I hijacked my sister's journal
I hijacked my sister's journal and other evidence of bad-sisterness.
Apologies to thenanda
My sister posted the article I posted regarding the school board guy who wanted anti-gay speakers and such in the schools. Madness ensues. Neva replies way too much.
So here's one thing I said and a reply behind the cut
And FWIW, this is probably someone pretty young replying, so I'm getting the kid gloves out of the drawer. (kid gloves in the traditional sense aren't vegan, but mine are, since they are thick fuzzy acrylic material, and I use them for handling kids)
What I said (in response to a comment comparing homosexuals to pedophiles and expressing disgust with PC tolerance stuff being shoved down everyone's throat)
And oh, since I really did hijack the journal, I'm only putting in the relevant part.
"4. The fact that we live in such an intolerant culture basically tells me we aren't pushing tolerance enough, or at least not in the right ways.
....
It's a sad thing that many people in this country try to define themselves by what they aren't (ie I'm not gay, I'm not black, I'm not Chinese) instead of building an identity around good works and kindness.
When an identity is based around the negative in this way, people often find it necessary to tear down these other groups, to prove their own superiority.
In truth, the existence of homosexuals really has no effect on someone who is straight and has a positive identity. Those who are comfortable in themselves have nothing to lose by extending kindness, compassion, and equal protection under the law to homosexuals.
The same can not be said of pedophiles, because they really might come harm your family."
The reply:
"When, oh when, will it be understood that disagreeing with another point of view is NOT DISCRIMINATORY. There are many reasons for being against something, other than you feel an "urge to define [oneself] by what [you] aren't". (Here's one: you're against it because you think it's harmful.)
It seems to me that Liberals can be so hypocritical about this sort of thing. As far as I can tell, liberals are every bit as "intolerant" of things they disagree with as are conservatives. But it's always hate-this and hate-that, or phobic-this and phobic-that, which is really just so much name calling.
If you really feel that what someone is doing is harmful, it is an act of love, not hate, to tell them so. If even a stranger were in danger, wouldn't you warn them away? If a lifestyle choice produces risks that are far, far higher than the norm, doesn't that qualify as a danger?
So, please, go ahead and disagree with me all you want. I won't feel insulted, I won't feel you're being mean, and I won't feel you're being discriminatory. I respect your opinion, and I hope you respect mine. And, who knows? I might just change your mind, or you, mine!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neva here again: I should not be shocked by this. Once I wrote that churches hold a lot of power in the US, so it bothered me when they pushed polarization or demonized certain groups. I was told that to say "churches hold a lot of power" is hate speech against christians. Huh?
Soo, I really did not say hate or phobic in my post that I can think of, so that aside.
Disagreeing with people is not discriminatory. But sometimes someone will express a view that is discriminatory. I don't think you're promoting discrimination because you disagree with me, I think you're promoting discrimination because a) you're making generalizations about a large and varied demographic of people -- ie, you're pre-juging them based on one shared trait, and b) you're casting that generalization in a negative light.
Examples: a generalization "all women love chocolate" (ok, a lot do, but trust me, I can find some that don't), a generalization cast in a negative light "all homosexuals follow a harmful lifestyle."
If you honestly believe someone's "lifestyle" is harmful, do you tell them of your concerns? Hmmm. The answer is that if they're your very good pal, you might tell them. And if their lifestyle is harmful to others, like drunk driving all the time, you should tell on them.
I have too many gay people in my life that I care about deeply to not be overly emotional about this.
Still, why would my gay male friend who has dated a few guys and doesn't do drugs and is searching for "the one" be told that the very fact he is gay means he has a harmful lifestyle? What about my straight college roommate who loved to drink, use drugs, and had about 90 one night stands? Is that healthier because she's straight? And, no, I didn't say anything to her about it. I was there to talk to, and I did worry some, but it really wasn't my place to make her sexual decisions for her. And there I was actually mainly worried because she had some emotional issues that made her act kind of compulsively and then regret it deeply. So, yeah, it wasn't good for her, but no, it really wasn't my place to start telling her how to live.
But I go back to my original premise that this whole idea of an unhealthy gay lifestyle is not accurate. Many unhealthy aspects might be added by all the shame and guilt society heaps on gay people, and some could be about trying to navigate a homophobic world (yeah, I said homophobic).
And if you were to study a broad cross-section of homosexuals and find that there was a problem, like high rates of alcoholism, is the answer to try to reach out to that particular community with alcohol awareness? Or is the answer to tell them to stop being gay? Because if you're really hooked on the bottle today, but you stop sucking dick, tomorrow you won't want any whiskey either. I'm sorry, that was crude, please forgive me. It was also sexist--perhaps I should have said "your craving for tacos and wine are connected..." Ok, I've really lost it, where did I put those kid gloves?
But another comment there talked about the inherent risks of anal sex. Um, so straight people don't ever do that? And, in point of fact that's not always what homosexuals do either. Having been in a few TMI discussions with Michael I learned that that particular way of doing things is not always the most favored. Yeah, you probably didn't need to hear that.
And I stand by my original comments--if you're defining your life by who you are and what you do, then you probably aren't too worried about who's gay and who isn't. Sure, you worry about your friends when they date jerks, when they take up smoking, when they drive in really bad weather, and so on. And sometimes you might comment to them "what the heck are you doing with those menthols after you already had one lung removed?" But sometimes you just know they're doing the best they can and they aren't open to your advice at the moment anyway. Then all you can do is hug them and say "yeah, I know."
Here ends my anti-anti-gay hate speech. Long may my forked tongue wave.
Oh, and of course I'm intolerant, but I try not to be intolerant of people based on things they cannot control. I prefer to concentrate my intolerance on ideas that seem from my point of view to be clearly harmful.