Weather people choose their sexuality or not is not the question in this debate if you ask me. People unquestionably have a choice in religion and their are more similarities between the history of the struggle of certain races and certain religions. Also, when saying, "well you had a choice" is like saying "well you chose to do drugs", and it implies that your choice is a negative, and furthermore, being black would be a negative choice if it were a choice. I think most of us, if given a choice would choose to be whatever race we are right now. The problem to me simply is that you can not show me any evidence of the struggle of homosexuals similar to the struggle of minorities in terms of race or religion, in any society.
No, it's cool, and I mean that. But it's true that I didn't know what you meant -- seemed to carry some sort of judgment. But I'm ready to not discuss it anymore. By the way, Washington State just joined the fray. The mayor of Seattle has said the city will see all same-sex marriages of city employees as valid for full benefit status, etc.
I hear you, and I agree for the most part. I'm in neither group, honestly, so far be it from me to judge. I think the analogy came up most pointedly because the same exact arguments are being used against same sex marriage that were used against interracial marriage years ago. I'm not saying it's appropriate, or that the struggles are so much alike, but you have to admit it's tempting to say... "Well, interracial marriage didn't destroy the institution, but basically the same conservative voices were promising us it would be complete anarchy, the end of civilization. Was it really worth the big fuss? Are interracial couples hurting anybody? Obviously, no they are not."
So I see you have heard of it I don't thump Bibles. . . I utilize my common sense Until the every mounting list of knowledge becomes more concrete I will stay with my 'opinion' QUESTION: What percent of the population would you say is homosexual? Rocket STEW-DAWG River . . . always needed a nick name
Back to your opening salvo... If anything, the way that homosexuals are portrayed, are allowed to be portrayed, in the national media supports the comparison of gay civil rights to racial civil rights. This comparison in no way denigrates the civil rights struggle. I agree, like most Fox programming, the "Is he or isn't he?" show is a sham. So, for the most part, are the caricatures of gays on "Will & Grace" and "Queer Eye," emasculated stereotypes who rarely hold hands, kiss or have sex but do offer witty fashion bon mots to their breeder friends. Except for possibly a show on the also-ran cable network Showtime (I don't know; I don't get cable), the only portrayals of gays in popular culture accentuate rather than subvert the traditional gay stereotype. And they're wildly popular. You should also realize that only until last year, practicing homosexuality was illegal in Texas and many other states. You might remember a Supreme Court ruling that you were probably in a huff about. If you look back at a comparable time in the nascent civil rights struggle, around the era of anti-miscegenation laws, blacks in film were similarly stereotyped, either the ignorant help or the lynchee savage. See minstrel shows (black actors forced to paint their faces even darker), Birth of a Nation, the complete works of Stepin Fetchit, Amos & Andy, the montage from Spike Lee's Bamboozled, Al Jolson in blackface, or the indicative role of the maid Mammy in Gone w/ the Wind: "We gon't to birf that baby!" And as Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar for that role, oddly the first for an African American, such ridiculously stereotyped portrayals were popular, amenable to the day's cultural mindset of what a black person was or should be. You won't find records of many blacks of the time protesting, because they had little voice or opportunity to do so, or when they did it was not reported by the larger media. As blacks attained equality under the law and became more integrated into society, we became a nation where an Eddie Murphy or Denzel Washington could become stars without having to resort to one-dimensional stereotypes. Legal/societal standing begets popular conception begets cultural portrayal. (Obviously, this is not a done deal; most blacks in tv shows are still on Cops or the drug-dealing foils of NYPD Blue, but that's another argument.) Point is, you don't hear any uproar over this televised fluff precisely because gays aren't fully accepted yet in our society (as evidenced by your post), don't have much of a pulpit from which to speak. They also, as noted, have bigger fish to fry, protesting the inequality of marriage laws, for example. As you admit later to not seeking out any voices of dissent in the gay subculture (I'm betting they exist), you likely won't hear any. The tree is falling in the forest, you're there to hear it, but you've got your ears sealed w/ Odyssean wax, shouting "LA LA LA LA LA!" and then concluding that there is no sound. I also agree that sexuality has more in common with religious freedom than skin color, in that they are traits not visible to the naked eye (unless you want the patches to again be required), and homosexuals by disguising their behaviours can pretend to be part of the cultural majority in ways that dark-skinned minorities obviously cannot, but to assert that there are no parallels between gay and racial civil rights movements is to be purposefully daft. By the way, I especially like the single-mindedness of homosexuals' efforts
According to a recent UCLA study, there are about 59,374,000 straight couples (married and unmarried living together) in the US. There are also 594,000 gay couples living together. That's only 1%. Here's the link: UCLA data .* Notable in this survey, however, is that 54 million of the 59 million straight couples were married. I suppose, if that ratio holds, you'd see much higher %, closer to the canonical 10% figure, if you let gay people marry. Estimates and polls always seem to give something between 7 and 10%. Again, a lot like penguins and sheep. But to be fair, there are studies funded by conservative think-tanks that place the percentage much lower. Like any survey techniques, the results depend a lot on the questions. For instance: * How do you define your sexual preference? or * Have you had gay sex within the last week? or * Have you ever copulated with a member of the opposite sex? The last two are pretty much real examples I just found through google. Unbelievable that some people would think one instance of hetero sex makes someone a devout heterosexual. * good catch, bejezuz. it is not a typo, but a matho. my bad with the factor of 10.
Here's the Wayans Brothers' new movie titled White Chicks Marlon and Shawn Wayans are the two blonde females in the above picture.
Perhaps there is a better analogy between homosexuality and the eating of SHRIMP!. That site is wonderful. "When Jesus died for your sins, He wore a crown of thorns, Not a lobster bib."
