Heterosexual Discrimination

I’m serious.

If ANYONE can show a direct quote of mine saying that homosexuals deserve special rights, I’ll stop posting in this thread entirely.

This does not include roundabout logic like: You said people carry “God Hates Fags” signs, so you must mean that they should be forced to change the signs (false assumption), so you are trampling their free speech by saying they have to change their signs (conclusion based on untrue assumption).

Now, without any extra steps of “scary gay boy is out to get us” logic, please, just

ONE

direct quote where I advocate homosexuals to have special rights.

No, me pointing out that homosexuals face discrimination is not advocating that they have special rights. Once again, thats a product of paranoid reasoning.

One quote. And I’ll never post in this thread again.

Good luck.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Hey Emily, I suppose he’s talking about all those

SPECIAL RIGHTS

I’m advocating for homosexuals?

Cause, yeah, civil rights are special rights.

You people make me sick.
[/quote]

Huh?

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Mick28 wrote:

Homosexuals don’t have the same rights as someone in a normal male/female relationship.

I disagree. A gay man and women living together for a protracted period of time are subject to the same “common law marriage” statutes as a straight man and woman. A gay man/woman is free to marry someone of the opposite sex and barred from same sex marriage just like a straight man/woman is.

Most remaining anti-sodomy statutes (e.g. UCMJ) pertain to any sodomy regardless of orientation. IMO, the reason gay rights are a myth is because;

  1. Unlike emancipation and women’s suffrage, while a homosexual may not be able to alter his sexual orientation, hiding/altering the perception of his/her orientation in either direction is quite easy. Completely corroding the idea of an inalienable right.

  2. Unlike emancipation and women’s suffrage, proponents of gay rights seek to exceed, expand, or distinguish from “straight rights”. Women weren’t asking to for a female vote or slaves asking for free black speech. They were seeking rights deemed intrinsic to humanity by the constitution. Gays seek rights deemed intrinsic (see above) to homosexuals by themselves.

[/quote]

Gays deserve the right to be able to enter into a marriage contract with another consenting adult who is not being forced into the decision.

Where is the “special right” in that?

And, at that point, you’d also be able to marry a man if you so desired.

So it would be fair: A man or woman could marry another man or woman.

What is unfair about that?

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Hey Emily, I suppose he’s talking about all those

SPECIAL RIGHTS

I’m advocating for homosexuals?

Cause, yeah, civil rights are special rights.

You people make me sick.

Huh?
[/quote]

You accused me of advocating “special rights” for homosexuals. Just wondering if those happened to be the same.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Someone said “We really dont care”

I interpreted that as “Generally our society does not care about homosexuals or homosexuality.”
[/quote]

Well, you interpreted it wrong. I was very clear in my message that the issue constantly surfacing. I also stated that it is not right for society to be expected to congratulate them on their sexuality.

I was very clear when I posted this. Sure, when I said “I don’t care, they can hide it.” That could have been misinterpreted, but given the context, I really don’t see the confusion.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m serious.

If ANYONE can show a direct quote of mine saying that homosexuals deserve special rights, I’ll stop posting in this thread entirely.

This does not include roundabout logic like: You said people carry “God Hates Fags” signs, so you must mean that they should be forced to change the signs (false assumption), so you are trampling their free speech by saying they have to change their signs (conclusion based on untrue assumption).

Now, without any extra steps of “scary gay boy is out to get us” logic, please, just
ONE
direct quote where I advocate homosexuals to have special rights.

No, me pointing out that homosexuals face discrimination is not advocating that they have special rights. Once again, thats a product of paranoid reasoning.

One quote. And I’ll never post in this thread again.

Good luck.[/quote]

This seems to be in response to me, so let me remind you that I said that you seem to want “preferred treatment” and “kid gloves.” I’m a little overwhelmed by the intensity of your responses, CappedAndPlanIt. To be honest with you, if we were face to face, you’d be worrying me.

But at any rate, we’re not face to face, so I’ll continue on. I’m saying you seem to want preferential treatment because you keep saying things like this:

[quote]Thats understandable. But the fact remains that there are many things that heterosexuals can do that would not be considered “flauting their sexuality” whereas a homosexual doing the same things WOULD be.

But when I brought that point up, your response was an ignorant "I dont care. They can shut up.[/quote]

And this:

[quote]See, whats bullshit, and bigoted, here, is the fact that YOU DO FLAUNT YOUR HETEROSEXUALITY.

Whenever you hold hands with a girl in public. Flaunting.

When you kiss her in public. Flaunting.

When you talk about which women you’d like to have sex with, or who you think is hot. Flaunting.

When you go to a club/party/whatever and dance with a girl. Flaunting.

Only, by your double standard, when you do it its ok, when a gay guy does it, its flaunting. [/quote]

As if to say that gays are somehow being denied those human rights. But gays CAN do those things. They may be given weird looks or overhear comments, but they have the right to do it nonetheless. You seem to want some protection from reaction. Matthew Shepard’s murder and the sodomy arrest both happened nearly ten years ago. You’re using these as evidence to support what current issue?

I’ve had gay guys say to me that someone is hot. My reaction was either “I agree!” or “Really? You think so?” They can say that to me because I’m a safe audience and they know it. But I censor myself the same way. There are things I’ll say to my friends that I won’t say to my grandmother. Everyone, gay and straight, has to moderate their behavior from context to context.

I would never dream of sitting on my husband’s lap in a public/stranger context, but if we’re with a small group of close friends? Sure. Around my dad? NO. My next door neighbor is elderly. I talk to her about flowers and weather. Not about who I think is hot. My best friend is the one with whom to share about that.

And this:

[quote]I pointed that out as part of a larger whole.

Lets say a relatively small number of people protested Brokeback Mountain.

And a small number of people have ever attacked someone for being gay.

And a small number of people protest with “God Hates Fags” signs.

Now assuming that there isnt 100% crossover (that its not the same people doing all those things), can we agree that it MAY add up to a relatively significant number of people who have actively gone out of their way with anti-gay demonstrations? [/quote]

Capped, there’s a difference between “accepting” and “embracing.” You seem not to recognize that.

My husband works in a heavily male-dominated industry. When he hires women (as he occasionally has) he works hard to ensure that they suffer no maltreatment. If anyone does harass one of them, he puts a stop to it. If he had (perhaps when he’s had) a homosexual working for him I know it would be the same way.

He would protect the worker from harassment both because it’s the law and because from an ethical and business standpoint it is the correct thing to do. For him, it’s all about the bottom line. He wouldn’t care whose picture was on the desk as long as it didn’t interfere with work, whatever his own personal feelings are.

I never hear him express animosity toward gays and I believe that he fully and genuinely supports equal treatment. At the same time, although I never hear him do it because he likes me and avoids upsetting me, I would bet money that when he’s with other men he laughs at gay jokes.

But I’d bet even more money that he’s laughing at - or even telling - female jokes as well. His is a hyper-masculine workplace. But what does it matter if he laughs at jokes about women, really? I know he loves and respects me because he treats me with love and respect. And plus, I laugh at male jokes sometimes. Because sometimes they’re funny.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Hey Emily, I suppose he’s talking about all those

You people make me sick.

Huh?

Apparently you, me and all of the others who do not want homosexuality shoved in our faces 24/7 make Cap sick.

And we all know it doesn’t take much for Cap to lose that darn temper.

It’s a pity, “must be high strung”.

[/quote]

Still, I don’t see how I came to be grouped into a “we” with you, Mick. Aren’t we still in disagreement ourselves? How can I now be part of a “we” and be making CappedAndPlanIt sick together with you?

CappedAndPlanIt, I demand to make you sick as a freestanding individual.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Too, you’re generalizing to all straight people everywhere when you talk about the difficulties faced by gays (here I’m using the term to represent all homosexuals), which is hypocrisy when at the same time you insist that people be treated as the individuals they are.

So its a hypocracy to observe widespread homophobia in our society?

You’re joking, right? [/quote]

No, it’s hypocrisy to be a hypocrite. When you (rightly) insist that what SOME gays do shouldn’t create hostility toward the whole group, but then say that what SOME heteros do (hate) should be attributed to the whole group (the “we” you say doesn’t support gays), that’s hypocrisy. Observing homophobia would be better described as…observing homophobia. But you knew that, right?

[quote] Identity politics are ultimately unworkable for anything more than the most surface of discussions. Don’t you see that you’re talking about the .01% of straights who carry signs that say “die fags,” while Mick is talking about the .01% of gays who french kiss in public?

ugh. Again, I give specific examples, and they are too specific.

Now, I’ll give a general example:

WHAT ABOUT THE 90% OF PEOPLE WHO USE THE TERM “FAG” AS AN INSULT OR USE THE WORD “GAY” DO DESCRIBE ANYTHING THEY DO NOT LIKE?

Oh wait. Thats a general example. Thats too general. That doesnt count either.

Right?[/quote]

You’re being sarcastic and shrill. It neither endears you to me nor predisposes me to agree with you. What 90% of people use “fag” as an insult? What kind of crazy number is that, could it be more obviously pulled out of your ass? Old people don’t say “fag,” women don’t say “fag,” and children don’t say “fag.” So we have males, under age…oh, let’s say 35, and over age 10. What percentage of the population is that? Not 90%.

Gay, is, as lucasa pointed out, a word with a history that predates its use to describe homosexuals. “Well, aren’t you feeling gay today!” might have been said to someone who seemed happy, frivolous, and a little bit oblivious. The word is used heavily in books like Anne of Green Gables, which describes the thoughts and activities of young girls. It also historically means bright and showy. So if I were to say to a friend “is it a little too gay?” about an outfit I’m thinking about getting, I’m not actually asking if it makes me look homosexual. I’m asking if it makes me look foolish, like I’m overly cheery and kind of clueless.

Gay also has pre-homosexual usage sexual connotations, it seems. From dictionary.com:

Gay has had various senses dealing with sexual conduct since the 17th century. A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, a gay house a brothel.

[quote]And then, Emily, how would you react if someone was talking about that neighborhood and said “We really dont care about whites around here”, when you’ve observed that, in fact, they do have a problem with whites around there?

Would you, maybe, I dunno, argue that they were wrong and that “they” really “do” “care about” whites around there? [/quote]

I think that I’ll just be aware that there may be some animosity on the part of some of the people there and be accordingly cautious. I don’t see myself demanding that someone admit that they’re all a bunch of filthy white-haters. I particularly don’t see demanding it of someone who’s been friendly to me.

[quote]They both have anxiety over the specific action of telling their parents that they have become sexually active.

When those little straight kids get through that, and a few years later go to a dinner with their parents and some of their parents friends, do you think they’ll worry about the topic of their sexuality coming up?

Hmmm. I wonder.[/quote]

I hope the topic of MY sexuality never comes up at a dinner with my parents and their friends! “Did you hear that Emily has sex with men, Frank?”

Mick seems pretty resolutely heterosexual, but I can’t imagine he wouldn’t be uncomfortable with a similar conversation with his parents and their friends.

“Betty, it sounds like Mick is resolutely heterosexual.”

“Wilma, yes. Mick has always firmly preferred the girls. Oh! I said ‘firmly!’ Goodness! Anyway, I don’t think he’s ever been bi-curious. Have you, Mick?”

I mean, what are you thinking here, Capped?

[quote]Of course, I know…and you do, too, right?..that pregnant teens and gay kids coming out at home have in common that their parents are going to have to deal with shattered dreams on top of the sex issue. In both cases, futures are dramatically altered.

How many straight kids do you know who had their futures “dramatically altered” JUST FOR revealing that they were straight?

Not that they had sex.
Not that they were pregnant.

JUST that they were attracted to members of the opposite sex.[/quote]

The dramatic altering I’m speaking of is the awareness on a parent’s part that their beloved child is facing a future different from the one the parent had anticipated. Not the parents doing something punitive. That happens sometimes, but it’s not the norm. Parents have the same reaction (upset) when they discover that their child isn’t going to have children within a hetero relationship, as well, whether by choice or because of physical issues.

[quote]
Gays face the same problems even if they aren’t having sex, though.

“I like a boy” causes just as many “shattered dreams” as “I had sex with a boy.”

Now try to argue that a boy going home and saying “I like this girl…” could possibly have the same effects.

I really hope you dont think you can argue that as being true.[/quote]

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. I clarified above that the PARENTS’ dream of marriage and children for their child is shattered (causing the parents to react with upset, which in turn upsets the child coming out to them). That’s why I used pregnant girls as an analogy. Because it alters the child’s future and the parents are upset by that. Do you think parents are causing shattered dreams? If so, what sort?

Okay, now I feel badly.

Mick? I was only teasing. I don’t mind being grouped into a “we” with you.

Capped? I’m sorry if my posts make you sick. I shouldn’t joke about that. I guess.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Gays deserve the right to be able to enter into a marriage contract with another consenting adult who is not being forced into the decision.

Oh darn now you have to leave the thread.

[/quote]

Do heterosexuals have the right to be able to enter into a marriage contract with another consenting adult who is not being forced into the decision?

Yes.

Would the stipulations of a marriage between two men or two women be different than the marriage of a man and a woman?

No.

Would heterosexuals have the same rights (to marry a man or woman) as homosexuals, at that point, regardless of who they actually choose (or choose not) to marry?

Yes.

So how is gay marriage a special right?

Because ONLY gays would get a gay marriage?

Thats as stupid as saying “Interracial marriage is a special right because only those who want to marry interracially would get one!”

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

As if to say that gays are somehow being denied those human rights. But gays CAN do those things. They may be given weird looks or overhear comments, but they have the right to do it nonetheless. You seem to want some protection from reaction.

[/quote]

I pointed out that those things indicate continued homophobia in society.

That I’m advocating that “something must be done” or “gays deserve protection from reaction” is a false conclusion you’ve drawn. Did you ever stop to ask me if I think gays should be protected from reaction? Of course not; roundabout logic and indirect reasoning is fine.

Why dont you actually ask me about the topic instead of just assuming things?

Then how do you think he would react if someone, after repeated incidents of sexual discrimination, tried to claim “We dont care if a woman works here”? You’d probably point out that they, in fact, do. Thats all I did.

But why should those women get special treatment? Why should they get protection from fucking reaction?

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, now I feel badly.

Mick? I was only teasing. I don’t mind being grouped into a “we” with you.

Thanks Emily and I don’t mind being grouped with you either. Just don’t try anything funny my wife would object.
[/quote]

No worries. One husband is plenty for me. I’m not after stealing anyone else’s. (Where would I keep two of them? lol)

P.S. Please ignore my obnoxious avatar, everyone, difficult though that may be to do. It’s a joke from another thread. Every time I see it I cringe. I’m sure you all feel the same way!

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Too, you’re generalizing to all straight people everywhere when you talk about the difficulties faced by gays (here I’m using the term to represent all homosexuals), which is hypocrisy when at the same time you insist that people be treated as the individuals they are.

So its a hypocracy to observe widespread homophobia in our society?

You’re joking, right?

No, it’s hypocrisy to be a hypocrite. When you (rightly) insist that what SOME gays do shouldn’t create hostility toward the whole group, but then say that what SOME heteros do (hate) should be attributed to the whole group (the “we” you say doesn’t support gays), that’s hypocrisy. Observing homophobia would be better described as…observing homophobia. But you knew that, right?
[/quote]

Observing that its incorrect to claim that homophobia is not present in society when it is not hypocracy.

To say that homophobia is present in society is NOT to say that EVERY heterosexual is homophobic.

Do I really need to explain that to you?

“Don’t you see that you’re talking about the .01% of straights who carry signs that say “die fags,” while Mick is talking about the .01% of gays who french kiss in public?”

Unless you can cite me a credible source backing your claim that “.01%” of straights carry signs that say “die fag”, or that .01% of gays french kiss in public…

you are equally guilty of “pulling a number out of your ass”

Wouldnt you agree?

Only I didnt piss and moan over the relevance of the actual number you put, I took it to mean “A very small percent”. Whereas, I incorrectly assumed, you’d be a big girl and realize that 90% was not meant to be an actual statistic but, rather, taken to mean “A very large percent”

Now why, Emily, could you make up a number (.01%), then get mad when people “pull numbers out of their ass”?

Hmmm?

I never claimed that every heterosexual was homophobic. I really really shouldnt have to spell that out for you.

Perhaps you’re the one taking things too personally, Emily, so I’ll be more direct: No, I dont think you’re a gay hater. Happy?

Do your parents tell your friends that you got married to a man?

Duuuuhhhrrrrrr. I dunno if that might indicate your sexuality, that you got married to a man. Let me think.

Come on, dont be fucking stupid.

“Did Mick ever settle down with a nice girl?”

“Actually he just got engaged a few months ago to a girl he’s been dating for a few years now”

“Oh thats nice”

Yeah… thats the same as “So whats Micks favorite fuck position?”

Riiight.

You misinterpret things, laughably.

No, I’m agreeing that a child admitting to being gay “shatters the dreams” of the parents. And I’m citing that as an observation of homophobia in society, which it very clearly is.

Okay, here we go.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
As if to say that gays are somehow being denied those human rights. But gays CAN do those things. They may be given weird looks or overhear comments, but they have the right to do it nonetheless. You seem to want some protection from reaction.

I pointed out that those things indicate continued homophobia in society.

That I’m advocating that “something must be done” or “gays deserve protection from reaction” is a false conclusion you’ve drawn. Did you ever stop to ask me if I think gays should be protected from reaction? Of course not; roundabout logic and indirect reasoning is fine.

Why dont you actually ask me about the topic instead of just assuming things? [/quote]

Well, you keep offering these “flauntings” that heteros can do and gays can’t as examples of inequality and then seeming to expect an answer. That leads me to conclude that you want something more than my agreement that yes, weird looks and overheard comments can and do occur.

Matthew Shepard was beaten to death nearly ten years ago. Since then we’ve had a mega-hit sitcom with a lead gay character (Will & Grace) and a blockbuster gay character-led movie (Brokeback Mountain). The one openly gay poster on this thread - a thread at Testosterone Nation - received no derision. In fact, I interpreted the silence in response to his post as respect. I hope he did, too. So while yes, there is homophobia, there is also a great deal of progress. Chicken-Little-ing over an arrest made 9 years ago is counter-productive to your cause.

[quote] My husband works in a heavily male-dominated industry. When he hires women (as he occasionally has) he works hard to ensure that they suffer no maltreatment. If anyone does harass one of them, he puts a stop to it. If he had (perhaps when he’s had) a homosexual working for him I know it would be the same way.

Then how do you think he would react if someone, after repeated incidents of sexual discrimination, tried to claim “We dont care if a woman works here”? You’d probably point out that they, in fact, do. Thats all I did.[/quote]

My husband would tolerate people ranting about who cares about what for about two minutes. He wouldn’t have any interest in getting to the bottom of who feels what.* If there’s harassment, it’ll stop or the harasser will be fired. If the problem originates with the minority worker, female or gay or whatever, that person will go. He’d do however many written reports are needed to satisfy the law and then fire whomever. The better, more productive worker would stay. The two goals for him would be to A) satisfy the law, and B) maintain productivity. Not necessarily in that order.

[quote]He would protect the worker from harassment both because it’s the law and because from an ethical and business standpoint it is the correct thing to do. For him, it’s all about the bottom line. He wouldn’t care whose picture was on the desk as long as it didn’t interfere with work, whatever his own personal feelings are.

But why should those women get special treatment? Why should they get protection from fucking reaction?
[/quote]

Um, I thought I was very clear that it would work the same for gays in his employ as women. That, in fact, was my point. Sexual harassment is against the law. The smart employer enforces that for all employees both because it IS the law and in order to minimize disruption. Again, a remedy that’s already in place.

*Unless it’s me. He loves to hear how I feel about what.