations which is not best for the children. I look around and the generations of children we are raising and the world we live in and I cannot say that we are making the best choices.

I think that in this day and age, we cling to a concept of "if everyone else has it, I deserve it too