Gays Thread.

[capodetutticapi]

... and by extension, how reasonable would it be for a heterosexual man to find the interest of a homosexual man flattering? If we posit that homosexuality is a natural state, then would it not be unnatural for a heterosexual man not to be affronted? Stated otherwise, is not a heterosexual man's affront a natural reaction to homosexual interest.

Every contributor on this thread who has attested to tolerance or moderation with respect to homosexuality has indicated that his or her moderation or tolerance was acquired (learned) pursuant to social education via conversation, exposure etc. ... does this not tend to underscore the 'naturalness' of affront or insult as a reaction?

on 2 separate occasions i was hit on as we say,one was by ah prominent businessman and de next by ah chubby red fella in school,on both occassions i was not angry but instead was very disgusted.

[pecan]

there will be no resolution to this debate on is forum.

For every religious argument that condemns homosexuality, I can find religious arguments that condemns (or supports) behaviours that we now consider to be acceptable (or non-acceptable) in today's Western society.

For every procreation reason that argues against homosexuality, I can point out several hetero unions that do not produce off-spring from which we can draw the inference that these marriages are 'less important' that other marriages that produce off-spring.

For every moral reason that condemns homosexuality, I can find some one who disagrees with that standard of morality.


Question: how many straight people on this forum chose to be heterosexual or if gay, chose to be homosexual?  Whether homosexuality is genetic or a matter of choice is still up for debate.  If indeed it is genetic, then homosexuality traits are no different that any physical human characteristics.



I happen to believe that homosexuality is not a choice and I support homosexual marriages that reflect a committed relationship.  I support any straight marriage that reflects a committed relationship. What I do not support is any marriage that does not reflect a committed relationship.

What I do not support is wanton and public sexual promiscuity from straight or gay people, male or female.  Unfortunately, many people equate homosexuality with sexual promiscuity.


It all comes down to what you believe to be right. And as long as your belief does not infringe on the livelihood and well being of any person, I have no argument with you.

[TriniCana]

bottom line...we are our own worst enemy.

[Bakes]

there will be no resolution to this debate on is forum.

...and I hardly doubt anyone is seeking 'resolution', on some online message board no less.

For every religious argument that condemns homosexuality, I can find religious arguments that condemns (or supports) behaviours that we now consider to be acceptable (or non-acceptable) in today's Western society.

I fail to see what a discussion about other behaviors would yield... seein that the discussion is about homosexuality.  But I'd be curious still to hear your arguments regarding these practices supposedly accepted by society yet condemned by religion.

For every procreation reason that argues against homosexuality, I can point out several hetero unions that do not produce off-spring from which we can draw the inference that these marriages are 'less important' that other marriages that produce off-spring.

Huge difference between unions that don't produce offspring, and unions which inherently can't produce offspring.  Even so, heterosexual unions that don't produce offspring aren't "less important" than those that do... nor are they any different since they still adhere to the traditional purpose for which marriage/the monogamous relationship is intended.

For every moral reason that condemns homosexuality, I can find some one who disagrees with that standard of morality.

we are never all going to agree on moral grounds, however minority views on morality aren't very compelling within societal dynamics

Question: how many straight people on this forum chose to be heterosexual or if gay, chose to be homosexual?  Whether homosexuality is genetic or a matter of choice is still up for debate.  If indeed it is genetic, then homosexuality traits are no different that any physical human characteristics.

Well until the wonder 'gay' gene is discovered then homosexuality is no more inherent to the individual than is race... and until then you may still want to look up the meaning of 'immutable characteristic'. 

Even still, discrimination based on sexual orientation cannot be equated with discrimination based on race, which is the gist of your argument.  Homosexuals simply do not share the same history of persecution and repression that people (particularly black people) have, based on the color of their skin.

I happen to believe that homosexuality is not a choice and I support homosexual marriages that reflect a committed relationship.  I support any straight marriage that reflects a committed relationship. What I do not support is any marriage that does not reflect a committed relationship.

What I do not support is wanton and public sexual promiscuity from straight or gay people, male or female.  Unfortunately, many people equate homosexuality with sexual promiscuity.


It all comes down to what you believe to be right. And as long as your belief does not infringe on the livelihood and well being of any person, I have no argument with you.

The rest I can't really address.

[daryn]

What I find interesting is the need that even reasonable, accepting people have to qualify their stance. I often hear men say they cool with it....."as long as they don't come round me" or "as long as they don't bother me".

this is exactly what was running through my mind when I was reading through the posts earlier today.

Anyhow, I "support homo's" too.  Also, yes they are human.  just to answer the questions posed by the thread originator. 

[JDB]

depends on what your opinion on the institution of marriage is, which could be influenced by your own personal beliefs including religion.. in which case a civil union carrying all the requisite liberties will do just fine.

as for the being hit on thing, my take on it is that as a man you should be secure enough in your own sexuality not to be insulted by an approach.. however, whats surprising if a man is inclined to react aggressively if that approach crosses the line, just like how a woman might be inclined to slap a man who approaches in an offensive manner?

Except the rights granted by civil unions are not the same and the thinly veiled deceit of those offering civil unions as a proxy for marriage is that once there are two different standards there will always be the opportunity for them to kept unequal. We already know that the desire to keep them separate among its opponents will not abate anytime soon.

Now if people were saying that different religious institutions have to recognize and marry gays I could see a problem. Each church has its rules and the right to marry devotees that it deems faithful but that has nothing to do with the component of marriage that is governed by the law.

In other words if I get married in a church, and you in a mosque it is very different to 2 people getting a marriage certificate and having a non-religious ceremony or even a ceremony under the banner of a religion that recognizes homosexuality. The specific religious institution of marriage is under no threat unless you consider the heterosexual devotees who only follow through with it 50% of the time. The fact that it all has the same name under the law really is not that important to me because it is already very different.

With that outlook I find it hard to come with reasons to fight for gays not to be married when it will have no negative impact other than the fact it goes against religious customs/rules.

[JDB]

As for JDB's comments... good for you if you "support homos", which by definition includes their lifestyle.  I cannot support homosexuality for religious, moral and practical reasons.  There's a difference between tolerance and support, and I opt for the former.  I also have no qualms about stating my personal reservations when it comes to gay marriage and to a lesser extent gay adoption.  

For the same moral, religious and practical reasons alluded to I don't see it appropriate to elevate gay unions to the same level of recognition and acceptance as heterosexual unions.  The purpose of marriage as I see it isn't just to crystallize the monogamous union between spouses, but to establish such towards the specific goal of procreation between these two discrete individuals... gene purity being a particularly desirous goal of the marital union.  Clearly this does not apply to homosexual unions.  This should suffice to establish my opposition for now, no need to explore the religious and moral reasons.

At best that is One rationalization for the role of marriage. By no means does it capture its total influence.

Another, no less significant role of marriage, IMO, is as a building block of societal order, a subunit of society. In that respect marriage and by extension family served a great purpose in the growth of large societies. In the simplest sense being responsible to and for a spouse, progeny (and/or parent/sibling) makes the larger society stronger.

The individual is less prone operate to the detriment of the general society. Even though his relationship to the wider society might be a nebulous concept and unlikely to influence his/her personal actions, the responsibility to his family “do right by people” is very tangible, especially during development.

We still see the benefits today. On average married people and stable family units have a positive effect on productivity, economy, crime, use of healthcare resources etc. None of this is diminished by the married people being of the same sex or the familial unit being non-traditional. In fact, closing it off to a section of society by offering a second-class, unappealing substitute, and limiting adoption of children lacking families, could be hurting us as a society. As an argument for the role of marriage it is no less useful or applicable than fostering gene purity.

I think you will find it hard to come up with opposition to gay marriage without referencing religion. The fact that the most vociferous and dedicated opponents are religious institutions and devotees while most secular people couldn’t care less is a good indication that the opposition is founded in religious beliefs. Practical arguments may be used to help but it does not outweigh the underlying fact that homosexuality is considered to be a sin that imperils one’s immortal soul etc.

If someone believes strongly that it is a sinful lifestyle I find it hard to believe that they are more driven by the preservation of marriage as a safe haven for gene purity and other secular rationalizations.

But once you start talking religion as a justification I can’t bite because my religion can’t be a standard for someone who does not believe the same thing.

[truetrini]

... and by extension, how reasonable would it be for a heterosexual man to find the interest of a homosexual man flattering? If we posit that homosexuality is a natural state, then would it not be unnatural for a heterosexual man not to be affronted? Stated otherwise, is not a heterosexual man's affront a natural reaction to homosexual interest.

Every contributor on this thread who has attested to tolerance or moderation with respect to homosexuality has indicated that his or her moderation or tolerance was acquired (learned) pursuant to social education via conversation, exposure etc. ... does this not tend to underscore the 'naturalness' of affront or insult as a reaction?

Too many double negatives in your post.  i am aghast!

[daryn]

Every contributor on this thread who has attested to tolerance or moderation with respect to homosexuality has indicated that his or her moderation or tolerance was acquired (learned) pursuant to social education via conversation, exposure etc. ... does this not tend to underscore the 'naturalness' of affront or insult as a reaction?

the population of this forum is hardly a random sample.  Members of this board would have spent many years being indoctrinated in the ways/ideas, both good and bad, of the trini way of life  prior to the mentioned social education/exposure.

as far as I can tell, legal arguments against homosexuality/gay marriage invariably boil down to the 'ick factor' which is self-sustaining.

if there really is separation of church and state, I don't see what grounds there would be to deny people their civil rights.  Especially when opponents can't even formulate a lucid argument to show who/what would be hurt by the granting of these rights.   

[NYtriniwhiteboy..]

wen prop 8 was being debated i came across this on funnyordie.com
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

and well by the question posed at the start of the thread, yes i do support Gay rights.

[pecan]

wen prop 8 was being debated i came across this on funnyordie.com
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

and well by the question posed at the start of the thread, yes i do support Gay rights.

lol

[pecan]

I took your advice and looked up 'immutable characteristic' to ensure that I understood the definition and this helped crystallize the crux of the matter for me.   I feel that sexual orientation (and not behaviour) is an immutable characteristic.  I have no proof just as opposing views have no proof.   So if you buy into the argument of homosexuality being an immutable characteristic, then homosexuals should be afforded the same rights and privileges are other couples.   And the converse may be true too (not sure here...for example, religion is not an immutable characteristic but seems to enjoy fights and freedoms).  Everything else becomes a moot point as these other arguments are used to replace the lack of scientific proof and reflect only religious, moral and value standards.

So I suspect that until the 'gay' gene is identified, the moral majority will continue to prevail.


btw, given a choice between tolerance and acceptance, I suspect that most gays would rather be accepted and not merely tolerated.

[daryn]

I feel that sexual orientation (and not behaviour) is an immutable characteristic.  I have no proof just as opposing views have no proof.   

funny how some people who know that their own sexual orientation isn't subject to change could find it hard to believe that it's an immutable characteristic.

[warmonga]

lawd fadda I eh know I guh cause all this malice , anyway mi pc was down sum funny man didnt like mi thread so dey send a virus and mash up mi pc. Thanks to the geek squad I back . and for those who like climb man back I still bunning fya on allyuh!!!!!!
war

[truetrini]

I feel that sexual orientation (and not behaviour) is an immutable characteristic.  I have no proof just as opposing views have no proof.   

funny how some people who know that their own sexual orientation isn't subject to change could find it hard to believe that it's an immutable characteristic.

daryn yuh hitting hard dey boss.  I already shared my thoughts with bakes on this.  Dem men BORN so.  it is too hard to be gay and live in this world.  Imagine being born black 300 years ago and liking dat when yuh getting whipped in de field after picking cotton all day!

Why would anyone want to be gay jes for so?  People hating you, family disowning yuh, people beating you up, yuh suffering day in and day out.  And from what i read, they have a lot of issues with their own feelings as they are so widely excoriated by society.

leave the people alone!  Now Bakes eh one to pick on dem as far as I could see.

[asylumseeker]

... and by extension, how reasonable would it be for a heterosexual man to find the interest of a homosexual man flattering? If we posit that homosexuality is a natural state, then would it not be unnatural for a heterosexual man not to be affronted? Stated otherwise, is not a heterosexual man's affront a natural reaction to homosexual interest.

Every contributor on this thread who has attested to tolerance or moderation with respect to homosexuality has indicated that his or her moderation or tolerance was acquired (learned) pursuant to social education via conversation, exposure etc. ... does this not tend to underscore the 'naturalness' of affront or insult as a reaction?

Too many double negatives in your post.  i am aghast!

Imagine the angst as I typed it ... heheheh ... btw, Bakes sub-contracting oversight to you?

[capodetutticapi]

so we know now who support gays,who doh mind havin ah bullerman fuh ah friend.now answer this.who here is ah macomehman.

[Bakes]

The purpose of marriage as I see it isn't just to crystallize the monogamous union between spouses, but to establish such towards the specific goal of procreation between these two discrete individuals...

At best that is One rationalization for the role of marriage. By no means does it capture its total influence.

I'm confused as to how you came by that conclusion...

Another, no less significant role of marriage, IMO, is as a building block of societal order, a subunit of society. In that respect marriage and by extension family served a great purpose in the growth of large societies. In the simplest sense being responsible to and for a spouse, progeny (and/or parent/sibling) makes the larger society stronger.

The individual is less prone operate to the detriment of the general society. Even though his relationship to the wider society might be a nebulous concept and unlikely to influence his/her personal actions, the responsibility to his family “do right by people” is very tangible, especially during development.

FAMILY provides the stability you cite... not necessarily marriage.  Everything you cite is provided for by family, including nuclear and other forms of extended family.  Indeed stable societies developed and existed before the institution of marriage did.  So while I'm not saying that your assertion is wrong, it certainly isn't convincing, nor integral to the goal you state.  Marriage may not be absolute integral to the purity of the gene pool/genealogical line but it certainly plays a much stronger role towards the stated end.  Besides this is no mere conjecture, gene purity is the reason why mammals in particular and most higher organisms pair off... and this (as well as property reasons, cementing ties between clans/tribes) is why the institution of marriage came about.

We still see the benefits today. On average married people and stable family units have a positive effect on productivity, economy, crime, use of healthcare resources etc. None of this is diminished by the married people being of the same sex or the familial unit being non-traditional. In fact, closing it off to a section of society by offering a second-class, unappealing substitute, and limiting adoption of children lacking families, could be hurting us as a society. As an argument for the role of marriage it is no less useful or applicable than fostering gene purity.

It's a fair argument.

I think you will find it hard to come up with opposition to gay marriage without referencing religion. The fact that the most vociferous and dedicated opponents are religious institutions and devotees while most secular people couldn’t care less is a good indication that the opposition is founded in religious beliefs. Practical arguments may be used to help but it does not outweigh the underlying fact that homosexuality is considered to be a sin that imperils one’s immortal soul etc.

If someone believes strongly that it is a sinful lifestyle I find it hard to believe that they are more driven by the preservation of marriage as a safe haven for gene purity and other secular rationalizations.

But once you start talking religion as a justification I can’t bite because my religion can’t be a standard for someone who does not believe the same thing.

While I agree with you that much of the opposition is rooted in religious belief... I think you're getting too bogged down in thinking of the arguments of particular religions, rather than looking at the bigger role that religious thought in general has played in the development of societal mores and morality. In other words, rather than thinking of the discussion in terms of "my religion can't be a standard for someone who does not believe the same thing", look at the bigger picture...religion on the whole was integral to the foundation of American society. That religion of course was Christianity, so Christian principles are at the core.  Christianity was left out of the Constitution of course, so as to not slight other religions... but even when taken into account other religions, most (if not expressing opposition to homosexuality) definitely consider the marital union as being one between man and woman.

So in sum, its not that "my religion" teaches me that marriage is between man and woman, but 'religion' in general has given rise to moral notions which guide the discussion, chiefly that marriage is between man and woman.

[Bakes]

as far as I can tell, legal arguments against homosexuality/gay marriage invariably boil down to the 'ick factor' which is self-sustaining.

if there really is separation of church and state, I don't see what grounds there would be to deny people their civil rights.  Especially when opponents can't even formulate a lucid argument to show who/what would be hurt by the granting of these rights.   

These are two separate legal issues that really should not be confused.  Ever since the US Supreme Court ruled on a Texas case (in essence legalizing homosexuality) in 2003 there has been no "legal arguments" against homosexuality.  As for the legal arguments against gay marriage, much of it is influenced by moral factors... not "ick" factors as you propose.  The Court first looked to the Constitution to see if there is a 'right' to marriage... which of course there isn't.  However the Court did recognize (in the famous Loving v. Virginia case) that society has traditionally recognized marriage as being one of those areas of personal liberty for individuals. 

The Court didn't specifically say in Loving that marriage was between man and woman, but in subsequent cases the Court ruled that historically, that recognition of marriage has been specific to heterosexual marriage.  Simply put there has been no history of support for homosexual unions, not in the Constitution, not in the common law, not in societal attitudes norms.  Short of a constitutional amendment the only way for gay marriages to secure legal recognition will be for changing societal values to influence the Court.  Many legal observers in fact think that this is just a matter of time, but as for now, there simply isn't enough support, or rational arguments in favor of gay unions.

[Bakes]

I took your advice and looked up 'immutable characteristic' to ensure that I understood the definition and this helped crystallize the crux of the matter for me.   I feel that sexual orientation (and not behaviour) is an immutable characteristic.  I have no proof just as opposing views have no proof.   

Pecan actually there are indications that sexual orientation is not in fact immutable... I'm sure you've heard of certain Christians who claim to reformed homosexuals, claiming to have suppressed their desires and abandoned living as gays.  Conversely, we know of many heterosexuals who later 'realize' (some would say decide) that they are really gay.  So while it may be argued that it's easy to change orientation from hetero to homosexuality than say the opposite direction, the fact of the matter is that there are sufficient examples of the mutability of sexual orientation.  It CAN change.

So if you buy into the argument of homosexuality being an immutable characteristic, then homosexuals should be afforded the same rights and privileges are other couples.   And the converse may be true too (not sure here...for example, religion is not an immutable characteristic but seems to enjoy fights and freedoms).  Everything else becomes a moot point as these other arguments are used to replace the lack of scientific proof and reflect only religious, moral and value standards.

Religion is in fact mutable... but religious freedom is also a fundamental interest codified in the US Constitution, unlike homosexuality.  Essentially there are varying rationales used in addressing individual rights in the US (as I outline above in my response to JDB), the Constitution is the threshold barometer, followed by convention (either legal convention thru the common law, or societal acceptance/support).  So immutability is a secondary consideration, not the only consideration.

So I suspect that until the 'gay' gene is identified, the moral majority will continue to prevail.


btw, given a choice between tolerance and acceptance, I suspect that most gays would rather be accepted and not merely tolerated.

Given a choice between tolerance and acceptance I'm sure many Mormon bigamists would opt for acceptance as well... doesn't help make their case any more persuasive though.

funny how some people who know that their own sexual orientation isn't subject to change could find it hard to believe that it's an immutable characteristic.

Subjective arguments seldom carry much weight.  My belief in Christianity isn't likely to change but does that make religion an immutable characteristic?  Just because I know MY sexual orientation isn't likely to change, that doesn't mean that some other person's won't. 

[WestCoast]

so we know now who support gays,who doh mind havin ah bullerman fuh ah friend.now answer this.who here is ah macomehman.

call names...I go 
 

[pecan]

Bakes,  you make a persuasive argument, but I remain unconvinced.


I think the 'reformed' homosexuals are only modifying their outward behavior rather that changing the core of their inherent sexual orientation.  i.e. changing your hair colour does not change the genetics of the true colour.  I would argue that the traditional views regarding the morality of homosexuality heavily influence whether or not a gay 'comes' out of the closet or is suddenly 'reformed'. 

Conversely, in some segments of society, being gay seems to be trendy as embracing homosexuality becomes the 'cause du jour' (as with Hollywood).  This likely promote false positive readings.  The popularity of Gay Pride parades continue to baffle me.  I see no need to celebrate one's sexual orientation to the extent that is is displayed in these parades.

Nevertheless, I speculate that many gays feel that they have been repressed and treated as the scum of society and some acceptance seems to be a licence to go overboard.


Mrs. P. cousin is gay and he took us to Greenwich Village to show us around the area and specifically, the Stonewall bar.  And for me, I am convinced sexual orientation (specifically mines) is immutable because the noise that I heard after I entered the bar as the patrons 'checked me out' was not the door slamming shut, rather it was generated by my sphincter instinctively slamming shut.

[truetrini]

so we know now who support gays,who doh mind havin ah bullerman fuh ah friend.now answer this.who here is ah macomehman.

call names...I go 
 

wha dat mean? Call names and yuh go blow?

Bakes, that talk about christians curing homos is BS and dat doh mean bake and Shark!

Dat like de BTK  murderer, he is big deacon in Church, even elected as Church president.

Dem does put de people on guilt trip, take dey money and make dem feel shame for what they were born as!

It eh have no cure for bullers, dey is what dey is!

Dey have evidence of gay sheep for heaven's sake, who curing dem? Gay Penguins, gay man, gay cow,gay dolphins, gay elephants, gay cats, gay women, gay bears, gay rats, gay buffalo, gay caribou....whappen?

[Bakes]

Bakes,  you make a persuasive argument, but I remain unconvinced.

I think the 'reformed' homosexuals are only modifying their outward behavior rather that changing the core of their inherent sexual orientation.  i.e. changing your hair colour does not change the genetics of the true colour.  I would argue that the traditional views regarding the morality of homosexuality heavily influence whether or not a gay 'comes' out of the closet or is suddenly 'reformed'. 

Conversely, in some segments of society, being gay seems to be trendy as embracing homosexuality becomes the 'cause du jour' (as with Hollywood).  This likely promote false positive readings.  The popularity of Gay Pride parades continue to baffle me.  I see no need to celebrate one's sexual orientation to the extent that is is displayed in these parades.

Nevertheless, I speculate that many gays feel that they have been repressed and treated as the scum of society and some acceptance seems to be a licence to go overboard.


Mrs. P. cousin is gay and he took us to Greenwich Village to show us around the area and specifically, the Stonewall bar.  And for me, I am convinced sexual orientation (specifically mines) is immutable because the noise that I heard after I entered the bar as the patrons 'checked me out' was not the door slamming shut, rather it was generated by my sphincter instinctively slamming shut.

Well Pecan, ultimately my job isn't to convince you... I can only present the information and arguments that are out there.  Even if you are correct that when people change their sexual orientation they are changing to their true state... the bottom line is that they still CHANGE their sexuality, at least as they manifest it to the public, no?  Hence it's mutable.

But don't take my word for it...let the gays tell you for themselves:


Civil Rights for Gays: Does "Immutable" Really Describe Us?

December 4, 008

Patricia Nell Warren

The recent fallout over Prop 8 -- questions about whether African-Americans voted heavily to ban same-sex marriage -- points up a need to re-examine the basis of LGBT people's demand for civil rights. In recent decades, we have trended towards comparing our battle to that of African-Americans. Some African-Americans, especially the churchgoing conservatives who don't approve of homosexuality, voice anger over what they see as our attempt to co-opt their struggle and their history of slavery and pain. Yet we can point to our own history of oppression and pain.

What constitutes a "civil right," anyway?

In its time, the 1791 Bill of Rights was urgent and specific about the list of rights it wanted -- free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom to demand redress, etc. Throughout the 1800s and into the 1900s, further amendments to the Constitution detailed further urgent rights -- freedom from slavery, freedom to vote for non-whites and women, etc.

But the Constitution and Bill of Rights don't give us a nice neat Websterish definition of "rights." For that we can go to the legal warriors who duke it out in today's courtrooms. According to AmericanLawyer.com, "A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury... Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class."

I agree that African-Americans have been unfairly accused of swinging the Prop 8 vote by themselves. However, it's clear that some of their anger against us comes from their feeling that we're "using" their cause. They, and many of our own activists as well, are defining civil rights differently than the lawyers do. They consider that a "right" has to be based on some "immutable [meaning unchangeable] characteristic."

Anti-gay African-Americans point out that they can't change their skin color, therefore they can't hide from prejudice and cruelty. Whereas (they say) we gay people can and do change our behavior, especially when we hide in the closet, or when we succeed in "going straight." Therefore, in their opinion, we don't qualify for civil rights. Yet many LGBT people counter with the assertion that we are born with our sexual orientation, that we can't change it even if we try. Hence the "ex-ex-gays" who leave their ministries and return to living an openly gay life.

How did "immutable" get to be some people's gold standard for defining civil rights?

Compelling Change

It started with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which mainly took aim at injustices done to people of color and women. But as Congress moved to prohibit discrimination, it wrote several protected classes into the legislation -- race, ethnicity, national origin, religion or sect, and gender. Analysts began defining these protected classes by three criteria: (1) a long history of discrimination, (2) economic disadvantages, and (3) immutable characteristics.

Next, conservatives hatched the belief that all the 1964 classes depend on immutability -- even religion. In 2002, prominent religious-right lawyer Mathew Staver wrote, "Although religion is the sole category within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that does not share the exact pattern of the immutable physical characteristics, the characteristic of immutability or inalienability is deeply rooted in the founding of the country and became part of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Yet it's ridiculous to call religion "immutable," as we'll see.

When the gay-rights movement came along in 1969, we felt compelled to jump on that "immutability" bandwagon. We can prove #1 and #2 pretty easily. But #3 has prodded both supporters and enemies of LGBT rights into convoluted arguments about whether we do or don't fit the "immutable" criterium. Thus Mathew Staver felt able to proclaim loftily, ""Sexual orientation should not be elevated to the category of a protected civil right."

Our Founders' Intentions

But the ultraconservative legal eagles like Staver are wrong about our founders' list of rights being an expression of "immutability."

In the Bill of Rights, those earliest Constitutional amendments, none of the rights are based on any "immutable characteristic." In fact, those early rights start with the actions of colonists daring to make political and economic decisions that defied the British monarchy -- that chartered their own independent course -- in a word, that made some independent choices. And the rights mostly dealt with circumstances surrounding those brave new choices.

Free speech? It's hardly immutable. My speech is protected if I write this commentary today, and another one tomorrow, and I can change the subject I'm speechifying about. Ditto my right to have no troops quartered in my house, my right to a grand jury indictment, to a speedy trial, to freedom from excessive bail, from cruel and unusual punishment. These are all circumstances in which most people might find themselves just once in their lifetime -- but for that one time, their life might hang in the balance if they have no civil rights.

Freedom of religion goes way beyond circumstance... it grants us that choice that our founders cherished so much. Nothing is more potentially changeable than a person's religion! People often convert overnight, and turn their worlds upside down to go in a new direction. Personally I was illuminated to the fact of choice when I looked back at my own life. I was raised a Presbyterian, converted to Roman Catholicism at age 17, de-converted to an existentialist agnostic by age 20, and gradually wended away from religion to a robust paganism in my 30s. Am I required to have an unchanging and immutable belief in order to be protected? No way. At every stage, my change of thinking was protected by the First Amendment. The law even protects my right to have no religion at all, if that's what I choose to do.

Indeed, at the time the Bill of Rights was written, establishing a person's right to go from one religion to another without the threat of being killed or tortured -- for instance, to leave the Church of England and become a Quaker or Baptist or Freemason -- was one of the big goals of enlightened people in the American colonies.

Morphing Into "Mutable"

Since the 1960s, as Congress enacted other pieces of landmark legislation, their definition of civil rights has clearly moved onward from the "immutable" landmark.

The newer protected classes include: age, familial status, marital status, disability, veterans, and groups defined by DNA. All but one (DNA) are not based on "immutable characteristics." They are classes that Americans may join for only part of a lifetime. Examples: discrimination against both minors and old people. The same for disabled people who suddenly find themselves in that class as a result of illness or injury.

In spite of these recent trends, many LBGT ideologists insist on continuing to identify with the black civil-rights cause, because of the power and impact that it had. They assert that we too are born into the "immutable" class. With many in our leadership, this alleged "immutability" of ours is now a dogma. Unfortunately, the science jury has yet to return a verdict on the DNA of sexual orientation. Yes, there are studies that suggest genetic factors in sexual orientation. However, nothing is proven beyond all doubt.

Meanwhile our opponents can point out that we do sometimes change our behavior. I agree that it's unfair to cite our ability to conform when coerced by religion -- most people will conform to any dictatorship if they're terrorized enough. To me, the most telling evidence of our "mutability" comes from those LGBT people who change even when there is little or no external duress. In these cases, the pressure comes from within, from an inner realization that our nature, our sense of ourselves, is more fluid than we thought.

Most of us have known someone who first came out as staunchly gay or lesbian, then suddenly veered to being "bi" -- or who veered from bi to exclusively gay or lesbian. Cases like these don't involve coercion by ex-gay religion, yet they are far from rare. Someday, when all the scientific facts are in, they may reveal that both nature and nurture shape our orientation.

Then there is gender in our LGBT world. It, too, is anything but "immutable." Some of us challenge the gender identity inked on their birth certificate -- either because of physical or chromosomal variations that they were born with, or simply because they have a passionate will to be the opposite gender and are prepared to do whatever it takes to get there, including surgery. They want to be what they feel they really are, rather than what society says they are. In other words, they choose to change.

Choice vs. Chance

So my question is this: since the U.S. Constitution's amendments are so grounded on "civil rights" based on choice, why are we so determined to lock ourselves into the "immutable" class?

Why would it be so terrible to "choose" to be gay or lesbian or bisexual? The religious right insist on "choice" because it's their position that people "choose" sin. Yet they reserve for themselves the right to "choose" their religion, the political party they belong to, even the candidate they vote for. Shouldn't there be equal power and dignity for us in "choosing" our orientation, rather than being assigned an orientation by chance?

So, with all due respect to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I think it's time for us to stop hanging onto "immutable characteristics" so hard. For some Americans, the benchmark 1964 definitions continue to serve those protected classes today. But our own interests may better be served by invoking the signature right of the Bill of Rights -- the right to choose.

After all, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" wouldn't mean much without the freedom to choose that life, that liberty -- that happiness.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-nell-warren/civil-rights-for-gays-doe_b_148587.html



The rest of the article is severely flawed reasoning she confuses many of the legal principles guiding the discussion of individual rights (here in the US), including the role of the immutability characteristic in determining which rights are protected.  She even misrepresents another criteria as requiring proof of "economic disadvantages" and compounds her error by conclusively stating that such can be proved with respect to gays.  I can explain why her reasoning is flawed if anyone's interested... but I really included the article because it presents a perspective which I don't believe is represented here (who knows?)... that of a gay person.  Perspective aside her arguments show persuasively how notions of gender and sexual orientation can in fact change.

Pecan if you remain unconvinced, then such is your prerogative.

[Bakes]

Bakes, that talk about christians curing homos is BS and dat doh mean bake and Shark!

Dat like de BTK  murderer, he is big deacon in Church, even elected as Church president.

Dem does put de people on guilt trip, take dey money and make dem feel shame for what they were born as!

It eh have no cure for bullers, dey is what dey is!

Dey have evidence of gay sheep for heaven's sake, who curing dem? Gay Penguins, gay man, gay cow,gay dolphins, gay elephants, gay cats, gay women, gay bears, gay rats, gay buffalo, gay caribou....whappen?

Any mention of Christians or Christianity and your Pavlovian reflexes kick into action eh?  Well wipe de drool off yuh chin and try and focus here fella... regardless what your thoughts on gays being 'cured' or whether theire are gay animals (not sure what that's suppose to prove) the larger issue is whether their sexual orientation is static or dynamic.  The very fact that there are a class of people who sometimes they prefer the opposite sex, sometimes they prefer the same sex should preemptively end any serious argument over the mutability of sexual orientation.

As the article itself demonstrates, gays themselves admit that gender identity and sexual orientation can sometimes be fluid... you say it's BS.  Maybe you know better... who am I to say, I've never been gay or otherwise changed my sexual orientation.  Maybe you can shed some light for us.

[Blue]

so we know now who support gays,who doh mind havin ah bullerman fuh ah friend.now answer this.who here is ah macomehman.

call names...I go 
 

wha dat mean? Call names and yuh go blow?

Bakes, that talk about christians curing homos is BS and dat doh mean bake and Shark!

Dat like de BTK  murderer, he is big deacon in Church, even elected as Church president.

Dem does put de people on guilt trip, take dey money and make dem feel shame for what they were born as!

It eh have no cure for bullers, dey is what dey is!

Dey have evidence of gay sheep for heaven's sake, who curing dem? Gay Penguins, gay man, gay cow,gay dolphins, gay elephants, gay cats, gay women, gay bears, gay rats, gay buffalo, gay caribou....whappen?

I used to have a gay Rottweiler. I swear to God. He was the dominant dog in the yard and used to try to bull d other male Rottweiler (who was having none of it). I never understood that, cuz I thought male dogs were only interested in sex when a female dog was on heat. De neighbours' kids used to look over the wall and catch rel kix, lol. We still loved him though 

[asylumseeker]

bottom line...we are our own worst enemy.

I suppose no pun was intended ...

[asylumseeker]

I have made an observation over the years and I admit, my conclusions are not scientific

There are examples (which I will have to Google if somebody ask me for citations) that those who decry homosexuality the most turn out to be closet homosexuals themselves.

seems to be an accurate observation about them Republicans who spat venom about gays

Well, I would hope that vociferous heterosexual condemnation not cease merely b/c of the prospect of a reverse battyman charge

[WestCoast]

I have made an observation over the years and I admit, my conclusions are not scientific

There are examples (which I will have to Google if somebody ask me for citations) that those who decry homosexuality the most turn out to be closet homosexuals themselves.

seems to be an accurate observation about them Republicans who spat venom about gays

Well, I would hope that vociferous heterosexual condemnation not cease merely b/c of the prospect of a reverse battyman charge

an doh take my comment to mean that Closets in Jamaica Full no armen with such candidates eeedda

[JDB]

FAMILY provides the stability you cite... not necessarily marriage.  Everything you cite is provided for by family, including nuclear and other forms of extended family.  Indeed stable societies developed and existed before the institution of marriage did.  So while I'm not saying that your assertion is wrong, it certainly isn't convincing, nor integral to the goal you state.  Marriage may not be absolute integral to the purity of the gene pool/genealogical line but it certainly plays a much stronger role towards the stated end.  Besides this is no mere conjecture, gene purity is the reason why mammals in particular and most higher organisms pair off... and this (as well as property reasons, cementing ties between clans/tribes) is why the institution of marriage came about.

At the risk of us going off on a tangent I should say that my rationalization was just an example of one of the foundations for marriage. But to follow up. The existence of stable societies without matrriage as key element to me lacks relevance since ther are currently in the minority. The marriage model that we take for granted now clearly founded more successful dominant societies. I also don't agree in the level of importance that you place in "gene purity" (which you should probably explain-because it is an ambiquous term) as a foundation for marriage. Even if it was that critical as an early reason for marriage it is not a practical consideration now. I can't see how it could be used as a reason to preclude gays from getting married legally. On the other hands the modern benefits of marriage to society benefit us whether gays or straights get married.

While I agree with you that much of the opposition is rooted in religious belief... I think you're getting too bogged down in thinking of the arguments of particular religions, rather than looking at the bigger role that religious thought in general has played in the development of societal mores and morality. In other words, rather than thinking of the discussion in terms of "my religion can't be a standard for someone who does not believe the same thing", look at the bigger picture...religion on the whole was integral to the foundation of American society. That religion of course was Christianity, so Christian principles are at the core.  Christianity was left out of the Constitution of course, so as to not slight other religions... but even when taken into account other religions, most (if not expressing opposition to homosexuality) definitely consider the marital union as being one between man and woman.

So in sum, its not that "my religion" teaches me that marriage is between man and woman, but 'religion' in general has given rise to moral notions which guide the discussion, chiefly that marriage is between man and woman.

Even knowing that all religions have the same opinion of gay marriage does not change the fact that the legal process of granting a marriage licence needs to have no religious influence. Religions and religious organizations have their sphere of influence wher ethey can determine who gets "married" or not. That sphere should not include people who reject the religion. Despite the fact that the word marriage is used to describe both the legal and the ritualistic processes I can't see how religions have a claim to who should be legally married or more specifically how any religious argument could be applied. If that was reasonable then abortion would be illegal as a rule because the religious majority would have the authority to determine the rights of the individual.

Many legal observers in fact think that this is just a matter of time, but as for now, there simply isn't enough support, or rational arguments in favor of gay unions.

This I agree with. But I believe that it is only a matter of time before people realize that there is no really rational argument for preventing two people getting married to each other. You may not agree with comparisons or race to sexual orientation but the themes are similar. At the end of the day you are talking about people that different from the majority being discriminated against. Just as with the civil rights movement, where people had to let go misqguided notions that one race was less than another, there has been a steady progress for gays being accepted, respected and valued as equals in society. Still far to go but it must happen in time.