Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

The rise and fall of homosexuality

Page: (1)2

Robot Man Reformed

13:51 / 09.07.01

(or: making society accept gays if they want to or not)

Gays should not be discriminated against, that is a certain. But have you paused in certain parts of what is now happening in forcing acceptance of homosexuality upon society and thought to yourself what is happening? Really?

The church has told the people to hate gay people but now they are firing priests that refuse to wed them? And many are quitting their profession themselves because they cannot accept it. Fines for discrimination? The army, NATO, the church, the American government, boy scout clubs.

This will create hate towards gay people.

Jamieon

13:59 / 09.07.01

Maybe. In the short term.

Ellis

14:04 / 09.07.01

[Wasn't this same arguement used against affirmative action?]

I think it may make people who resent gays resent them more. Or perhaps just resent the government.

14:14 / 09.07.01

In the immortal words of William Weiss, an Ameritech executive... "The best way to get people to accept the need for change is to not give them a choice."

14:25 / 09.07.01

My parents were very active in the civil rights movement in the 60's. I was talking to my father about it once, & about prejudice, & he said he didn't work for civil rights because he wanted to do away with prejudice & bigotry--"Impossible," he said, "people will always cluster into groups that hate other groups." What he wanted to do was make it legally impossible to act on their bigotry.

Now, I'm not sure I agree with him about the "bigotry never ends" idea. I'm optimistic enough to think that people can outgrow bigotry. But in the meantime, I agree. African-Americans will never be equal until there is an end to racial profiling. Women will not be equal until they are paid the same as men for the same work, with the same opportunites for advancement. Homosexuals will not be equal until the can, across the board, get the same benefits as heterosexuals (like marriage, tax benefits, & so on). If that makes people grumpy, screw 'em. After Matthew Shepherd, I can't see how much worse it could get for homosexuals, with laws in place to ensure equal treatment.

14:41 / 09.07.01

quote:Originally posted by a life to the World:
But have you paused in certain parts of what is now happening in forcing acceptance of homosexuality upon society and thought to yourself what is happening?

And once again, we see this classic tactic adopted: it is claimed that groups that the state currrently marginalises are in fact being aggressively previleged.

a life to the World, could you provide some specific examples of how homosexuality is being forced upon society, please?

16:14 / 09.07.01

Or give them a choice between what you want and something that's even MORE unpalatable to them, perhaps?

Ganesh

17:41 / 09.07.01

'Don't frighten the horses', eh?

Isn't it those we've elected to govern us (ie. society itself) that're slowly, gradually agreeing to the 'forcing acceptance'? Surely it's only 'forcing' inasmuch as the women's suffrage movement 'forced acceptance' of women's right to vote?

In the UK, attitudes to homosexuality are generally much more tolerant in the under than the over-55s. I suspect any short-term 'hate' created is likely to be amongst those more elderly and set in their ways. As that generation dies off, I think a more widespread 'sea change' will become apparent.

08:39 / 10.07.01

Frankly I don't give a damn if the rest of the world accepts or likes us as long as we are protected in law. Then the fuckers will just have to get used to it. I thank you.

11:06 / 10.07.01

Or they'll protest to their representatives harder than the gay community does and make sure those laws protecting homosexuals and giving them equal rights to heterosexuals get shot down.

Legalizing abortion didn't make anti-abortion advocates accept it. It made them start blowing up clinics.

Regrettable Juvenilia

11:50 / 10.07.01

But Brenden, what's your point? What course of action are you suggesting? Do you believe that there's anything to be gained from ceasing to fight for equality and the acceptance of homosexuality? What you've just said just sounds like an argument for fighting harder to me...

[ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: De La Zenith is dead ]

12:07 / 10.07.01

Tom:

quote:Frankly I don't give a damn if the rest of the world accepts or likes us as long as we are protected in law. Then the fuckers will just have to get used to it. I thank you.

Right on, brother! (Well, except I'm not gay. I just happen to feel that the disenfranchisement of any peoples negatively effects all of us. & I'm sick of my gay friends not being able to get job benefits that I get automatically. & I'm sick of racial profiling, too.)

Brenden:

quote:Or they'll protest to their representatives harder than the gay community does and make sure those laws protecting homosexuals and giving them equal rights to heterosexuals get shot down.

They already do that. Fucking Fred Phelps (from Kansas...great) got a whole mess of his followers & fellow halfwit homophobes to drive to Montana (or Wyoming or wherever the hell it was) to protest Matthew Shepherd's funeral. Simply because he was gay. With placards that said stuff like "God hates fags". Hell, no one in my family went to protest Nixon's funeral, & he was 20 million times more "morally repugnant" than any gay kid strung up on a fence.

quote:Legalizing abortion didn't make anti-abortion advocates accept it. It made them start blowing up clinics.

& redneck peckerwoods still tie African-Americans to the bumpers of their pickups & drag them to death. So we never should have had the civil rights movement?
If abortion were illegal, the "right-to-lifers" would still bomb clinics--except the clinics would be illegal, & there'd be nothing we could do about it (well, nothing legal, anyway).

So, I have to echo that question: what's your point? Should we just give up? Or should it be a two-pronged movement, to both "raise consciousness" & enact legislature.

12:23 / 10.07.01

My post was in response to "Then the fuckers will just have to get used to it", but if you want to get into it.

...should it be a two-pronged movement, to both "raise consciousness" & enact legislature.

That's generally the idea. Otherwise, as I said, you'll just get heavy protest and your legislation won't be accepted. People won't just get used to it because someone makes it into a law. You can't legislate morality.

12:30 / 10.07.01

Brenden:

Then of course I agree. I'm a big proponent of the idea that education can lead to, for lack of a better term, enlightenment. (Now that I read what I just wrote, I sound like an illuminatus, & i guess I sort of am. Eek.) & while I agree, you can't legislate morality, you can legislate until consciousness is "raised". (Which was what the civil rights movements has always really been about. In my opinion, of course.)

Regrettable Juvenilia

12:34 / 10.07.01

quote:Originally posted by Brenden Simpson:
People won't just get used to it because someone makes it into a law. You can't legislate morality.

On the contrary: this happens all the time. Where else do people get the idea that homosexuality is somehow unnatural or wrong, if not primarily from the fact that this idea is enshrined in law? In addition, primary levels of education tend to teach a morality that at least pretends to sit side by side with the law. Enshrine the acceptability and equality of homosexuality in law, and people will automatically be educated to accept this as a moral given.

14:14 / 10.07.01

People view homosexuality as unnatural because it's what they've been taught. It makes them uncomfortable as it isn't discernable on the surface, unlike race. Telling them tommorow that homosexuals have the same rights (as it pertains to marriage, tax breaks, ect) as them isn't going to make them go outside and ask their gay neighbours to go out for a beer.

In fact, they're liable to get irritated that all "them fags" are able to get married. If they think that homosexuality is unnatural, it'll just be a spit in the face of their morality. They won't be happy about it.

They'll be very angry.

People don't just accept that groups which have been traditionally held back are their equals just because the law says so. Protests about black students attending white schools, screaming at the elected personnel. It was a long, hard struggle that the black people of America fought and are still fighting.

If you legalize gay marriages tommorow... it'll be another decade before it becomes accepted by the angry, intolerant commoners.

And another twenty or thirty years before the next generation grows up with the idea that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality. If you're lucky.

Intolerance is easier than understanding and the people of the world are getting mighty pissed off. Re-directing anger at the wrong groups is a human tradition.

14:29 / 10.07.01

quote:If you legalize gaymarriages tommorow... it'll be another decade before it becomes accepted by the angry, intolerant commoners.

And another twenty or thirty years before the next generation grows up with the idea that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality. If you're lucky.

Well, then, let's get it started ASAP. Why wait? The sooner the better.
Realistically, we still have a long ways to go, regarding the equality of African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, women, & so on. (The situation in Florida on election day is a great example of this.) But things are getting better every day, & they're certainly better than they were 50 years ago.

17:00 / 10.07.01

I think the thing about being gay at the moment and over the last ten years or so is that you can't legitimately expect gay people to be apologetic any more. It's more important to me to get on with my life as openly and passionately as possible than it is to worry about other people's feelings with regard to who I shag. If you ask gay people to 'tone it down a bit' your asking them to go back to where you SHOULDN'T talk about it, where it was distasteful, tacky, improper. I'm not going back to that and I would never ask another gay person to do that, whether or not I agreed with their other politics. Loud, proud, fuck you all if you can't take a joke. Only way to be... I refuse to accept that it's a problem for other people and I think whether or not it is in our long-term best political interests, it is VERY MUCH in the interests of building self-respect and getting rid of shame and a culture of fear.

Ganesh

17:15 / 10.07.01

Brenden, again I'll point out that there's no single homogenous mass of 'people' waiting to get angry. In the UK (and I know this from the various surveys that were carried out during the whole Section 28 debacle), there was a gradation of views with a marked difference between fiftysomethings and younger people.

This isn't about 'morality'; it's one more example of the human tendency to consolidate one's own identity by externalising The Other and fearing/hating it. So-called 'morality' is the rationalisation/justification of that fear/hate.

Attitudes can and do change in response to legislation. Slowly, I grant you, and there'll always be splinter groups and 'rumps' who'll dig their heels in. As Tom says, fuck 'em.

19:17 / 10.07.01

quote:Originally posted by De La Zenith is dead:

On the contrary: this happens all the time. Where else do people get the idea that homosexuality is somehow unnatural or wrong, if not primarily from the fact that this idea is enshrined in law?

It's fairly explicitly stated in the Bible.
One of the books after Lot has sex with his daughters and before Joshua has his soldiers kill their own brothers before committing genocide.

Orangeinmymouth

20:11 / 10.07.01

As I've read through this thread, I've noticed an inordinate number of posts which try to relate or compare queer politics and queer freedom to the struggles of african-americans and women, unfortunately the comparison is weak at best. The social climate is completely different now then it was 50, 40 or even 10 years ago. Queer rights, or the lack thereof is just as much a political and "moral" struggle as it is an economical one.

Unfortunately it isn't as easy as saying "I've not got equal rights because people think what i do is yucky.", the truth of the matter is, to corporations (and governments, but the two are mutually inclusive) we (and by 'we' I mean queers) are just faceless entities. Our sexuality plays a fairly minor role in their decisions to deny us the right to marriage, or same-sex partner benefits. To corporations the bottom line is the bottom line, not moral obligation, or bigotry (though they do indirectly effect how successful a company with queer-positive benefits will be treated by the people en masse).

The way things are, queers are simply odd ones out when it comes to suckling from the proverbial teat that is corporate America (and Canada, and the UK etc.). To allow us benefits is to create more costs for themselves, and in the end profits come first, not morality or fairness.

I'm making gross-generalisations here, as many corporations do provide equal benefits to queers and straights alike, but in the end any inequality in the system means that we've still got a fight ahead of us; and idle comparisons to entirely diffrent situations do little to help solve the problem.

The way I see it, once we understand the economics of bigotry we're one step closer to defeating it.

[ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: Orangeinmymouth ]

[ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: Orangeinmymouth ]

Frances Farmer

20:14 / 10.07.01

quote:[B]
Legalizing abortion didn't make anti-abortion advocates accept it. It made them start blowing up clinics.[/QB]

Even with the destruction of clinics and the risk of terrorist action, it is safer today for a woman to seek an abortion than it was previously. It's not without its challenges, even today, but facing those challenges makes more headway than sticking your fucking head in the sand.

Just because it's on the front page doesn't mean it's the first and last of it.

You're right - there will always be opposition to civil rights movements (and this is] a civil rights movement). But, that does not invalidate the movement - nor it's goals.

I haven't seen you claim the WTO protests are worthless because the cops used a little tear gas and a couple rubber bullets.

I haven't seen you claim that making your point and standing by it is a lost cause, simply because you face intelligent opposition.

Would you?

[ 10-07-2001: Message edited by: Frances ]

Ganesh

09:04 / 11.07.01

Orange: in 'idly' alluding to the women's suffrage movement, it was my intention to point out that what initially appears (to many) to constitute a 'minority' applying pressure to 'force' the Government's hand is not necessarily always A Bad Thing, and may subsequently become recognised as a leap forward in terms of humanitarian rights. In this specific aspect, I think the two examples are comparable.

Orangeinmymouth

09:23 / 11.07.01

Ganesh : I fully agree. when I spoke of idle references I was speaking in a much less general way than you. And, to be honest, I wasn't referring to your post specifically.

My point was that many try to compare the queer civil rights movement to past movements when to do so is inplausible. One can hardly compare the queer civil rights movement of the 70's and 80's to that of today. Gay Pride is a long ways away from the Stonewall riots, and one would have to be blind to disagree.

While many choose to complain about the commercial aspects of gay pride, I choose to embrace them. The mindless homogenity of corporate sponsorships do considerably more good for the movement than one would think. As I said in my previous post: corporate bigotry is all about economics and not morals. As such, proving to society that companies will back us, that we're just as profitable a market as any other is truly the only way to get what we want. This is why the queer rights movement is incomparable to those that have come before it.

Obviously a minority pushing for equality is A Good Thing. And in the end, we will succeed. Ignorance is mutale, but economics are forever. I'm merely suggesting another way of looking at the fight we have ahead of us.

09:23 / 11.07.01

Attitudes can and do change in response to legislation.

Slowly, surely, given time to broil and heat. Of course, for this legislation to pass or even be brought up in the first place, you need representatives that'll vote for them.

Which generally means representatives that are getting enough heat from their voter block to be bothered.

09:23 / 11.07.01

But, that does not invalidate the movement - nor it's goals.

Who said it invalidates the movement? My implication was and remains that legislation won't stamp out bigotry or enforce morality.

Giving someone their rights doesn't give them their rights, as they say.

I haven't seen you claim the WTO protests are worthless because the cops used a little tear gas and a couple rubber bullets.

No, the WTO protests/riots have different reasons for being worthless. The tear gas and rubber bullets are just entertainment for the hungry pundits. Anyway, this should be in a different thread all together.

09:23 / 11.07.01

No you're quite right - telling people they have rights doesn't give them rights at all - in fact operating as if you have rights even when you don't is the best way to make sure that individuals get the self-respect that they deserve.

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:23 / 11.07.01

quote:Originally posted by grant:
It's fairly explicitly stated in the Bible.

Take your point, but so are losts of other things not enshrined by (for example) British law today. I'd maintain that, however unconsciously, most people do initially look to the law of the country they live in for their basic default settings of what's right and wrong, and that changes in the law can trigger sea changes in the public consciousness.

As for people's instinct to fear and hate those who are "different", or "other" - I think we need to be aware that the importance of that "difference", or "otherness", is constructed and dictated to a very large extent by the culture, church and state.

Ganesh

09:23 / 11.07.01

quote:Originally posted by Brenden Simpson:
Giving someone their rights doesn't give them their rights, as they say.

In time, it does. It generally works a lot better than not giving them their rights. Bigotry and 'morality' (as you seem to be using the term) are typically based on firmly-held assumptions. Forcing a change in behaviour is a start (hating homosexuals internally is fine, but if you lynch one, you generally won't go unpunished), and changes in behaviour do, over time, translate to changes in attitude. Slowly, yes, but a slow momentum is better than none at all.

I do take your point about the Bible, Brenden, but I think you're overstating it.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Ganesh ]

11:33 / 11.07.01

Grant was the one who made reference to the Bible, not I.

Jamieon

11:50 / 11.07.01

quote: In time, it does. It generally works a lot better than not giving them their rights. Bigotry and 'morality' (as you seem to be using the term) are typically based on firmly-held assumptions. Forcing a change in behaviour is a start (hating homosexuals internally is fine, but if you lynch one, you generally won't go unpunished), and changes in behaviour do, over time, translate to changes in attitude. Slowly, yes, but a slow momentum is better than none at all.

Funny conversation, this. We've come full circle. See my first post.

I mean, that was the only thing I could think of to say on the subject. The assertion, that, by giving Gays/blacks/women their rights we're somehow increasing the prejudice towards them, fails to ring true when one considers the problem from the larger, historical perspective. You know, "a life to the world", we've only just begun to recognize the homosexual as an entity within the last 100 or so years, and the "gay rights" movement has been around for less than that. This phase of human history fails to amount to so much as a twitch in God's nerve endings, you dig?

It's rough at first, but things change, Kundun.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Jamieon ]

14:52 / 11.07.01

quote:Originally posted by De La Zenith is dead:

Take your point, but so are losts of other things not enshrined by (for example) British law today.

Yeah, that was the point about the incest and genocide I was trying to include.

quote:
I'd maintain that, however unconsciously, most people do initially look to the law of the country they live in for their basic default settings of what's right and wrong, and that changes in the law can trigger sea changes in the public consciousness.

Maybe, but it'd have to be pretty exactly a sea change -- something that takes a long, subtle time.
I also think the laws come about as a result of such a sea change (a growing majority opinion), and rely heavily on *enforcement* to really maintain any sense of social change. Or else it's all no camel racing on Sundays in Phoenix (insert own wacky law here).

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: grant ]

Frances Farmer

15:11 / 11.07.01

quote:
Who said it invalidates the movement? My implication was and remains that legislation won't stamp out bigotry or enforce morality.

No - you attempted to invalidate the means, and by proxy, the movement designed to employ these means. It's all in the subtext, baby.

Weather or not legislation can do all the work on it's own is not being debated here. Our fundemental point of debate lies in weather or not it acheives any progress at all. The suggestive opener of the topic indicated that the writer believed thoroughly that this was a futile cause, and you backed him up.

quote:
Giving someone their rights doesn't give them their rights, as they say.

No, but I think American history buffs would be glad to point out tha the illegalization of slavery in some states was a great stride towards the liberation of blacks in America.

You make it sound as if fighting the civil war made it all a waste of time.

You can't hand rights over on a silver platter - on that, we're agreed. However, it becomes all the more important, in light of the slippery nature of freedom, to demonstrate, demonstrate, demonstrate - and fight, fight, fight.

On that, we disagree across the table.

quote:
No, the WTO protests/riots have different reasons for being worthless. The tear gas and rubber bullets are just entertainment for the hungry pundits. Anyway, this should be in a different thread all together.

Weather or not it is worthless is an issue for another thread, sure - but weather or not demonstration for legislation change on behalf of your rights is worthless .. That belongs right here.

07:29 / 12.07.01

Is it raining there, Frances?

No - you attempted to invalidate the means, and by proxy, the movement designed to employ these means.

Gosh, I'm glad you caught that one. I wasn't sure what I meant by anything that I said.

American history buffs would be glad to point out tha(t) the illegalization of slavery in some states was a great stride towards the liberation of blacks in America.

What a load of BS. Those states made slavery illegal as an economic action against the states which were not industralizing as quickly as they, and thus still utilized the larger portion of slaves. It was hardly an effort to liberate the black people, even if in the long haul it was a factor in it. Abe Lincoln was not the freedom-loving President that history texts make him out to be.

While I'm not an American, I do know that the civil war did not revolve solely around the issue of slavery. In fact, if we read our history, slavery was a very small portion of the larger issue which loomed over head. It's just easier for reasons of national unity and historical simplicity for the unwashed masses that it is all attributed to slavery.

Oh, and the WTO protests have been doing a piss poor job at fighting to have legislation enacted. All I ever hear about is the WTO needs to be stopped and how rioters smashed out the windows at the local McDonalds. Might just be me, but it sounds like someone is going about it all wrong if they're trying to garner public support.

07:59 / 12.07.01

Speaking as a Londoner, and one who followed all the anti-capitalist demonstrations here, it seems clear to me that often these demonstrations descend into chaos only when the police intervene too heavily, and that the media concentrates itself on the generally small proportion of individuals who use the cover of demonstration to smash things up.

Page: (1)2