Serious LGBT Discussion

[Enclave Supremacy]

My point is you can't FORCE acceptance. You GAIN acceptance. You gain it through work, education, and outreach. Not bullshit lawsuits. Protected classes ensure that everyone in them will never be fully accepted. Well done.

The gays don't all have a hive mind on how to further their agenda. It's not like this was a planned move by the entire community.

 

[TowinKarz]

If the idea of having to serve a person of differing sexuality than you as a customer is that upsetting, you need to seriously rethink your decision to open a public business.

 

[bearycool]

Guys, I'm glad we're actually going into depth with all of this stuff, and I appreciate everyone lowering their may-may and sperg levels for this. It means a lot for you all to place your input here =).

Also, as a reminder, don't get too offended or let your emotions make you forget being rational. No one has really done that yet, but I know this stuff is going to get intense with the debating sometimes, so I just wanted to give a friendly reminder!

 

[MrCKMongler had cybersex with ADF lol]

The gays don't all have a hive mind on how to further their agenda. It's not like this was a planned move by the entire community.

Grass roots organizing sure does go a long way though. I mean, seriously. 10 years from every state but a handful having outlawed gay marriage to every state but a handful legalizing it? That sort of campaign is a politician's wet dream. Amazing, honestly.

If the idea of having to serve a person of differing sexuality than you as a customer is that upsetting, you need to seriously rethink your decision to open a public business.

Well, in the guy's defense, his business was open before gay marriage was even a thing. I don't think the idea of having to refuse service based on his beliefs even crossed his mind. Post legalization, I'd 100% agree with you. Again though, the baker is a moron. His beliefs aren't mine. I think a conversation with him about the benefits of gay marriage would've went a longer way towards bridging the gap between the two sides in the issue.

 

[TowinKarz]

The irony is that he's probably already served hundreds of gay people, he just doesn't know it because they looked and behaved just like everyone else. The same ignorant excuse surfaced back when Michael Sam came out, with people declaring they'd NEVER be able to share a locker room shower with a gay man.... when, statistically, if they partook in athletics all their lives up to that point, they already have, and nothing bad happened.

 

[The Master Debater]

I don't have much to say because I'll be powerleveling, but here goes:

Social justice has ties to the LGBT community. Like it or not, there's always the crazies.
You only see the fringe of a group when they're presented to you.
I just feel like the general craziness of stuff like political correctness makes LGBT youth not want to come out.

 

[AnOminous]

Grass roots organizing sure does go a long way though. I mean, seriously. 10 years from every state but a handful having outlawed gay marriage to every state but a handful legalizing it? That sort of campaign is a politician's wet dream. Amazing, honestly.

I'll tell you what set it off, or at least accelerated it. In 2004, during the Bush/Kerry contest, Republicans had the idea of putting anti-gay marriage initiatives on the ballot in most of the states, as a wedge issue guaranteed to get one issue voters to show up to the polls and vote. This works phenomenally well, and most of these initiatives actually passed. The reasoning was anyone who cared enough about these issues to show up and vote because of them would also overwhelmingly vote for Republican candidates.

Before this, gay marriage just wasn't an issue outside of the relatively small activist circles composed mostly of people who it personally concerned, that is, LGBT people themselves, as well as those fanatically opposed to it.

Given a reason to think about it, though, most people who did decided, basically, "why not?" And a lot of people who previously hadn't thought about it joined the pro side of the actual activists. While the majority probably remained in the "who gives a shit" column, now, the pro side was a lot stronger and, more importantly, had a lot of straight people in it.

The result was really inevitable.

By the time the Supreme Court had ruled, most state courts and legislatures had already made up their mind, and the Supreme Court was just ratifying what had already become a majority opinion.

This is somewhat unlike Loving v. Virginia, in which the Court was ahead of the curve. The majority of the public still opposed interracial marriage at the time prohibitions against it were struck down.

 

[Danger]

I don't have much to say because I'll be powerleveling, but here goes:

Social justice has ties to the LGBT community. Like it or not, there's always the crazies.
You only see the fringe of a group when they're presented to you.
I just feel like the general craziness of stuff like political correctness makes LGBT youth not want to come out.

In fairness though the religious right is filled with crazies too. Do Kim Davis and Mike Huckabee represent all conservatives? No they don't but they do a damn good job making me unsympathetic to their cause.

Really every group seems to have crazies and extremist in their midst. These people aren't a great example of everyone on their team but they do seem to be most visible most of the times.

 

[Vitriol]

I'm about a page late but can we watch the ad homniems please. Civil disagreement is not an unreasonable standard to maintain.

 

[DNJACK]

I think it's reasonable and that we can all agree that having the cake debate for the twentieth time will not result in anything productive.

 

[bearycool]

I think it's reasonable and that we can all agree that having the cake debate for the twentieth time will not result in anything productive.

Let's move onto another subject then.

Red alert! Beary is changing the subject like a sperg!

Why is it that Russia is having such a hard time accepting homosexuality? In fact, why has it been so hard in the past for people to accept homosexuality in general?

Is it due to Christianity, a natural instinct, or what?

 

[Operator Kyoko Sakura]

Let's move onto another subject then.

Red alert! Beary is changing the subject like a sperg!

Let's. Why is it that Russia is having such a hard time accepting homosexuality? In fact, why has it been so hard in the past for people to accept homosexuality in general?

Is it due to Christianity, a natural instinct, or what?

Russia has a very large Russian orthodox population. Russian Orthodoxy puts a huge emphasis on traditionalism and rejection of many modern day policies. In edition, Soviet Russia criminalized homosexuality.

 

[The Master Debater]

Powerleveling here but:

I identify as bisexual. I don't wanna come out to my parents because I've seen what PC and social justice can do to someone.

 

[Eponine]

Powerleveling here but:

I identify as bisexual. I don't wanna come out to my parents because I've seen what PC and social justice can do to someone.

You don't have to be dramatic about it. If they can't accept that you swing both ways, there's really nothing you can do. The people who make social justice such a big deal are those that let these labels swallow them up, define who they are. If you're conscious about that, you'll have no issues.

 

[TowinKarz]

FWIW @The Master Debater , you're under no obligation TO come out, either. It's your sexuality, your business, you aren't hiding/lying about anything by NOT telling anyone, if that makes it easier.

 

[Len Kagamoney]

Powerleveling here but:

I identify as bisexual. I don't wanna come out to my parents because I've seen what PC and social justice can do to someone.

I may be misreading this, but simply being bisexual won't turn you into an SJW.
Do what's best for you though.

 

[bearycool]

Okay, I'm going to switch to a subject that is a bit personal, but I find has never been critical.

How in the hell is a gay relationship suppose to work? What is the dynamic? Is it the same as a heterosexual relationship, or something else?

We see a bunch of literature of straight people getting all romantic, but anything with gay romance hasn't become absolutely explicit until recently. In other words, we lack much primary text and history describing how a gay relationship works and how it should not work. Some people say it is the exact same thing as a heterosexual one, and while in theory that may be true, I find it is not because homosexuals receive a social experience that is much different than, say, a heterosexual couple. The way a homosexual couple and a heterosexual one interacts in society was and is different due to obvious perceived deviancy and judgement against queers; and while that gap is much smaller in the present, it still exists: two gay men still have a hard time holding their significant other's hand in public, or just showing really any signs of affection.

Though, and I hate to say this but this is where dudebro and bromances actually do help. It allows for a sort of leeway for men to have affection for one another without being entirely gay-- though we of course joke about how queer it is. Still, in a sense it allows for men to have emotions for each other, and emotions in general were not a thing to be found explicitly in men until recently as well.

So I dunno, I guess the dynamic for lesbian couples, gay couples, and straight couples are all different because of the way society views the gender of each, as well as the biases of the sexuality itself.

 

[Redeemer and Destroyer]

Okay, I'm going to switch to a subject that is a bit personal, but I find has never been critical.

How in the hell is a gay relationship suppose to work? What is the dynamic? Is it the same as a heterosexual relationship, or something else?

We see a bunch of literature of straight people getting all romantic, but anything with gay romance hasn't become absolutely explicit until recently. In other words, we lack much primary text and history describing how a gay relationship works and how it should not work. Some people say it is the exact same thing as a heterosexual one, and while in theory that may be true, I find it is not because homosexuals receive a social experience that is much different than, say, a heterosexual couple. The way a homosexual couple and a heterosexual one interacts in society was and is different due to obvious perceived deviancy and judgement against queers; and while that gap is much smaller in the present, it still exists: two gay men still have a hard time holding their significant other's hand in public, or just showing really any signs of affection.

Though, and I hate to say this but this is where dudebro and bromances actually do help. It allows for a sort of leeway for men to have affection for one another without being entirely gay-- though we of course joke about how queer it is. Still, in a sense it allows for men to have emotions for each other, and emotions in general were not a thing to be found explicitly in men until recently as well.

So I dunno, I guess the dynamic for lesbian couples, gay couples, and straight couples are all different because of the way society views the gender of each, as well as the biases of the sexuality itself.

Coming from a personal experience but without powerleveling, homosexual relationships work like a straight relationship. Society is so bent on cramming two men/women into a husband/wife mechanic that they erase the individuals' identities. Sure, Joe may cook and clean while Bob goes and gets the money, but these are their decisions, not them trying to fit into what society thinks of them.

Robert and Joey may agree to split the laundry bi-weekly and Laura and Josie pool their earnings in for a vacation with Hannah and Lawrence, who also did the same. A gay relationship works exactly like a straight relationship: two responsible adults co-mingling and making decisions with one another while meshing their personalities. We're just tacking gay on it because they're dudes.

I think the problem here is that society has not only oversaturated the gay scene with so much sexuality, but also with traditional gender roles, that all straight people see when they think of lesbians and gays is the porn of them, the stereotypes, and the sheer fact that they're not like them. It gives way to that hypersexual, forbidden nature of the LGB groups, from butch lesbians to sassy and effeminate gay men, as well as greedy bisexuals, which leads to this relationship misconception and the "So who's the man and who's the woman?" question.

I hope I answered your question thoroughly

 

[WandererofWays]

Okay, I'm going to switch to a subject that is a bit personal, but I find has never been critical.

How in the hell is a gay relationship suppose to work? What is the dynamic? Is it the same as a heterosexual relationship, or something else?

We see a bunch of literature of straight people getting all romantic, but anything with gay romance hasn't become absolutely explicit until recently. In other words, we lack much primary text and history describing how a gay relationship works and how it should not work. Some people say it is the exact same thing as a heterosexual one, and while in theory that may be true, I find it is not because homosexuals receive a social experience that is much different than, say, a heterosexual couple. The way a homosexual couple and a heterosexual one interacts in society was and is different due to obvious perceived deviancy and judgement against queers; and while that gap is much smaller in the present, it still exists: two gay men still have a hard time holding their significant other's hand in public, or just showing really any signs of affection.

Though, and I hate to say this but this is where dudebro and bromances actually do help. It allows for a sort of leeway for men to have affection for one another without being entirely gay-- though we of course joke about how queer it is. Still, in a sense it allows for men to have emotions for each other, and emotions in general were not a thing to be found explicitly in men until recently as well.

So I dunno, I guess the dynamic for lesbian couples, gay couples, and straight couples are all different because of the way society views the gender of each, as well as the biases of the sexuality itself.

It really does depend on the individuals. and they functionally work like heterosexual relationships.

Heterosexual relationships have a lot of flexibility in dynamics in the 21st century. Women can be the breadwinner, men can be stay at homes dads, men can cook and change diapers, and women can mow the lawn and handle the money. The traditional relationship still does exist, and is a viable model for those who want it and can afford it. There is a lot more freedom (that is socially acceptable) than there used to be, and I'm glad for that.

Gay and bisexual relationships can honestly work the same way. I do think people tend to associate relationships with gender roles, and it offers some sort of confusion when they can't automatically use that assumption with same-sex couples. It really depends on the individuals and the type of relationship they want. It can traditional of course, two working parents, or two guys or girls who are living together or married without children.

These days there's no really one defined model beyond certain preconceptions and social expectations which I find more and more people tend to ignore.

I think this works out for the best as it gives people the flexibility to choose for themselves what works, and to make the change as life happens. Relationships aren't a one sized fit all thing, and I'm glad that there is more freedom to choose.

The media really isn't all that good at representing us LGBT people accurately. Not all gays are fashion obsessed, not all lesbians want children, and (my personal pet peeve) not all bisexuals are unfaithful or sluts wanting to sleep around when they include us at all. it's getting a bit better with time, but still has a long way to go.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Russia has a very large Russian orthodox population. Russian Orthodoxy puts a huge emphasis on traditionalism and rejection of many modern day policies. In edition, Soviet Russia criminalized homosexuality.

I don't think Orthodox christianity is innately more conservative than any other brand of christianity. Similarly, the USSR seesawed on homosexuality - in the pre-Stalin era it was entirely legal at a time when it was still illegal in most of the West. And more recently, there was much less homophobia in Russia in the 1990s and early 00s than there is now.

I think that the reason homosexuality is stigmatised (not, for the record, actually illegal, although it's one of those "technically legal" situations) is because it's come to be associated with internationalism, cosmopolianism, and the West generally, while the current political climate in Russia is all about self-dependence and cultural autarky.