Kiya, you do yourself a disservice by banning Christian reasons before we even began the discussion - unfortunately, it makes you look like bad. I am not a Christian but I have friends who are and religion, in one form or another, influences a solid chunk of public thinking. Dismissing their beliefs without even allowing them to be heard smacks of the sort of repression you obviously feel that gays are the victim of. Both sides need to try and keep open minds - not just the "other side".
Guess, I'll better explain, why I asked for not taking religious belief => there are some topics where religious beliefs are used and in my case I react like this => hm, ok, religious belief, is like a solid rock, stable. I don't even try to move solid rocks, cause that's futile, it's pre-determined. Why I react like this? I think, beliefs (and not only Christian, other religions as well) consider gays as "unnatural" too - it's like an axiom then. It's like saying => the sky is blue. That's it then. So, in my case, I consider taking a religious belief as "slamming down". Taking a religious belief to explain something has no inconsistency IMO, because everything else building up on it grounds on this belief. And I was longing to hear new arguments - I already know the religious reasons, you see? Another thing => like it or not: I think religious beliefs are a private, individual decision between a deity and the individual. I can discuss if a constitution is good/bad (made by humans and can therefore be changed) - but a decision made by heart (religion) leaves no room for me to think over the border, over the frontier. So, if I leave out the belief (marriage is religious, gays are unnatural) I can think crosswise then.
Example => there are countries where females are stoned to death by religious belief if they commit adultery. Others are forced to wear the shadore, are not allowed to show their hair, figure etc. Are not allowed to go out on their own etcetc. Reasons? => religion (or to be exact => the way religion is determined and interpreted). Grounded on their belief, causing great harm to other individuals. Force. A singular heart decision turns into group oppression. Some might think, my examples might be bad - but oppression is oppression IMO. I'm comparing apples with pears? I don't think so, the root is the same => a belief is taken as an axiom and determines behaviour and action. Is an axiom good/bad? Nope, it's just an axiom, but leaves no room for thoughts not considering this axiom. Even if "Christian tolerance" is used. The axiom is still there.
In general => I do feel very uncomfortable if a group would decide for me how I want to live, with whom I want to live and forcing an individual heart decision unto me, the other individual who has a different belief. Yes, I am aware that in some countries religion has a high impact on public thinking (it should not have an impact on laws IMO) - I see it as an individual heart decision, I don't accept this impact on public. Why? Because I have a heart myself and this one decided otherwise. Correct me if I'm narrow minded in this case, but individual decisions should remain there where they belong to => between one's own heart and the deity. I see no harm if gays want to live together and live their lives - I see no harm if religious people want to live the way they believe for themselves - but both should not be mixed. Both groups should not force their ways of life unto the other. Kiya
Quote
But look at the gay roles and images that are on public display - sadly most of them are still pretty negative.
True <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/puppyeyes.gif" alt="" /> - but a lot of heterosexuals are pretty negative on public display as well - and does their sexual preference play a role in public opinion? Or is it the individual behaviour that is criticized? I'm not talking about sexual behaviour here.
Quote
The first one would wince every time the second had a tantrum. He thought he was a disaster to the gay movement and to people socially accepting them.
I'm just using your quote, Womble, to explain something I experienced myself and didn't find an answer to, not to criticize you - as I don't know this colleague of yours or his behaviour. => Hm, I know heteros who are a disgrace to... what? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" /> Heteros? Humans in general? Blondes? Shorties? Female lib? Parentage? Nope, just a disgrace as a socially accepted individual, I think. The homosexuals I mentioned in my former post, the ones I know: One of them is an excellent teacher, but dares not to "come out". I asked him why? He said => people will start to see me with different eyes then. If I have a bad day and behave inadequately it will then be "because I'm a gay", not because I'm ill-tempered. Sad. His sexual preference dictates other people's approach? A private decision is sufficient to activate fears and prejudices? Does this singular sexual preference determine his whole personality? Or the way others see him? His private decision gives others the permission to determine how he wants to live and therefore judge his total personality? He has a wonderful way with the herd of dogs both own => because he's a gay? Or an animal lover? Or a beard-wearer? Or because of his brown eyes? Would he be different to his dogs if he was a hetero? (Hope not).
Another XP => I like going into gay discos, as I can dance and not be harassed, got to know some gays. One's name was Tommy, I liked him. Then some came in wearing female clothes and heavy makeup. I admired them, because their outfit was aestethic (in my opinion) - he threw a fit and called them a disgrace to the gay movement. I was shocked about his aggressive expressions and asked him, why he excluded and did box-thinking, thus weakening solidarity within an already discriminated group. He remained silent. And I had learned something old again => prejudices are everywhere. The individual is put into a box. He didn't even know them personally (neither did I). I just admired what they wore, his reaction was different. Should he have liked them cause he's a gay? Nope. Disliked them? Nope. Liked/disliked their outfit? Yes, I think, this would have been logical at that state of input info (eyes).
