Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/27/2010 09:38:06 PM · #4428

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Well I think it all depends on the speed at which people are wiling to adopt new perspectives. This is why all social justice and human rights movements have taken so much time to succeed. People need time to accept change, and that happens on different layers. We all know from our history lessons that American's didn't wake up one morning and unanimously agree to give women the right to vote, or abolish slavery, or stop segregation. Awareness, acceptance, communication, action, etc. are all layers of the process of change. Some people are further along than others, an for those that are further ahead it's frustrating to deal with those that lag behind. Ultimately there needs to be respect. Those that are more advanced, say in the action stage, need to be respectful of those that are still in the acceptance or communication stages. Respect obviously needs to go both ways in all discussions, but it's easy for those that think they're more "advanced" to be arrogant and disrespectful. So, are gay rights evolving? I think so.

Personally, I believe that humanity is becoming more and more degraded. I think it's fairly obvious to everyone that I'm not an evolutionist and I don't believe that we are always improving and advancing. Ultimately religious people and non-religious people have different worldviews. I think that most people of the major world religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) would agree that society is degrading rather than advancing. Most religious people are not opposed to change and equality. But the difference in worldviews are crucial to understand. Most non-religious people are forward thinking. They look ahead to a future of fairness, justice, and equality because they believe the best is yet to come. On the other hand, most religious people are backward thinking, meaning that they look back to a time that they believe was ideal. Religious people still look forward to some sort of redemption, but that's because we need to be saved from the ever more corrupt world that we live in.

Time + respect = change
But the change can be good or bad, depending on your worldview.

Louis

Nikon D800

01/27/2010 10:24:42 PM · #4429

It's always been interesting to me, Mousie-style, to sit back and watch with growing revulsion while others with no material interest in this issue offer hysterical yet groundless reasons why their love relationships are more deserving of group acceptance than someone else's. I don't believe I have ever been as uniformly fascinated and repulsed by anything else. The moral high-grounders need -- really, really need -- to spend a weekend with a same-sex couple as a fly on a wall, and listen to the banal conversation, the happiness and sadness, the joking around, the concerns, the serious conversations, the regular family dinners with parents, and the expressions of deep devotion and real joyful love. I'm sure there would be shock at how ordinary and familiar it all is.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/27/2010 10:24:47 PM · #4430

The human rights movement is slow because people in general don't change. Its' success is largely due to the fact that humans aren't immortal and therefore older generations die out.

Message edited by author 2010-01-27 22:25:44.

01/27/2010 11:44:33 PM · #4431

Originally posted by yanko:

The human rights movement is slow because people in general don't change. Its' success is largely due to the fact that humans aren't immortal and therefore older generations die out.

Well, that was sorta my point. I witnessed this when I was living in South Korea. There are quite a few nasty stereotypes about foreigners that float around in Korea. The older generations are more likely to believe them, and for that reason old folks are more likely to be rude to foreigners than younger folks. Then you get the middle aged people, who are very friendly once you get to know them, but they aren't always willing to get to know you. Then there are the younger folks. Most of them grew up with foreign English teachers, so they are very acceptable of foreigners living in their country. Usually they don't even notice you, and they are almost never rude unless they are trying to be a hot shot.

At any rate... I bet the younger generations growing up now in the USA will be so accustomed to gay marriage talk that voting yes will be a no-brainer for them in twenty years, and all the oldies will be dead.

"But among those 18 to 34 years old, 58 percent said same-sex marriages should be legal. That number drops to 42 percent among respondents aged 35 to 49, and to 41 percent for those aged 50 to 64. Only 24 percent of Americans 65 and older support recognizing same-sex marriages, according to the poll." --CNN
//edition.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/samesex.marriage.poll/

Message edited by author 2010-01-27 23:44:47.

01/27/2010 11:55:12 PM · #4432

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

At any rate... I bet the younger generations growing up now in the USA will be so accustomed to gay marriage talk that voting yes will be a no-brainer for them in twenty years, and all the oldies will be dead.

"But among those 18 to 34 years old, 58 percent said same-sex marriages should be legal. That number drops to 42 percent among respondents aged 35 to 49, and to 41 percent for those aged 50 to 64. Only 24 percent of Americans 65 and older support recognizing same-sex marriages, according to the poll." --CNN
//edition.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/samesex.marriage.poll/

I truly would love to know what level of the social strata each respondent lives in, the level of education they have, whether or not they are church going and other similar tidbits of information... the results might prove interesting.

Ray

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/28/2010 03:28:19 AM · #4433

Originally posted by Louis:

Agreed. As I said a couple of pages ago - they should also see a gay wedding and see how utterly normal it is.

Message edited by author 2010-01-28 05:10:00.

Apple iPhone 5

01/28/2010 05:19:32 AM · #4434

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Awareness, acceptance, communication, action, etc. are all layers of the process of change. Some people are further along than others, an for those that are further ahead it's frustrating to deal with those that lag behind.

Which stage are you at? - Do you accept gay marriage?

01/28/2010 07:11:00 AM · #4435

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

[quote=scarbrd]
Time + respect = change
But the change can be good or bad, depending on your worldview.

I truly have a problem with your comments regarding the equation. If indeed the only variables considered are time & respect, how can change be bad.

Since we have no control over time, and bearing in mind that respect is a good thing, how can we reach the conclusion that the changes which occur would be bad?

Ray

01/28/2010 12:52:11 PM · #4436

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Ultimately there needs to be respect. Those that are more advanced, say in the action stage, need to be respectful of those that are still in the acceptance or communication stages. Respect obviously needs to go both ways in all discussions, but it's easy for those that think they're more "advanced" to be arrogant and disrespectful. So, are gay rights evolving? I think so.

I disagree with the idea that people need to be respectful when challenging unfair and outdated social concepts. They should be outspoken and force change as quickly as possible.

I really don't like the way that people (especially Americans) talk about "respect". It implies that everyone has an equally valid point of view, or that the validity of a position is somehow affected by how polite a person is to other people with differing views. This is, of course, a fallacy.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I'm not an evolutionist and I don't believe that we are always improving and advancing.

It is very odd to hear people deny something like evolution. We know evolution as fact and there is an almost infinite amount of incontrovertible evidence for it.

You may have quite a big misunderstanding of what evolution is, if you think that it relates in any way to "improvement" or progression towards "good" or "better". It doesn't - it relates to successfulness within an environment, which can involve regression and other changes that might not be considered "improvements".

Out of interest, associated with this, did you get around to agreeing with me that Genesis is one of the figurative or allegorical parts of the bible?

[NB before anyone accuses me of going off topic, this does have a bearing on the gay rights debate.]

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

01/28/2010 03:39:26 PM · #4437

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
[quote=scarbrd]
Time + respect = change
But the change can be good or bad, depending on your worldview.

I truly have a problem with your comments regarding the equation. If indeed the only variables considered are time & respect, how can change be bad.

Since we have no control over time, and bearing in mind that respect is a good thing, how can we reach the conclusion that the changes which occur would be bad?

Ray

Originally posted by Matthew:

I disagree with the idea that people need to be respectful when challenging unfair and outdated social concepts. They should be outspoken and force change as quickly as possible.

If time and respect doesn't solve the problem then you can be more aggressive and intentional in your outspokenness, but I don't think it's good to jump right to force. Forced change implies military force, or a strong hand. How do you "force" change in a free democratic society?

Originally posted by Matthew:

I really don't like the way that people (especially Americans) talk about "respect". It implies that everyone has an equally valid point of view, or that the validity of a position is somehow affected by how polite a person is to other people with differing views. This is, of course, a fallacy.

How do you define respect?

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I'm not an evolutionist and I don't believe that we are always improving and advancing.

Originally posted by Matthew:

It is very odd to hear people deny something like evolution. We know evolution as fact and there is an almost infinite amount of incontrovertible evidence for it.

I don't deny that evolution happens, I just don't identify myself as an evolutionist.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Out of interest, associated with this, did you get around to agreeing with me that Genesis is one of the figurative or allegorical parts of the bible?

There are parts of Genesis that are figurative, but the entire book of Genesis is not all figurative.

George

Nikon D750

01/28/2010 03:54:59 PM · #4438

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Matthew:

Out of interest, associated with this, did you get around to agreeing with me that Genesis is one of the figurative or allegorical parts of the bible?

There are parts of Genesis that are figurative, but the entire book of Genesis is not all figurative.

Right, do you do this with every part of the Bible? Plausible - must be true; implausible - must be figurative. It's like the perfect defense - "That can't be true!" "Oh, that's 'cause it was written figuratively!"

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/28/2010 06:44:27 PM · #4439

Originally posted by george917:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Matthew:

Out of interest, associated with this, did you get around to agreeing with me that Genesis is one of the figurative or allegorical parts of the bible?

There are parts of Genesis that are figurative, but the entire book of Genesis is not all figurative.

Right, do you do this with every part of the Bible? Plausible - must be true; implausible - must be figurative. It's like the perfect defense - "That can't be true!" "Oh, that's 'cause it was written figuratively!"

I can't speak for Johnny, but to be fair, it has at least been argued before (perhaps by Jason) that there are valid ways to study the Bible (i.e. exegesis) before coming to such conclusions.

Message edited by author 2010-01-28 18:47:50.

01/28/2010 10:23:10 PM · #4440

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
[quote=johnnyphoto] [quote=scarbrd]
Time + respect = change
But the change can be good or bad, depending on your worldview.

I truly have a problem with your comments regarding the equation. If indeed the only variables considered are time & respect, how can change be bad.

Since we have no control over time, and bearing in mind that respect is a good thing, how can we reach the conclusion that the changes which occur would be bad?

Ray

My equation is not intended to be a universal equation for all kinds of change. In this case, I'm referring to social change. Time and respect leads to acceptance and communication, which in the end results in change.

Okay, but if indeed the ensuing results of time and respect are acceptance and communication, how can the ensuing results be bad...or are you suggesting that you can accept and respect things such as homosexuality which you currently consider as being bad.

Ray

01/29/2010 12:43:45 AM · #4441

Originally posted by george917:

Originally posted by yanko:

I can't speak for Johnny, but to be fair, it has at least been argued before (perhaps by Jason) that there are valid ways to study the Bible (i.e. exegesis) before coming to such conclusions.

Do I do this with every part of the Bible? Yes, but not at will. Bible scholars have, for all practical purposes, determined which parts of the Bible are to be taken figuratively and which parts are to be taken literally. The Bible includes 66 books by 40 authors, and each book and each author has a different style. Some are narratives, some are poetry, some are proverbs, some are prophecies, etc... The same rule applies to modern day works. We read the New York Times more literally than we read The Onion.

Yanko is correct. Exegesis is essentially the study of a text to determine its meaning and significance. In order to do that you need to study the historical context, cultural context, the author's purpose, the author's style, the intended audience, the date, the location, and the original language (grammar, syntax, punctuation, etc...). Through all of that scholars can figure out which parts should be read figuratively or not.

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Okay, but if indeed the ensuing results of time and respect are acceptance and communication, how can the ensuing results be bad...or are you suggesting that you can accept and respect things such as homosexuality which you currently consider as being bad.

Ray

Absolutely I can respect and accept another person if I disagree with them. Regardless of what people think, I work hard to avoid being judgmental and disrespectful. In my opinion, the only person I have the right to judge is myself. I can disagree on a certain subject and still maintain respect for the individual I disagree with. And one of my rights and responsibilities as a U.S. citizen is to voice my concerns. The USA is successful not only because of the checks and balances of the government, but also because of the checks and balances of the people. It is our civic duty to speak up when we disagree. In the end, disagreement can produce good results or bad results depending on what it is that is disagreeable.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/29/2010 08:37:17 AM · #4442

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

[quote=RayEthier]
Okay, but if indeed the ensuing results of time and respect are acceptance and communication, how can the ensuing results be bad...or are you suggesting that you can accept and respect things such as homosexuality which you currently consider as being bad.

Ray

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Assuming that you are in agreement with the premise made that "you can accept and respect things such as homosexuality which you currently consider as being bad" how do you formulate the argument that same sex marriage should not be allowed. How does one respect an individual whilst condemming the very nature of their lifestyle.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

...And one of my rights and responsibilities as a U.S. citizen is to voice my concerns. The USA is successful not only because of the checks and balances of the government, but also because of the checks and balances of the people. It is our civic duty to speak up when we disagree. In the end, disagreement can produce good results or bad results depending on what it is that is disagreeable.

I have no problems whatsoever in having people voice their concerns, but I do not understand why individuals or groups can be so unwilling to allow others to share in the joys of matrimony, particularly when we consider that enabling this type of union will have absolutely no impact on the lives of those opposed.

Ray

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/29/2010 08:40:31 AM · #4443

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Johnny's already said repeatedly that he has no problem with allowing gay marriage.

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/29/2010 08:46:56 AM · #4444

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
Assuming that you are in agreement with the premise made that "you can accept and respect things such as homosexuality which you currently consider as being bad" how do you formulate the argument that same sex marriage should not be allowed. How does one respect an individual whilst condemming the very nature of their lifestyle.

Johnny's already said repeatedly that he has no problem with allowing gay marriage.

Ah, thanks for clarifying that. I asked him to state his position a couple of times.

01/29/2010 11:07:42 AM · #4445

Originally posted by scalvert:

Well...I guess I will have to go back and read a whole bevy of answers he submitted then because I cannot remember one instance where he came out and clearly stated that he was in support of gay marriages, otherwise I would not have asked the question.

Ray

01/29/2010 12:05:21 PM · #4446

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Why is it that people always come to the conclusion that because Christians don't condone gay marriage, that must mean they don't like gays?

I'm a Christian, and I don't have anything against homosexuals. In my opinion Christian marriage is different from the legal social contractual marriage that is recognized by the government. I don't really care if the government allows gay marriage because I believe that a Christian heterosexual marriage is different from a gay marriage, or a Christian gay marriage, or a secular heterosexual marriage, etc... Marriage is just a word. All Christians should accept that just because the government or secular society calls something "marriage", that doesn't change the definition or meaning of Christian marriage.

Essentially, Christian marriages are different from any other form of social union because Christian marriages have something other unions don't have.

A: "Marriage" as defined by most governments, are simply social unions with benefits. There are two parties that form an agreement, like a contract.
B: "Marriage" as defined by God is a covenant between one man, one woman, and God.

When a Christian get's married, it ALWAYS involves part B and usually involves part A (at least in the United States).
When anyone else get's married it involves part A and never part B.

So... Christians shouldn't get their undies in a bundle about gay marriage because gay marriage and any government cannot change God's mind about marriage, and everyone else should stop bashing Christians and complaining that Christians don't like homosexuals.

01/29/2010 12:38:34 PM · #4447

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

My equation is not intended to be a universal equation for all kinds of change. In this case, I'm referring to social change. Time and respect leads to acceptance and communication, which in the end results in change. ...but I don't think it's good to jump right to force. Forced change implies military force, or a strong hand.

I maintain that change needs to be forcefully (as in vigorously) promoted - laissez faire is no good when there is an injustice being suffered by a minority (precisely because they have nothing like military force with which to make themselves heard).

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

How do you define respect?

Not sure where you are going with this - dictionary definition?

We don't need to give equal weighting to different views, nor act deferentially towards people who have different views. For example, we do not have to respect the views of racists, and pertinent here we do not have to give equal weighting to the views of homophobes.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I don't deny that evolution happens, I just don't identify myself as an evolutionist.

Don't know what an evolutionist is, other than someone who accepts evolution (which you say you do).

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

There are parts of Genesis that are figurative, but the entire book of Genesis is not all figurative.

It would be interesting to know whether you think the creation of man is figurative. For example, do you hold Adam and Eve literally to have been created as the first humans, and perfect in form - and would their presumed heterosexuality be a factor in your views on whether homosexuality is nature/nurture?

01/30/2010 12:16:24 AM · #4448

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

I can respect everyone that I disagree with my keeping my mouth shut and treating them kindly. Also, I am commanded to love and forgive all people, as God loves and forgives me. I'm also commanded to consider others more highly then myself. If I was disrespectful and judgmental toward someone just because I disagree with their lifestyle, I would be a hypocrite and would be a poor representation of the person that I'm trying to model.

Originally posted by RayEthier:

You can't understand the unwillingness until you understand the worldview of Christianity.

Originally posted by Matthew:

I beg to differ. I believe that patience and long-suffering are more effective at communicating a message than aggression or force.

Originally posted by Matthew:

We don't need to give equal weighting to different views, nor act deferentially towards people who have different views. For example, we do not have to respect the views of racists, and pertinent here we do not have to give equal weighting to the views of homophobes.

We don't need to respect the views, but does that mean we should also disrespect the person? I believe that we can disrespect a person's views or actions, but still respect the person as a valuable human being. I suppose that believing in the true value of human beings is a product of my faith, so I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Don't know what an evolutionist is, other than someone who accepts evolution (which you say you do).

Well, you can call me an evolutionist if you think that's what I am. But I don't call myself that.

Originally posted by Matthew:

I guess I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Do I believe that Adam and Eve were created as the first humans? Yes. Do I believe they were perfect in form? Yes. Do I believe that God created a woman to be the man's companion, rather than another man? Yes. Do I believe that is evidence that God's intention is for a man to have a woman as a companion? Yes.

Ultimately, regardless of how much one man can love another man, there are still physiological differences between men and women that don't go away no matter how gay or straight a person is. I do not deny that a man can love or be attracted to another man, that is fairly obvious. However, I do believe that there are specific physiological differences between men and women that are meant to be complimentary to one another.

01/30/2010 06:57:05 PM · #4449

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by Matthew:
I maintain that change needs to be forcefully (as in vigorously) promoted - laissez faire is no good when there is an injustice being suffered by a minority (precisely because they have nothing like military force with which to make themselves heard).
I beg to differ. I believe that patience and long-suffering are more effective at communicating a message than aggression or force.

Like the abolition of slavery, or the abolition of apartheid, or emancipation? "If only the oppressed had been less vocal and more long suffering they would have been so much more effective."

Nonsense.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

What do you mean by "disrespect the person"? There is no need to be arbitrarily uncouth or rude unnecessarily. But there is no fundamental right to be respected. For example, I recently told a good friend to change his views. He was wrong, and he needed to be told firmly that he needed to rethink.

I will think less of him if he persists.

Your faith doesn't give you any special moral insight - you are first and foremost a product of the society you live in, which is pretty much common with the rest of us. Please don't insult the rest of us by implying that you have access to some higher capacity. I assure you that you do not.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Well, you can call me an evolutionist if you think that's what I am. But I don't call myself that.

Well you seem to reject evolution with your next statement so I am not sure why you said that you accept it.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

You have me very confused. If you are not using physical evidence that directly contradicts the bible as a guide for which bits are figurative v. fact - then what plausible basis are you using? How is this not "your" special interpretation?

Do you see any problem with a religion casting just one particular format of human relationship as "perfect" and "God's intention"?