6 ms·

How is that wrong again?! It is true that they are trying to gain legitimacy. It is no longer about rights but now it is about acceptance. The time has come no

How is that wrong again?! It is true that they are trying to gain legitimacy. It is no longer about rights but now it is about acceptance. The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-gay position is criticized and/or boycotted. Now we have not just reached giving gays equal treatment but making changes to accommodate a different lifestyle. The second point OSC makes is sourced in a discomfort from social disruption. There is a tendency to blame many current state of affairs on the gay movement. I think in summary we should all reflect on the amount of insight this guy has and the capabilities of prediction he possesses. Just by simply observing things, he makes some deep accurate predictions that are very remote in the future. The article you linked to seems to be written in 1990.

sanoli 13y ago
Is this different from, say, the black movement? What if there were no longer segregated schools and bathrooms, but african-americans were prohibited to adopt children and black history were not allowed to be taught in schools? edit: I'm not from the U.S. so I don't know everything as far as minority rights go over there. In my country there are laws agains racism, and they're trying to pass anti-homophobia laws too. I do have a problem with both of these, though, as anybody expressing a racist opinion can be simply jailed without bail. I find the U.S. stance on free speech much more... how do I put it... free?
- wavefunction 13y ago
  In the US, it boils down to: you are free to be as much as a bigot as you like in your personal life (there are some special laws about renting and employment) but as long as you are not combining your bigotry with another crime (assault, harassment) you can let your hate flag fly. I think this helps society blow of some of its racism and bigotry in a safer way than just repressing it, but it's an ongoing struggle between too much freedom and too little, like everything else in America.
- sanskritabelt 13y ago
  https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/17-2 https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/17-2
- grammaton 13y ago
  It's not really any different from the black movement. People who defend institutionalized hatred of gay people don't seem to understand this, and are forever perplexed as to why people affected by it feel so strongly about the issue. To go a step further, to those who want to continue denying gays rights on the basis of their sexual orientation, they think that allowing gays to marry is just as bad as jailing someone for expressing a racist opinion. They literally do not understand the difference between these two things, hence the virulence of argument.
ghshephard 13y ago
The original essay was written in 1990, his follow up was October, 2013 - he stands by everything he wrote in it, with the only change in his position is that he's no longer seeking to criminalize sexual activity between gay people. That's the progress he's managed to make in 23 years.
StavrosK 13y ago
It's wrong because it assumes it's bad to accept gay people.
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
> The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-gay position is criticized and/or boycotted. "The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-black position is criticized and/or boycotted." "The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-woman position is criticized and/or boycotted." "The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-Jew position is criticized and/or boycotted." Yes. Yes it has.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds a pro-Obamacare position is criticized and/or boycotted. The time has now come to the point where anyone who holds a pro-privacy position is now criticized and/or boycotted. The time has now come to the point where anyone who holds an anti-polygamy position is now criticized and/or boycotted. Yes, lets all give up reasoned discourse and simply attack those who disagree with us.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    Is "don't buy from Nazis" really the same as "don't buy from Jews"? It's not about attacking people who disagree, it's about withdrawing support from those who attack others. Let's say, someone beats their wife brutally, but they're very good at bowling, and always treat you respectfully. Would you feel good about going bowling with them, regardless of how much objectively correct things about bowling they could teach you? Or would you realize the world is full of people who know as much and more, who don't come with quite such a bad aftertase?
    - yummyfajitas 13y ago
      It sounds equivalent to "don't buy scripts or other moviemaking services from Communists." The distinction you are attempting to draw about attacking others makes little sense given the examples I cited. Opponents of polygamy, supporters of Obamacare and opponents of privacy all favor attacking others (polygamists, people who don't buy health insurance, and people who don't cooperate with spying). Most public policies involve attacking someone - all laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun.
rmc 13y ago
The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-gay position is criticized and/or boycotted You say that like it's a bad thing. It is no longer about rights but now it is about acceptance (a) There are still lots of rights that many states and organisations do not recognise. (b) There is no difference between rights and acceptance/legitimacy.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  There is no difference between rights and acceptance/legitimacy. In a society that hopes to remain free, there must be a difference between these. There must be space for dialogue, for experimentation, for uncertainty, for personal preference, for disagreement. "Everything which is not prohibited is mandatory" is a totalitarian motto. For example, although I find Nancy Grace repulsive, illegitimate, unacceptable, unwatchable, and generally awful, at some level I realize she has the right to produce her execrable television programs, and I don't seek to undermine that right. Perhaps I'm quibbling over a minor point, as I certainly have no quarrel with criticism and boycotts of OSC (or of anyone really), even though I don't choose to take part myself.
  - barry-cotter 13y ago
    Yeah, that's a very totalitarian point of view. Believe as I do or eat bullets subhuman scum.
  - rmc 13y ago
    That's the Paradox of Tolerance. Should a society trying to be a tolerate society tolerate intolerance? I say intolerance shouldn't be tolerated. Are you actually saying that we should have "discussion" or a "debate" about whether some people are people?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - grammaton 13y ago
    Your argument is nonsense. People can voice intolerant opinions all they like, but when they make laws that affect a specific group of people on the basis of that intolerance, they've gone a long, far step beyond just voicing an opinion. You want to be intolerant? Great, have at it. But you don't get to back your intolerant beliefs up with intolerant laws. Intolerance in this context isn't about personally disliking a group of people, it's about actively discriminating against them on a widespread basis because of that dislike, and yes, there should be zero tolerance for that sort of thing.
lazyant 13y ago
"a different lifestyle" - homosexuality is not more a lifestyle than heterosexuality. When did you decide to become heterosexual? Also, as somebody already pointed out, change in Orson's comment homosexual with 'black' or 'Jewish' and see how it reads.

sanoli 13y ago

Is this different from, say, the black movement? What if there were no longer segregated schools and bathrooms, but african-americans were prohibited to adopt children and black history were not allowed to be taught in schools? edit: I'm not from the U.S. so I don't know everything as far as minority rights go over there. In my country there are laws agains racism, and they're trying to pass anti-homophobia laws too. I do have a problem with both of these, though, as anybody expressing a racist opinion can be simply jailed without bail. I find the U.S. stance on free speech much more... how do I put it... free?

wavefunction 13y ago
In the US, it boils down to: you are free to be as much as a bigot as you like in your personal life (there are some special laws about renting and employment) but as long as you are not combining your bigotry with another crime (assault, harassment) you can let your hate flag fly. I think this helps society blow of some of its racism and bigotry in a safer way than just repressing it, but it's an ongoing struggle between too much freedom and too little, like everything else in America.
sanskritabelt 13y ago
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/17-2 https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/01/17-2
grammaton 13y ago
It's not really any different from the black movement. People who defend institutionalized hatred of gay people don't seem to understand this, and are forever perplexed as to why people affected by it feel so strongly about the issue. To go a step further, to those who want to continue denying gays rights on the basis of their sexual orientation, they think that allowing gays to marry is just as bad as jailing someone for expressing a racist opinion. They literally do not understand the difference between these two things, hence the virulence of argument.

ghshephard 13y ago

The original essay was written in 1990, his follow up was October, 2013 - he stands by everything he wrote in it, with the only change in his position is that he's no longer seeking to criminalize sexual activity between gay people. That's the progress he's managed to make in 23 years.

StavrosK 13y ago

It's wrong because it assumes it's bad to accept gay people.

PhasmaFelis 13y ago

> The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-gay position is criticized and/or boycotted. "The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-black position is criticized and/or boycotted." "The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-woman position is criticized and/or boycotted." "The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-Jew position is criticized and/or boycotted." Yes. Yes it has.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds a pro-Obamacare position is criticized and/or boycotted. The time has now come to the point where anyone who holds a pro-privacy position is now criticized and/or boycotted. The time has now come to the point where anyone who holds an anti-polygamy position is now criticized and/or boycotted. Yes, lets all give up reasoned discourse and simply attack those who disagree with us.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  Is "don't buy from Nazis" really the same as "don't buy from Jews"? It's not about attacking people who disagree, it's about withdrawing support from those who attack others. Let's say, someone beats their wife brutally, but they're very good at bowling, and always treat you respectfully. Would you feel good about going bowling with them, regardless of how much objectively correct things about bowling they could teach you? Or would you realize the world is full of people who know as much and more, who don't come with quite such a bad aftertase?
  - yummyfajitas 13y ago
    It sounds equivalent to "don't buy scripts or other moviemaking services from Communists." The distinction you are attempting to draw about attacking others makes little sense given the examples I cited. Opponents of polygamy, supporters of Obamacare and opponents of privacy all favor attacking others (polygamists, people who don't buy health insurance, and people who don't cooperate with spying). Most public policies involve attacking someone - all laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun.

rmc 13y ago

The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-gay position is criticized and/or boycotted You say that like it's a bad thing. It is no longer about rights but now it is about acceptance (a) There are still lots of rights that many states and organisations do not recognise. (b) There is no difference between rights and acceptance/legitimacy.

jessaustin 13y ago
There is no difference between rights and acceptance/legitimacy. In a society that hopes to remain free, there must be a difference between these. There must be space for dialogue, for experimentation, for uncertainty, for personal preference, for disagreement. "Everything which is not prohibited is mandatory" is a totalitarian motto. For example, although I find Nancy Grace repulsive, illegitimate, unacceptable, unwatchable, and generally awful, at some level I realize she has the right to produce her execrable television programs, and I don't seek to undermine that right. Perhaps I'm quibbling over a minor point, as I certainly have no quarrel with criticism and boycotts of OSC (or of anyone really), even though I don't choose to take part myself.
- barry-cotter 13y ago
  Yeah, that's a very totalitarian point of view. Believe as I do or eat bullets subhuman scum.
- rmc 13y ago
  That's the Paradox of Tolerance. Should a society trying to be a tolerate society tolerate intolerance? I say intolerance shouldn't be tolerated. Are you actually saying that we should have "discussion" or a "debate" about whether some people are people?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- grammaton 13y ago
  Your argument is nonsense. People can voice intolerant opinions all they like, but when they make laws that affect a specific group of people on the basis of that intolerance, they've gone a long, far step beyond just voicing an opinion. You want to be intolerant? Great, have at it. But you don't get to back your intolerant beliefs up with intolerant laws. Intolerance in this context isn't about personally disliking a group of people, it's about actively discriminating against them on a widespread basis because of that dislike, and yes, there should be zero tolerance for that sort of thing.

lazyant 13y ago

"a different lifestyle" - homosexuality is not more a lifestyle than heterosexuality. When did you decide to become heterosexual? Also, as somebody already pointed out, change in Orson's comment homosexual with 'black' or 'Jewish' and see how it reads.