http://news.yahoo.com/actress-claim-gay-choice-riles-activists-201717513.html
Not doing the gay rights activists a favor by claiming her homosexuality (and terrible acting skills) was a conscious choice.
YouTube video
2:10 - 3:10
I'll support you in whatever life you choose to live. I'll support you in whatever life you choose.I turned to her and with this deep sense of shame I said "Mom, it's not a choice." I wouldn't choose this life, why would I choose this life? I wouldn't choose, you know, the hardship, the discrimination. It was almost as if I hated myself and still was hating myself.
I remember looking back on that conversation with my mom and thinking, 'it shouldn't be: I'm gay I was born this way I can't change it... pity me.' It's: I'm different, and there's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with that. And... for me it's the ultimate sense of pride.
If anything, I'd say it's a refusal to accommodate bigotry via rationalization. Because the simple fact is that there are lots of different people in the world, and for every difference there is an opportunity to disagree or even spark hatred/violence. If you need an ontological injunction do get past every difference, then that has to be seen as your problem. I'm going to live my life, happily. People for whom that is a problem need to get over themselves.
copypaste:
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
Basically, complete intolerance of gays is bigotry. I know you like to point out where PC muddles conversation, but I think that this is an applicable usage. Anti-marriage rights partisans are not disagreeing with the movement on economic grounds or logistical grounds. This is not a case where PC protection is hampering a discussion of the issues. Rather, when one side uses rhetoric that threatens the members of the group itself, then PC certainly comes into play. People don't say that they disagree with the movement to legalize gay marriage. They say that they disagree with homosexuality. That is like disagreeing with gravity. It exists, it will happen, and there really isn't much you can do about it other than fight the manifestations (which only serves to torture fellow human beings).
We're kind of talking past each other.
I'm talking about general political trends; I (and the video) dislike the defensive narrative adopted by the gay community of "I can't help it." And I dislike the intrusive attitude that thinks it's anyone's business but mine who I sleep with. If you try to stop me based on immutable and inflexible ideological idiocy then I am well within my rights to call you out on bigotry.
And as far as "disagree with the lifestyle," why on earth would you feel like you get an opinion as to how I live my life? Are we voting on what kind of cereal you eat? On the franchise you support? Have I mandated the kind of wedding ring that you're getting? If these decisions are not under my purview, why on earth would the itinerary of my junk be any of your business?
Except here's the trick. Marriage is about more than just a label. There are more than 1000 rights and privileges granted by legal marriage. From a secular standpoint, there is no legitimate basis for denying such rights to same-sex couples. From a social standpoint, individuals can call their relationships whatever the hell they want. So religious orders are free to recognize, or not, same-sex couples but for the government to fail such a basic responsibility can only be explained by bigotry.
There also seems to be a discrepancy with your argument. First you ask me who am I to criticize your lifestyle? But you were also a proponent of the idea that homosexuality is biological. It may not be your intention, but it seems to be that you're incorporating both ideas into your argument. That it's biological but I still have no right to criticize your lifestyle choice. I guess there's technically no contradiction there, just saying.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Not if the government defines marriage as a union between man and woman. On that basis alone, their denial is justified.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
There also seems to be a discrepancy with your argument. First you ask me who am I to criticize your lifestyle? But you were also a proponent of the idea that homosexuality is biological. It may not be your intention, but it seems to be that you're incorporating both ideas into your argument. That it's biological but I still have no right to criticize your lifestyle choice. I guess there's technically no contradiction there, just saying.
What I'm saying is that those members of society who condemn gays are overstepping their bounds. There is nothing wrong with being gay. I have nothing to apologize for. From the moral perspective, whatever path took me to liking dudes, to condemn me for it is judgmental and reprehensible and nosy.
Z makes a strong case here. Quite frankly, no one's banning marriage to couples who refuse to have children, who engage in sodomy even as man and woman, nor to those who may not love each other at all but marry because of the getting of a bastard or for economical reasons. Saying that same-sex marriages are somehow less valid than the above is having a pretty skewed view of individual rights.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Z makes a strong case here. Quite frankly, no one's banning marriage to couples who refuse to have children, who engage in sodomy even as man and woman, nor to those who may not love each other at all but marry because of the getting of a bastard or for economical reasons. Saying that same-sex marriages are somehow less valid than the above is having a pretty skewed view of individual rights.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Why are people so quick to claim bigotry? I swear, that word is the most misused word in social conversations.
Zam was talking about bigotry specifically, aka people who have a problem with homosexuals. It would be pretty hard not to mention bigotry while talking about it. Just sayin.
Originally posted by Zampanó
No, that's a legal excuse. A string of code that you can plug into the system to get the outcome that you want. Legal arguments are not moral arguments.
I'm not saying that it is a lifestyle choice. I have emphatically and repeatedly asserted (with citations, no less) that there is not a conscious component in the actualization of a homosexual. I am not gay out of my own volition, but because of a myriad of factors biological and social.
What I'm saying is that those members of society who condemn gays are overstepping their bounds. There is nothing wrong with being gay. I have nothing to apologize for. From the moral perspective, whatever path took me to liking dudes, to condemn me for it is judgmental and reprehensible and nosy. [/B]
Z makes a strong case here. Quite frankly, no one's banning marriage to couples who refuse to have children, who engage in sodomy even as man and woman, nor to those who may not love each other at all but marry because of the getting of a !@#$%^&* or for economical reasons. Saying that same-sex marriages are somehow less valid than the above is having a pretty skewed view of individual rights.
Pertaining to couples who don't have children, that's a good argument if the opposition's argument for marriage was procreation (which to some extent it should be). The bottom line is, if we define marriage as an agreement between one man and one woman, the sodomy situation doesn't play out, nor does the no children or economical reasons argument. I'm not saying that it's necessarily valid but if that IS the argument (man and woman), then those don't work.
