Why on Earth do we need to get people to "approve" of homosexuality?

[Special Agent JamBor]

Why does someone need to "approve" of homosexuality to treat us equally?

What if I do not "approve" of someone's face? I still have to treat then with respect and not mistreat them, don't I?

Now I'm not that harsh and I am in no way saying that people should be treated according to their level of attractiveness, but I'm just saying as an example.

People (homophobes/heterosexists) seem to think that they must "approve of" or "accept" homosexuality in order to treat homosexuals equally, when actually, this is not true because there IS a difference between accepting someone and not treating them any differently.

Another Example: I do not approve of smoking. But do I mistreat smokers, deny them employment, or treat them ANY differently because they smoke? No I don't.

So why do opponents of homosexuality feel that treating homosexuals equally requires "acceptance" or "approval"?

[andrewlittle]

Why does someone need to "approve" of homosexuality to treat us equally?

What if I do not "approve" of someone's face? I still have to treat then with respect and not mistreat them, don't I?

So why do opponents of homosexuality feel that treating homosexuals equally requires "acceptance" or "approval"?

I largley agree with you. When women finally got the recognition that they should be able to vote, it did not come with approval or acceptance. No one forced anyone else to respect women - I mean, just look around. Misogyny did not end with that vote - sexism either. Likewise, ask African-Amercans about their approval and acceptance after civil rights were finally acknowledged. The difference is, however, that in these cases the affected population's claims to being a "class" of people were not really questioned - once it was accepted that they were indeed people. That was, after all, the argument. Actually, it wasn't "people" as much as whether "men" applied to women and people of color. Legally, it was decided that it did - wow, let's hear ot for the legal system, eh.

Now, no-one denies (sane people, anyway) that LGBT are people. I don't recollect anyone saying that LGBT are sub-human (despite the fact they're treated that way), less than fully human, 3/5 human or any of the other strange constructions that abounded in the last century or so in regard to both women and blacks. It is this very situation that people point to to say LGBT are NOT discriminated against - they are not a special class of people being riden roughshod over by the majority. Of course, us really sane people know that that is total bullshit.

The situation, while being different, has drawn some similar arguments. With women, the greatest fears with women getting the vote was that every woman would begin to wear pants, want to work and stop producing children. The populous was equally "terrorized" that, if blacks were equal, you would be forced to let your daughter marry one, the population would quickly shift to the point where whites were a minority, and the economy would collapse because the Godly order of making profit off of the efforts of inferior people would be outlawed.

Telling the mindless multitude that if LGBT would have equal rights everyone would be required by law to condone their - ughhh, preverted sex - is just a drop in the bucket. It pales next to churches being forced to marry them, legally allowing a 92 year old gay man to have his way with a 13 year old "straight" boy, teach that procreation is a natural accident that has nothing to do with biological gender roles, and all sorts of nasty, mean and terrible stuff.

It's fear mongering by the radical few on their gormless groupies. Nothing is as fearful as having your choices taken away from you. Except that's okay when a conservative president does it.

Ummm. What was the question?

[Daniel]

Years after coming out, someone I knew made a point that they could not approve of the gay agenda. And my response was: I don't remember calling a meeting!

Straight conservatives often have the notion that they are morally superior to GLBT persons. Ergo, they have the right to judge them. They also have the curious notion that our nation is somehow a sacred, rather than a civil, society. It follows then, that they don't want us to have any rights, because 'granting' them is tantamount to approval of something bad and nasty.

Oh....did I mention the yuk factor?

Why are straight people intent on imagining what gay people do in bed? Really. I think that's what it's all about on some level.

Religion and sex. Two things that become flammable when put together, at least, in the minds of the morally righteous. Methinks they are the ones with the agenda: you sick sinner...you must live your life as I tell you!

People who are comfortable in their own skin seem to be Ok with others who are different that themselves. They are just happy that you are happy.

Approval?

They aren't thinking of that.

Love and joy operate in a different sphere.

[dsdrane]

Oh....did I mention the yuk factor?

Why are straight people intent on imagining what gay people do in bed? Really. I think that's what it's all about on some level.

Ohhhh, I soooooo agree.

I'll never forget a car ride I took with my mother and step-father some time after I had initially come out to them (circa 1990 at age 23 or so). Both had been, at the time, lovely. I was a mess, but they really came through.

Then the new reality had time to sink in. Ultimately, it was my step-father who ended up harboring the "issue".

So, on some car ride, my mother encourages my step-father (someone my mother married once I was already in college and out of the house) to let me know what was on his mind. He does, letting me know (without malice, per se) that the thought of me in bed with a man made him sick to his stomach.

Without skipping a beat, I told him that I didn't necessarily relish the thought of him "porking" my mother either.

The arrow landed exactly where I'd hoped: you should not be thinking about me having sex...and further: don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

To say the least, my step-father was gobsmacked, but understanding (and maybe just a little impressed). It was a good exchange, ultimately. For me, it underscored the "ick" factor for certain straight men...but, when confronted with a logical argument -- and a little aggression, they understood.

To this day, my step-father and I have issues, but none of them has anything to do with my being gay.

Bottom line: take it to where they live. Call them on their own bullshit. They know they're full of crap; but, for the most part, it works for them. Explain to them why, this time, it won't.

They'll respect you in the end. It has to do with some animal thing...I don't know....

[Daniel]

Bottom line: take it to where they live. Call them on their own bullshit. They know they're full of crap; but, for the most part, it works for them. Explain to them why, this time, it won't.

They'll respect you in the end. It has to do with some animal thing...I don't know....

Reminds me of dogs marking out their territory. And finding their place in the pack.

I agree with you: pushing back is a necessary good thing. Shows those with issues that one has self-respect and- ultimately- self-awareness.

Woof!

[Alecto]

It's the same logic that says that comprehensive sex-education is encouraging teen sex. Acknowledging a reality is NOT putting any value-judgement (good or bad) on said reality.

[andrewlittle]

It's the same logic that says that comprehensive sex-education is encouraging teen sex. Acknowledging a reality is NOT putting any value-judgement (good or bad) on said reality.

I didn't have sex ed (being in Australia in the sixties) so when it came to trying it out, I had to try two or three times as often as someone who knew what they were doing - just till I achieved some semblance of effectiveness.

[Rick336]

Years after coming, someone I knew made a point that they could not approve of the gay agenda.

:lol:


Rick

[Daniel]

:lol:


Rick

I'll go edit that! :D

[Matt Algren]

:lol:


Rick
That's a long recovery time!

[Daniel]

That's a long recovery time!

Nothing like a comeback, is there?