Essay talk:Why America has Become More Accepting of Homosexuals

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Feel free to edit the format to make it more coherent, but please leave the actual text alone. Necromancer 16:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As a general comment - beware the wall of text. When writing for the web make your paragraphs short much shorter than dead tree. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a very interesting question. Being a Brit, I can only give a UK perspective; and, mainly only an English one; so I'll mostly refrain from comment on your narrative. I've left lots of the history out (e.g. Wilde, Montagu. Wolfenden, Abse, Thorpe).
1968 - homosexual activity was decriminalised, up to a point (age of consent 21, compared with 16 for heterosexual activity; and no threesomes). The penalty of three years in prison with hard labour for having it off with another bloke was abolished.
1970s - homophobic acts continued, though the cops were perhaps less involved in them than they had been in earlier years. (Queerbashing, US - mouthing off against gays; UK - kicking their heads in.)
1978 - the anthem Glad to be gayWikipedia's W.svg by the Tom Robinson Band, with its openly gay frontman, reaches #18 in the UK charts. Wtf? The times they were a-something.
1988 - in a backward step, the seriously unpleasant Section 28Wikipedia's W.svg was enacted. There were no prosecutions under it afaik, but it had a chilling effect.
2003 - Section 28 repealed.
2005 - Civil Partnership Act 2004 comes into force. A spokesperson for British StonewallWikipedia's W.svg welcomes it, but regrets that it extends only to gay couples and not to straight ones too.[citation needed]
2014 - Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 comes into effect in England and Wales, and will do so in Scotland next week. Northern Ireland is still holding its nose.
The extraordinary thing to me is: even 10 years ago equal marriage was hardly on the gay agenda! Then, somehow, the most unpleasant UK government I can recall (I go back 50 years on this) introduced that equal-marriage Bill and got it through parliament with hardly any dissent. (The 1968 Act was opposed by some of their Noble Lordships on the grounds that it would promote "buggery clubs" and "sodomy societies". I've just checked the Yellow Pages - sol around here, it seems.)
Looking at the recent changes in attitudes in USA, as an outsider - I do wonder if Fred Phelps (God rest his soul!!!) incited the opposite effect from the one he was looking for. Bike gangs got seriously pissed off with his disrespect of dead American servicemen and -women. Combat soldiers tend not to care what their comrades do with their dangly bits in their spare time, they have more important priorities. ProblemChimp (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I think Freddie has done more damage to the anti-gay camp's image than anything. Showed people what being anti-gay is really about: hate. Necromancer 02:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC
I think we may be onto something, here. Organisations like WBC don't just make fence-sitters jump off the fence; they can wake up ordinary decent people, and find them jumping in the opposite direction. LGBT supporters turned up at Matthew Shepard's funeral, dressed as angels (movie reconstruction) - well, that's what you'd expect, isn't it? (The whole film is worth watching.) Everyday veterans (not yer stereotypical liberal types) have turned up at more recent funerals to tell WBC exactly what they think of them, without resorting to chains and tireirons, which must have been tempting. As a good general rule, if you get slowed by these guys on the interstate, do not honk your horn. I doubt I'd agree with them on many issues; but I reckon we could share a beer or few, have a good rousing argument, and then work out rides home for whoever needed one. ProblemChimp (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the biggest factor in folk becoming more accepting of gay folk is visibility. The more common it is to see us in every walk of life, the less a deal it becomes. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I have read somewhere that a breakthrough moment in the US was the airing of Will and Grace. Sure there had been gays on TV before but this was a major, mainstream sitcom where, of the two leads, the gay man was the straight guy - if you see what I mean - and the straight girl was the wacky one. Suddenly gay was mainstream normal and in everybody's living room. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The youth in particular are heavily influenced by the media. Television, movies, radio, newspapers, magazines, one and all are pro-homosexual, with a zero tolerance for anyone who opposes gay-marriage or even homosexuality in general. Also, our schools are pro-homosexual too, with the same opinion and policies as the media. That is why America's youth have been steadily becoming more and more accepting of the idea; all of their teachers and media icons are pro-homosexual. Slings and Arrows (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

No doubt the media has been influential in promoting largely tolerant attitudes, but I can't agree that "one and all are pro-homosexual". Homophobic attitudes do still appear frequently in newspaper columns, movies, songs, etc. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe it's pro-homosexual to think they have the same civil rights as anyone else, or that tolerance to bigotry is required. Media and education do have the effect of exposing people to different ways of thinking instead of the fanciful indoctrination made up in order to justify treating other people as second class citizens. It only shows people as what they are...human. If the truth is enough to dismiss those ideas then they shouldn't exist. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
"The youth in particular are heavily influenced by the media. Television, movies, radio, newspapers, magazines, one and all are pro-black, with a zero tolerance for anyone who opposes interracial marriage or even discrimination based on skin color in general. Also, our schools are pro-black too, with the same opinion and policies as the media. That is why America's youth have been steadily becoming more and more accepting of the idea; all of their teachers and media icons are pro-black."
See how stupid that looks? ProblemChimp (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not a very good analogy; skin color is not a behavior. And if you argue that homosexuals are simply born with that particular predisposition, well there are many predispositions that society will not tolerate; for example pedophilia. Homosexuality is legal, and no one is being persecuted for it; which is a good policy. And homosexuals have the identical civil rights as everyone else. What homosexuals want is special rights; that is, they want the laws changed to reflect their unique predisposition. Well, I also have a long list of predispositions that I would like codified into law. But then I'm not screaming from the rooftops that my civil rights are being trampled because I can't (hypothetically) marry my sister, or smoke anytime and anywhere I please. Slings and Arrows (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Very true, skin colour isn't a behaviour. And it's another thing you can't choose. So that argument fails at the starting-gate.
Homosexuality = paedophilia is a classic example of the lying slippery slope fallacy. Ever heard of "informed consent"? well for your information, children can't give it.
What "special rights"? I defy you to name one. The issue is about equality.
"Homosexuality is legal, and no one is being persecuted for it." In some countries, homosexual activity attracts the death penalty. Oh OK - so it doesn't in your country? well, that's OK then, you can sleep comfortably tonight. ProblemChimp (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I am confused as how gay folk have the exact same rights as everyone else if they cannot marry their partner (though living in the UK, I can marry my partner and I really do have the same rights as everyone else - suck it, slings and arrows). Also, if you feel your rights are being trampled, why aren't you screaming from the roof tops? And if you really want to marry your sister, well maybe you should work on trying to make it legal to be able to fuck her first. Walk before you can run, fella AMassiveGay (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I was lost at "Homosexuals are equal and are not persecuted". I guess i must have missed your magic land where things are actually ok. --Miekal 02:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

“Suck it, slings and arrows”. No thank you! But hey, you go ahead and smoke em if you got em; but I’ll take a permanent pass. Slings and Arrows (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@"Slings and A" You write "What homosexuals want is special rights; that is, they want the laws changed to reflect their unique predisposition"
Surely you met to write: "What homosexuals want is equal rights; that is, they want the laws changed to acknowledge their equal rights".--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)