Let's Change the World! [Archive]

View Full Version : Let's Change the World!

BiBiologist

Jun 5, 2006, 8:41 PM

arana

Jun 6, 2006, 12:03 AM

I think education and breaking down the sterotypes is one of the biggest keys. But you will always have those that refuse to believe anything but what they feel is the "gospel" truth and no amount of rational converstion or evidence will sway them.

citystyleguy

Jun 6, 2006, 1:30 AM

OK, after today's threads, I've decided to ask how people think we can change attitudes about sexual orientation.

1) Do you think society would be more accepting if they understand that being bi- or homosexual is not a choice (inborn) or is a choice?

2) Do you think that society would be more accepting if, regardless of whether sexuality is a choice, the Bible does not condemn that choice? This pamphlet points out some good information about interpretation and misinterpretation of the Bible:
http://www.soulforce.org/article/ho...e-gay-christian

3) Do you think we should be "in your face", as in marches and "get used to it" slogans, or more gentle techniqes to persuade understanding (like publishing essays, novels, movies, memoirs, surveys)?

4) Do you think we gotta do all these things to reach the various and different skeptics/homophobes out there?

5) Do you think societal acceptance is unnecessary for yourself or anyone else?

I'd love lots of opinions!
Thanks!

#'s 1 through 4 are all effective, dependent on the individual and/or group that is confronted, but in the end, for me #5 has proven the most effective and preferred.

like p t barnum said, you can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you will never fool all of the people all of the time. in this light, current times prove the corollary(sp?) that you can get some people to accept your position all of the time, and you can get all of the people to accept your position some of the time, but you will never get all the people to accept your position all of the time. that 35% hard-core christian fundlementalists of the republican party will never, ever accept any of #'s 1 through 4, so to them, may hell reach up and grab you in the ass.

and if you take the ultimate path of self-rightousness and attempt to force me to your empty conformity :bowdown: , like the proverbial round peg in a square hole, then when you reach out be prepared to pull back bloodied stumps! :eek: harsh words i know, but that is my reality to them. patience and pleading with them will never, ever work! so, in peace, go your path and i will go mine, but never, ever cross me or harm any that share my world. :bibounce:

in the words of the warrior/stoic, if you want peace then prepare for war! :male:

well! that got me started!

JrzGuy3

Jun 6, 2006, 2:04 AM

You have a lot going on here. Let's take it one bi one.

1a) Choice
If it's a choice, then I think this opens the door for a lot of subjective, personal judgement in terms of morality.

1b) Not a Choice
I think that it would be a lot better this way. People can't assign moral high or low ground if there's no free will (not logically, at least). For example, I think this would put us (psychosocially) in the same plane as, say, Afro-Americans. Then again, reason is the natural enemy of the bigot.

Furthermore, I think that there is more to this issue than you bring up. What example do you mean by homo/bisexuality? Some things (behavoir) certainly are choices: gay men choose to have sex together. Other things (attraction) certainly are not choices.

2) Bible
I'm bothered that people are still using the Bible as a moral compass. Word of God? Fine. Jesus Christ? All for it. But holy hell, Leviticus should really be spending some time and energy nursing his own demons before he worries about mine. People need to take the Bible for what it is: second, third, fourth hand (and further) HUMAN accounts of Heavenly actions.

3) Aggressiveness
I think this depends a lot on where society is. Currently, I think my generation (young 20s) seems to really "get it" with gay rights issues. I really feel good that progress is being made in our GAY AGENDA (sorry... had to). But everyone here should know how fast the weather can change. The moment that they come up with a cure for gay and parents start takng their 14, 15, 16 and 17 y/o kids in to get it, I doubt I'll be advocating passive action. No one ever talks about extermination, they just do it.
Bonus points to anyone whom guesses my favorite movie right now. My girlfriend doesn't count. ;)

4) Outreach
There's a line dividing pro-us and anti-us, and I think that very rarely (save for parents of gay children, in some cases) will anyone ever cross it. We won't win the cultural war by turning those who disagree with us. We'll win it by galvanizing our ranks.

5) Societal Acceptance
Define necessary? Necessary to live, survive? No. Helpful? Yes.

canuckotter

Jun 6, 2006, 6:43 AM

No one ever talks about extermination, they just do it.
Erik? Is that you? ;)

Anyway. I'm thinking about my response to the original questions and will post something later, I just was amused by the quote.

JohnnyV

Jun 6, 2006, 4:37 PM

Okay, I'll be super-brief and try not to gush too much, so I don't spark a riot....

1) I think this question of choice/not choice has to be scrapped. Sexuality's too complex and too many variables make it impossible to boil it down to either/or. Both answers to the choice question are slippery slopes that lead to horrible abuses, from ex-gay mental abuse on one side to eugenic science on the other... No homophobe I have met has ever based his/her homophobia on the idea that sexuality is a choice, so arguing one way or the other won't save anybody from bigotry. Nobody believes black people choose to be black, yet there is still rampant racism in America, and none of the civil rights breakthroughs happened by arguing emphatically that blacks didn't choose to be black.

2)I agree wholeheartedly that better interpretations of the Bible are necessary, both for GLBT issues and for maintaining the integrity of Judaism and Christianity.

3)I think we need both aggressive and subtle methods of activism. People who are good writers or rhetoricians probably belong at their keyboards, because their skills are better used there. People who want to help but need direction from others are probably more useful protesting and demonstrating.

4)We need to do everything we find useful. But I don't think we need to target homophobes all the time. If we do, we risk becoming reactionary, which ccreates more problems internally. A siege mentality leads to fear of impurity and scorn for "traitors," which is why bisexuals are currently viewed with derision by gays and lesbians.

5)Societal acceptance is a vague concept. Most straight people probably wouldn't say that being straight wins them loads of acceptance; everyone has some point that alienates them from the mainstream. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

J

OK, after today's threads, I've decided to ask how people think we can change attitudes about sexual orientation.

1) Do you think society would be more accepting if they understand that being bi- or homosexual is not a choice (inborn) or is a choice?

2) Do you think that society would be more accepting if, regardless of whether sexuality is a choice, the Bible does not condemn that choice? This pamphlet points out some good information about interpretation and misinterpretation of the Bible:
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

3) Do you think we should be "in your face", as in marches and "get used to it" slogans, or more gentle techniqes to persuade understanding (like publishing essays, novels, movies, memoirs, surveys)?

4) Do you think we gotta do all these things to reach the various and different skeptics/homophobes out there?

5) Do you think societal acceptance is unnecessary for yourself or anyone else?

I'd love lots of opinions!
Thanks!

JrzGuy3

Jun 6, 2006, 10:40 PM

1) I think this question of choice/not choice has to be scrapped. Sexuality's too complex and too many variables make it impossible to boil it down to either/or. Both answers to the choice question are slippery slopes that lead to horrible abuses, from ex-gay mental abuse on one side to eugenic science on the other... No homophobe I have met has ever based his/her homophobia on the idea that sexuality is a choice, so arguing one way or the other won't save anybody from bigotry. Nobody believes black people choose to be black, yet there is still rampant racism in America, and none of the civil rights breakthroughs happened by arguing emphatically that blacks didn't choose to be black.

Quite to the contrary, I'd say this is the most common reason I encounter.

NightHawk

Jun 6, 2006, 11:21 PM

1) There is no either it is choice or it is not choice decision for sexuality in general. Some people have no choice, those who are strongly heterosexual and those who are strongly homosexual. Bisexuals have a choice, but they do not need to exercise it to pursue both sexes. They may choose to behave strictly as heterosexuals or as homosexuals. Some who act as heterosexuals may not even understand that they are capable of acting bisexually. But, most of society does not understand this. They are probably now more accepting of the idea of no choice, false dichotomy that that is.

2) Those passages interpreted as anti-homosexual come from the more primitive Old Testament. It is understandable that a smallish tribe beset and surrounded by powerful enemies might have to foster a very aggressive warrior mentality to survive. People today should be able to accept the idea that the life conditions needed in such primitive and dangerous times are now simply inappropriate and harmful.

3) Simply leading by setting an example of being good people is the best approach. Being productive, self-responsible, and behaving as a thinking person always earns respect.

4) I do not think most people who are acting like homophobes have given their actions much thought. If they see that homosexuals and bisexuals are commonly good people when they encounter them as individuals, then they are inclined to think more. This usually has beneficial results. Meanwhile, simply having forums such as this gives people who are curious about bisexuality an easy way to learn more about it and the people who are bisexual. Upon such an introduction, most people will be less frightened and phobias are hard to maintain when you are not frightened.

5) There is something to be said for being liked and respected, but that is really an individual thing more than a group thing. It would be nice not to be hated as a group, however. This really means it would be nice if we were not feared. So, be on your best behavior and please do not tear families apart! At least not more so than heterosexuals do.

JohnnyV

Jun 6, 2006, 11:31 PM

1) But, most of society does not understand this. They are probably now more accepting of the idea of no choice, false dichotomy that that is.

I agree, Night Hawk, and it scares me. I have probably belabored this too long on the forum, but I think gays and lesbians are making more problems for themselves in the future by embracing an oversimplified "I had no choice because I was born this way" argument. Maybe it will work in very, very limited political contexts, but then it boxes you into an essentialist trap. Quickly sexuality becomes essentialized with other traits that take on the veneer of genetic permanence; for instance, gays are genetically predisposed to be more feminine, more emotional, less courageous, more promiscuous, less monogamous, etc.... Once you hang your hopes on a genetic explanation for gay identity, you make it that much harder to argue against those essentialist stereotypes based on poorly understood interpretations of science.

And trust me, when most gay and lesbian spokespeople say that "sexuality is genetic and determined at birth," they do NOT believe that bisexuality exists. They mean that people are born gay or straight, but never both.

J

JrzGuy3

Jun 7, 2006, 3:28 AM

And trust me, when most gay and lesbian spokespeople say that "sexuality is genetic and determined at birth," they do NOT believe that bisexuality exists. They mean that people are born gay or straight, but never both.

This is something that bothers me a lot. Where did people, specifically the ones you reference, come up with the notion that because a condition is congenital then it must also be defined in terms of a binary? Eye color is strictly genetics teritorry; however there are many more eye colors out there than blue and brown.

sulu1

Jun 7, 2006, 7:47 AM

I am sorry in advance as I am going to rant a bit, I just know it. Perhaps you had better just skip to the next post.

1) Do you think society would be more accepting if they understand that being bi- or homosexual is not a choice (inborn) or is a choice?

We always seem to speak of choice, or rather an absence of it, when discussing sexual orientation. Whilst, I agree that few of us deliberately will ourselves into being attracted to members of the same sex, we could, however, refuse to act on it and be either “normal” or celibate. A Christian argument against same sex relationships is that we are being tested by God and we need to resist temptation. But in saying ‘I had no choice’ that implies we are not responsible for our actions, like children or the insane, and this implies a weakness of character that, I for one, resent. For years I hid from that side of my self, by ‘coming out’ to myself and those closest to me I think that I found character and not some weakness.

We could argue that choice is a fundamental right. We can chose who we vote for, what products we buy, where we live and what religion we want to practice. To take away our ‘choice’ to be homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual is fundamentally wrong and to do so jeopardises all the other freedoms that our society brings and our detractors enjoy.

However I do think we need to aim for a society that passes as much comment on our sexuality as it does on our height for example. To talk about choice in the context of being 6ft or 5tf is meaningless, irrelevant and adds nothing of value. To talk about sexuality and choice should be viewed the same.

2) Do you think that society would be more accepting if, regardless of whether sexuality is a choice, the Bible does not condemn that choice? This pamphlet points out some good information about interpretation and misinterpretation of the Bible:
http://www.soulforce.org/article/ho...e-gay-christian

I really disagree with this pamphlet although it is well intentioned it doesn’t help the bisexual at all. I shall only go into his sixth premise. Where he quotes Dr Smedes:
"Nor have the homosexuals that I know given up heterosexual passions for homosexual lusts. They have been homosexual from the moment of their earliest sexual stirrings. They did not change from one orientation to another; they just discovered that they were homosexual. It would be unnatural for most homosexuals to have heterosexual sex."

This makes us seem the unnatural ones. I understand that often the best form of defence is to find a new enemy and ally with your former foe, but it doesn’t make it right.

He concludes with an astonishing:
“The Biblical authors knew nothing of homosexual orientation as we understand it, and therefore said nothing to condemn or approve it.”

I cannot believe for one second that Biblical authors were so cut off from the rest of the world. It would be better to argue that homosexuality doesn’t feature because there was no moral question posed by it. There is more but I will leave it for now.

3) Do you think we should be "in your face", as in marches and "get used to it" slogans, or more gentle techniqes to persuade understanding (like publishing essays, novels, movies, memoirs, surveys)?

I like the more gentle techniques compared to the marches and ‘in your face’ approach which I often find is a bit negative and plays into the hands of the bigots. But tactics are an area I do need to think about more..

4) Do you think we gotta do all these things to reach the various and different skeptics/homophobes out there?

First and most important we need to reach out to each other. There are lots of confused, lonely and frightened people out there basically the ‘stragglers’ (like me) have to have support and help in realising its ok. This web site is a good example – it made me feel normal. (So thanks to everybody involved, I love you all very much!)

5) Do you think societal acceptance is unnecessary for yourself or anyone else?

Social acceptance would be nice but far more important is that we are not rejected outright. The two are subtly different I can handle not being accepted but not rejected.

OK I will stop and let someone else give an opinion. Believe it or not I was heavy on the delete key!

Good discussion BB!