I’m "closet" anti-LBGT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem with gays, but this "transgender" stuff, no way. That's just sick. And with all of the debate on health care, I sure don't think that insurance -- public or private -- should be covering T-G hormone treatment or sex change operations. OMG!

How do you feel about transexual or transgendered kids and teens?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem with gays, but this "transgender" stuff, no way. That's just sick. And with all of the debate on health care, I sure don't think that insurance -- public or private -- should be covering T-G hormone treatment or sex change operations. OMG!

How do you feel about transexual or transgendered kids and teens?

By defintion, kids have fantasies.

If adults want a sex change operation, move to Sweden. When kids and hardworking people don't have adequate health care coverage, I sure as heck don't think that any third party provider should be paying for such operations.

[Anonymous]

And I don't think I should have to subsidize any man who can't get it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And I don't think I should have to subsidize any man who can't get it up.

Or specially a "man" who wants to cut it off...!

[Anonymous]

It isn't "cut off" idiot, it's inverted.

I feel great empathy for the transgendered. I can't imagine feeling that deeply disconnected with my own body. It must be hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just because I don't agree with you (gay marriage) does not mean I FEAR you or HATE you.

Sure it does. The anti-gay-marriage movement boils down to "I believe that gays are less than me." No other way around it. None.

No, it doesn't. And to insist that it does reveals a mental disconnect on your part.

Ok, then explain it to me and my "mental disconnect."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no rational basis for denying two men or two women the same rights provided one man and one woman.

i find this interesting and i completely agree with you. my husband is anti-gay marriage and it really bothers me. whenever i say that i can't believe he, a genuinely caring and kind person in most respects, would think it's right to deny some people rights that others have, he says things like, "ok, so i want to marry two people. or my dog. or my sister. where's the line drawn?" i never know how to respond and it pisses me off royally.

He wants to marry two people? Fine. Enjoy.

He wants to marry his sister? Fine. Enjoy.

He wants to marry his dog? No consent, so...not fine. And while we're on the topic, do ask him what similarities he sees between a loving, consensual relationship between two adults of the same sex and a man fucking his dog. And then kick him in the nads for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:10:31, why is it a competition?

Lordy, lordy. Try being a gay black male in DC. It is like fighting a twofer with all the prejudices. Which comes first the chicken or the egg. Well probably the egg as many in the white gay community discriminate against those in the gay black community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm convinced it is a choice, but that societal pressures repress many from making that choice. So while I don't really care about it, I don't think we should provide civil, protected-class, type rights on something that is basically a choice.

And by "choice", what I mean is that there is some homo-hetero spectrum. Maybe less than 1% are on the extreme homo side where they are solely that way, and maybe 50% are solely hetero on the other side. But I think a good percentage, say 10-15% each, are close enough to the middle where they could honestly go either way based on circumstances in their upbringing and based on their life experiences.

I think you're probably right that there's a spectrum, gay-bi-straight but on what possible basis do you decide that 1% are solely gay? And by the way, those people in the middle are bi, whether they are in solely opposite sex relationships, solely same sex relationships, or switch back and forth.

I like Dan Savage's answer to "It's a choice": If that's true, then prove it and s**k my d**k. For any straight person, that is proof. If you think it's possible to "choose" being gay, it's probably because you're bi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50-100 years from now, the younger generation will look back and wonder what we were smoking disallowing gay marriage. And our generation will look back and long for the times when "things made sense". Just like we look back now and marvel at the utter stupidity of slavery and segregation and older generations long for times when "things were simpler and everybody not only knew their place but stayed in it"

No one was ever in the closet about their race though. Unless you could easily pass as a white person, black people were unable to hide their race. You can hide your sexuality and because of this I would not say that it is comparable to racism or slavery. While no one should ever have to hide it, it is possible unlike skin color.

being in the closet is not the point. The point is society denying people rights because of their race/gender/sexual orientation. Essentially saying to them, "you are not doing anything wrong, we just don't like your kind"

In the eyes of most Americans, would they say it is easier to be a gay white man in America or a black man of any sexual orientation in this country? I still believe that the gay or straight white man would be given the advantages. There are many people of all races that would lock their doors or cross the street if a Black man approached even if he was a gay Black man. I believe these issues are larger than sexual orientation discrimination.

Yeah maybe it's "easier" to be black in 2012. Ask that same question circa 1700-1970 and you'd find varying degrees of dissenting opinions.

There is still racism within the gay community. Just because you are sensitive to discrimination to one group or another does not mean that you cannot have a racist outlook. There was a recent article on a gay bar posting an image of Obama as a chimpanzee within an advertisement that upset some.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120208/NEWS01/302080101/obama-joke-gay-bar-owner-louisville?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CLocal%20News

http://www.wfpl.org/2012/02/09/fairness-black-gay-pride-plan-procott-at-tryangles-bar-friday-audio/

Yes, and there's still homophobia in the black community. Obvs.

What's your point? There is homophobia in every community. Just look at this thread and the demographics of DCUM. The demographics is definitely not Black.

[Anonymous]

are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So OP, come out of the "closet." Especially with your "friend." I can sort of, slightly, maybe just a little respect someone who can own their opinions and not be a dirtbag undercover. But you really are the lowest of the low.

OP here. Wow. I've hurt you and I did not mean to. I'm sorry for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50-100 years from now, the younger generation will look back and wonder what we were smoking disallowing gay marriage. And our generation will look back and long for the times when "things made sense". Just like we look back now and marvel at the utter stupidity of slavery and segregation and older generations long for times when "things were simpler and everybody not only knew their place but stayed in it"

No one was ever in the closet about their race though. Unless you could easily pass as a white person, black people were unable to hide their race. You can hide your sexuality and because of this I would not say that it is comparable to racism or slavery. While no one should ever have to hide it, it is possible unlike skin color.

What about interfaith marriage?

I would still say that interfaith marriage is not comparable to racism and segregation based on skin color. You can hide your religion.

Would you have a problem if a state decided to ban interfaith marriages?

If states banned interfaith marriage it would still not be comparable to lynchings, racism, or segregated facilities. There would still be many places to retreat to for interfaith marriage. I do not think that those discriminated against based on race could easily leave the country and not face similar discrimination. There is racism in many countries, there was a thread about racism in Spain recently in the travel forum. It would still be easier for an interfaith couple to be accepted in Spain for instance. Just one country out of many with color complexes.

I agree. The fight for gay rights is a fight for civil rights, but it's not the American Civil Rights Movement and to equate the two does an injustice to both.

I agree that in 100 years, society will think it was absurd to ban gay marriage. It is. But it simply does not compare to lynching, being a piece of property, being defined as 3/5 of a person, mass killings in towns, an average of one person per day being murdered in a town during the Nadir of US race relations, schools being burned down, churches being bombed- and all this either written ino the law of the nation or condoned by way of indifference or even encouragement.

They do not compare, so let's not try to. Horrible things have happened because of racism. Horrible things have happened because of homophobia. Let's do them justice by treating them as separate issues.

This. These should be separate issues, it is unfair to both groups to combine these.

I agree that they are separate issues, but they are related. Racism and homophobia come from the same root cause: fear/hatred of people who are different than you. It's important to understand where these kinds of issues come from so that they can be fought.

I don't know if they come from the same place. I doubt very seriously the white man ever fearing the black man. the white man felt superior to the black man and every other color of man. yes, the hatred was/is there, but not the fear. heck, the white man literally conquered the world, from asia, to africa, to south and north america.

[Anonymous]

How can you think your words wouldn't hurt?

I have been sad and livid all morning realizing that a good chunk of this community secretly thinks my marriage is wrong. I truly thought this board -- while often incredibly self-centered and preoccupied with money -- was at least evolved enough to see past simple prejudices. Boy, was I wrong.

You posted what you posted because you wanted to "out" all the other DCUMers who harbor anti-gay attitudes so you could all feel good about your "normal" lives. And you succeeded. Congrats.

But it's a little late for an apology.

What's next: "Do kids with SN really creep you out, too?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no rational basis for denying two men or two women the same rights provided one man and one woman.

i find this interesting and i completely agree with you. my husband is anti-gay marriage and it really bothers me. whenever i say that i can't believe he, a genuinely caring and kind person in most respects, would think it's right to deny some people rights that others have, he says things like, "ok, so i want to marry two people. or my dog. or my sister. where's the line drawn?" i never know how to respond and it pisses me off royally.

Yes because you can equate gay people to dogs and gay marriages to incestous relationships. It wouldn't bother me that he is anti-gay, it would bother me that he lacks basic human decency.

pp you're responding to - i see how it can come off that way, but he's not saying he thinks a gay person isn't different than a dog. he's saying that once the 'slippery slope' of marriage definition changes, it sees no end (i assume). i've said many times that two consenting adults should be allowed to marry no matter what their gender, but that's the argument he believes in. ridiculous, i know.