Gays Thread.

[JDB]

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.

I think the whole "immutability of homosexuality" is a non-issue as far as comparing the gay rights movement to civil rights movement for blacks.

What is the insinuation? That the plight of gays is somehow less than blacks because gays choose to be that way whereas blacks don't have a choice?

The fact is a gay person, living the gay lifestyle is gay. Is the idea that they have the opportunity to get the same civil rights as straight people if they change orientation so the two can't be compared? Because if it is it could only be applied to whatever minority that has shown a tendency to flip orientations. It would be impossible to apply that standard to a person who has only known themsleves as a gay person. To them they are born gay just as sure as a black man is born black.

[pecan]

1) ... 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. 



2) Perspective aside her arguments show persuasively how notions of gender and sexual orientation can in fact change.

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

1) Interesting perspective by a gay person. No one on this forum had come out of the closet so we have to rely on this article as the closest thing to a gay opnion.

2) I still think that modifying one behaviour to conform to societal expectations is not a definitive example of immutability.  People often change their physical appearances for many reasons without changing the genetic code.  I believe that those people who vacillate between gay-bi-straight are merely experimenting as they try to come to grips with the whole notion of homosexuality and acceptance.  But this is pure speculation.

3)   "prerogative" That reminds me of a title of a Bobby Brown song  (video starts at 0:43 but has nothing to do with homosexuality - I just like the song).  Perhaps even if it is not immutable, gays are saying that it is their prerogative to be gay.  And what is wrong with that?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/f5YWqtOQq8s" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/f5YWqtOQq8s</a>




Good Discussion, but that's it for me ...

[NYtriniwhiteboy..]

what about dr Kinsey's assertion that sexuality is a continuum. From 1-6 or something so and pple rank on all different levels.

[Bakes]

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 don't disagree with the bolded.. but maybe we're on different pages, I was discussing the rise of marriage as an institution, not the contemporary status/role of marriage.  Marriage isn't integral to stable societies because stable societies pre-dated the marriage convention.  Stated another way one can't argue that in order to have stable societies we need marriages.

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.

As I tried to later clarify... gene purity meaning purity of the genalogical line.  Put another way, there is never a doubt about who the mother of the child is, paternity however can come into dispute... marriage was intended as one way of mitigating (note I didn't say ensuring) against disputes.  In the Animal kingdom many mammals mate for life b/c once they identify characteristics (largely phenotypical) in their mates, they pretty much want to do their best to ensure that those traits get passed on to their progeny and not any other.  Females are circumspect with whom they mate and males are fiercely protective of the female with whom they mate... promoting their genetic line takes primacy over all others... hence why lions often kill the cubs of other male lions.  At least that's what I recall... it's been at least 10 yrs since I took Genetics. Kinda tangential, but that's what I mean by gene purity, ensuring that all the progeny down the line descend from one male.

At any rate it was never my contention that such was a practical consideration now... I was simply outlining why the term marriage has traditionally been reserved for the union between man and woman.  That tradition influences both the moral and legal framework within which the discussion is made.


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.

I don't disagree... but once again, I was discussing the history and tradition of marriages here in the US and why that history and traditions continues to be an obstacle to gay marriage today.

Incidentally, you mention the abortion issue... but ironically enough the history and traditions concerning abortion was one of the reason why Roe v. Wade was decided as it was... history and tradition was that women could freely make the determination themselves without external interference.  So we shouldn't be too dismissive of 'history and tradition' as a factor as some would have us be.

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.

Certainly parrallels can be drawn between the two struggles... but that's a far cry from positing them as analogues as many try to do.  I can go into a number of factors why this is erroneous... but the thread's being pulled into many different directions as is, which is why I didn't go into too much detail when I first broached it above.

[Bakes]

I think the whole "immutability of homosexuality" is a non-issue as far as comparing the gay rights movement to civil rights movement for blacks.

What is the insinuation? That the plight of gays is somehow less than blacks because gays choose to be that way whereas blacks don't have a choice?

The fact is a gay person, living the gay lifestyle is gay. Is the idea that they have the opportunity to get the same civil rights as straight people if they change orientation so the two can't be compared? Because if it is it could only be applied to whatever minority that has shown a tendency to flip orientations. It would be impossible to apply that standard to a person who has only known themsleves as a gay person. To them they are born gay just as sure as a black man is born black.

We're all entitled to our opinion on the 'immutability' issue but the fact remains that it is a criteria... and obstacle, in the discussion of gay marriage.  Not all rights are equal... for instance 'age' doesn't receive the same protections as 'race', gender, ethnic origins etc.  Not even gender receives the same protections as race.  There are essentially three levels of 'scrutiny' used by the Supreme Court, meaning that they will treat cases with a certain amount of firmness or alternatively, deference to the governmental interest when someone challenges a law on the basis of it violating their rights.

Strict Scrutiny- meaning that the challenged legislation/policy must be ESSENTIALLY-related to a COMPELLING government interest.  Only if the law passes this test will it be deemed Constitutionally sound.

Intermediate Scrutiny- the challenged legislation must SUBSTANTIALLY-related to an IMPORTANT government interest.

Rational Basis- the challenged legislation must be RATIONALLY-related to a LEGITIMATE government interest.

The degree of deference to the government increases as one descends the levels.  Race receives Strict Scrutiny and the government must show that any legislation which discriminates on the basis of race is essential to a compelling interest.  The language is important because it lets the gov't know just how high the bar is.  Gender receives intermediate scrutiny, while sexual orientation receives rational basis... so as long as the government can meet the lower threshold of showing that laws which discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation are rationally related to a legitimate interest, the law will pass muster.

I went into all of that to confirm for you that not all rights are equal as I stated... and yes, if you want to term it as such, the plight of gays is less than that of blacks.  No credible argument can be presented to show that gays have historically been as oppressed, ostracized, demonized and victimized as blacks have... and systematically so.  There simply is no argument.  That history of oppression is precisely why such hightened scrutiny is placed on race-based laws.

[Bakes]

what about dr Kinsey's assertion that sexuality is a continuum. From 1-6 or something so and pple rank on all different levels.

I'm not sure that we should be citing Kinsey... but I wouldn't know anything about this continuum theory.

[NYtriniwhiteboy..]

bakes it jus has to do with how pple say that yuh either gay or hetero..He proposed a scale with exclusively gay or hetero on either end and pple ranked themselves all over the scale. Many  people who had never had any gay relationship or anything as such would rank themselves as a 5 if 6 was exclusively straight.
It also can be used as an argument for "reformed" gays who now live a hetero lifestyle. They may be more to the middle of the scale etc.


I must say i think this is one of the best threads we ever had dealing with a touchy issue that surprisingly didnt get down to insults on each other's viewpoints. Was pleasantly surprised.

[WestCoast]

I must say i think this is one of the best threads we ever had dealing with a touchy issue that surprisingly didnt get down to insults on each other's viewpoints. Was pleasantly surprised.

Yes is true eh


I tink ya ketch dem on a GOOD day

2009 goin an be gooder dan 08

[asylumseeker]

bakes it jus has to do with how pple say that yuh either gay or hetero..He proposed a scale with exclusively gay or hetero on either end and pple ranked themselves all over the scale. Many  people who had never had any gay relationship or anything as such would rank themselves as a 5 if 6 was exclusively straight.
It also can be used as an argument for "reformed" gays who now live a hetero lifestyle. They may be more to the middle of the scale etc.


I must say i think this is one of the best threads we ever had dealing with a touchy issue that surprisingly didnt get down to insults on each other's viewpoints. Was pleasantly surprised.

I was going to agree without reservation ... buh now ah attribute that to two things ...

1. it might be a lil inappropriate to call a man a bullah in dis thread ...
2. is an exponential inference I'll leave for mathematical minds.

[Bakes]

bakes it jus has to do with how pple say that yuh either gay or hetero..He proposed a scale with exclusively gay or hetero on either end and pple ranked themselves all over the scale. Many  people who had never had any gay relationship or anything as such would rank themselves as a 5 if 6 was exclusively straight.
It also can be used as an argument for "reformed" gays who now live a hetero lifestyle. They may be more to the middle of the scale etc.


I must say i think this is one of the best threads we ever had dealing with a touchy issue that surprisingly didnt get down to insults on each other's viewpoints. Was pleasantly surprised.

Nah, I'm famililar with the Kinsey scale... was just saying that I'm not sure we should be citing him since much of his work has come into criticism based on his test subjects and methodologies.  Supposedly he relied heavily on pedophiles, convicts and prostitutes as his test subjects... when he and his assistants weren't screwing each other and the test subjects that is.  So there have been questions raised as to his findings and conclusions.  When I said I didn't know about the theory... meaning I'm not sure if anyone else has ever explored the continuum theory to see if there has been any independent verification of it.

[asylumseeker]

Kinsey ... towards a twisted definition of intellectual orgy

[Bakes]

1) Interesting perspective by a gay person. No one on this forum had come out of the closet so we have to rely on this article as the closest thing to a gay opnion.

Well, we DO have d#1Trinba saying Kenwyne is ah "good-looking fella" 

2) I still think that modifying one behaviour to conform to societal expectations is not a definitive example of immutability.  People often change their physical appearances for many reasons without changing the genetic code.  I believe that those people who vacillate between gay-bi-straight are merely experimenting as they try to come to grips with the whole notion of homosexuality and acceptance.  But this is pure speculation.

Especially since we have no proof that sexuality is ingrained in that genetic code, right 

3)   "prerogative" That reminds me of a title of a Bobby Brown song  (video starts at 0:43 but has nothing to do with homosexuality - I just like the song).  Perhaps even if it is not immutable, gays are saying that it is their prerogative to be gay.  And what is wrong with that?

Agree... nutten wrong with them choosing who they want as mates/life partners.

[truetrini]

What gay animals prove is that in some cases homosexuality is NOT a choice! It is an orientation jes as heterosexuality.

but if you cyar see dat.....

[Bakes]

What gay animals prove is that in some cases homosexuality is NOT a choice! It is an orientation jes as heterosexuality.

but if you cyar see dat.....

Okay... but what does any of that have to do with the immutability discussion? 

[truetrini]

What gay animals prove is that in some cases homosexuality is NOT a choice! It is an orientation jes as heterosexuality.

but if you cyar see dat.....

Okay... but what does any of that have to do with the immutability discussion? 

fella you is ah master of spin.  Yuh talk about gays being cured I say that is Bull shit, yuh counter with Pavlov talk, and that some people like man and den dey like woman, dey Bi-sexual, dat is ah whole nodder story.

Anyway ah gorn, you have your narrow views and there are influenced by the ick factor as well as your superstitious beliefs in some pie in de sky god dat is a mythical figure....as for shedding light on gays etc, I feel you better equipped as science done say it genetic and you have better insight albeit garnered from some jokey evanglical christian jokers, by de way ent jes de odder day dem leader say he is ah billah and a drug user?  Ted Haggart or Haggard ah tink was he...is he name.

[Bakes]

fella you is ah master of spin.  Yuh talk about gays being cured I say that is Bull shit, yuh counter with Pavlov talk, and that some people like man and den dey like woman, dey Bi-sexual, dat is ah whole nodder story.

Master of spin? Is that your excuse for not being able to properly read and follow the discussion?  I gave an example of gays being cured to show that the notion of sexual orientation can be fluid...from gay to straight... I also gave the example of straight to gay.  Changing sexuality... it really isn't that hard.

I never said that 'ex-gays' were definitively cured or not because I don't care about that debate, I have no reason (unlike you) to doubt the word or 'ex-gays' themselves.  Take up your argument with them since you apparently know better.

Anyway ah gorn, you have your narrow views and there are influenced by the ick factor as well as your superstitious beliefs in some pie in de sky god dat is a mythical figure....as for shedding light on gays etc, I feel you better equipped as science done say it genetic and you have better insight albeit garnered from some jokey evanglical christian jokers, by de way ent jes de odder day dem leader say he is ah billah and a drug user?  Ted Haggart or Haggard ah tink was he...is he name.

Your unintelligible rant dismisses you from inclusion in any serious debate and I won't bother waste any more time on you.  My views are as narrow as your brain apparently since you seem content on making ASSumptions about my beliefs rather than making rational arguments in support of your own.

[just cool]

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?

TT i heard that before but never pay it no mind.yuh have any literature on that? if yuh do please post if yuh don't mind.

BTW all the men who like to talk like allyuh so holy and righteous, how allyuh doh ramp with battyman and doh have no batty man friend! then i have ah few experiences of my own to know most fellas who come over like that is closet queens!!!!

i had ah good Friend in trini back in the early 80ies, we used to stay in the working men's hostel in POS, he was meh real horse, but boy this dude hated faggots with an insane passion.

now as yuh know in an invironment like that there would be ah substantial amount of hen man in the place, but every body kept their lust to them selves for fear of ah beat down.

anyway JC and every body was cool, the hen and dem, the thieves, the foreigners,the haters, every one and JC was cool.

but my boy had ah problem with me being friendly with the bullers and would ask me , "wham horse yuh does jam dem bullers or what, how come you and dem so friendly" i used to ignore him BC i know my heart clean and that's not my thing.

every body in the place started calling me ah fag BC i never scorn the man and dem BC of their disposition, dem fellas used to bring food for me when they visit their family in the country side, lend meh money when i was broke and show me real friendship so i didn't study the a$$ talk coming from the SO CALLED MACHO KAKAHOLES!

 BREDS THIS IS HOW LIFE FUNNY!! ONE AH THE BULLERS CONTRACT THE HIV VIRUS AND DIED SUDDENLY! when the mark buss is real fellas went to get teasted under low.

i found out that my boy was on the list together with ah bunch ah other tough guys who would sleight me, i found out BC one ah the gays was a male nurse that worked @ CMC and i used to work in the general hospital, i would take blood samples to CMC every day, he then informed me of all the fellas from the hostel that came for testing BC they was F@ckin the boy good and proper.

since then i lose faith in ppl, i never though human nature could be so hypocritical and deceitful, imagine my boy would harass me and made me uncomfortable in his presents as often as the subject arose, threatening me with violence saying if he ever found out that i was a mocamare man he would knock me out, could you imagine how i felt when he was found out, the same thing he hated so much turned out to be the thing he loved.

i never told him what i knew, and little by little i slacked off from the friendship, the same for men who used to talk bout dating white chicks, real men used to dog me for dating out my race, but when the mark buss they themselves were sneaking around with white and japanese girls.

my final analysis on this subject, ppl who make the most stink about a moral issue most likely have something to hide, like the saying goes, " i think thou does protest too much".

[truetrini]

lol, de only ting narrow is yuh pencil dick.

Listen fella HOMOSEXUALITY is genetic, man who does go with both man and woman is bi-sexuals.

Christianity is fake and dey always putting people down.

De religious right is neither!

Animals are gay and dey doh have choices, dem is not sentient beings like man.

Ergo it is widespread in nature and not isolated to humans.

If yuh cyar understand dat...go ask Weary to help yuh.

[Bakes]

lol, de only ting narrow is yuh pencil dick.

Listen fella HOMOSEXUALITY is genetic, man who does go with both man and woman is bi-sexuals.

Christianity is fake and dey always putting people down.

De religious right is neither!

Animals are gay and dey doh have choices, dem is not sentient beings like man.

Ergo it is widespread in nature and not isolated to humans.

If yuh cyar understand dat...go ask Weary to help yuh.

You is ah kinda clown or what?  Science can't conclude that homosexuality is genetic but you, some nobody says it is and that makes it so?  steups

Thank you for defining bisexuality for us... apparently you were confused.   Bisexuality by definition is one manifestation of sexual orientation... since bi-sexuality is fluid, it proves that sexual orientation itself isn't static.  THIS is the point that seems to be lost on you.  If sexual orientation (whatever the form) isn't static, then necessarily it can't be immutable.  If the concepts are too difficult for you to grasp then just excuse yourself from the discussion and go play with your navel lint or something.

As for everything else you cite with regards to homosexuality among animals... again nothing has been conclusively shown.  At best it can only be described as aberrant behavior and not at all "widespread in nature" as you claim.  If you have something to add to the discussion then by all means contribute it, rather than making conclusory pronouncements as though they're fact.

[Quags]

Come on fellars kiss and make up   


ok ah running for my life now !!!!!!!!!!!!

[truetrini]

Bakes is ah real expert on bi-sexuals and homos/\/\/\/\/\

he know dat it against god's will and he eh like dem...again

[capodetutticapi]

Bakes is ah real expert on bi-sexuals and homos/\/\/\/\/\

he know dat it against god's will and he eh like dem...again

TT ah thought u is an aethiest

[verycute1]

I think the whole "immutability of homosexuality" is a non-issue as far as comparing the gay rights movement to civil rights movement for blacks.

What is the insinuation? That the plight of gays is somehow less than blacks because gays choose to be that way whereas blacks don't have a choice?

The fact is a gay person, living the gay lifestyle is gay. Is the idea that they have the opportunity to get the same civil rights as straight people if they change orientation so the two can't be compared? Because if it is it could only be applied to whatever minority that has shown a tendency to flip orientations. It would be impossible to apply that standard to a person who has only known themsleves as a gay person. To them they are born gay just as sure as a black man is born black.

We're all entitled to our opinion on the 'immutability' issue but the fact remains that it is a criteria... and obstacle, in the discussion of gay marriage.  Not all rights are equal... for instance 'age' doesn't receive the same protections as 'race', gender, ethnic origins etc.  Not even gender receives the same protections as race.  There are essentially three levels of 'scrutiny' used by the Supreme Court, meaning that they will treat cases with a certain amount of firmness or alternatively, deference to the governmental interest when someone challenges a law on the basis of it violating their rights.

Strict Scrutiny- meaning that the challenged legislation/policy must be ESSENTIALLY-related to a COMPELLING government interest.  Only if the law passes this test will it be deemed Constitutionally sound.

Intermediate Scrutiny- the challenged legislation must SUBSTANTIALLY-related to an IMPORTANT government interest.

Rational Basis- the challenged legislation must be RATIONALLY-related to a LEGITIMATE government interest.

The degree of deference to the government increases as one descends the levels.  Race receives Strict Scrutiny and the government must show that any legislation which discriminates on the basis of race is essential to a compelling interest.  The language is important because it lets the gov't know just how high the bar is.  Gender receives intermediate scrutiny, while sexual orientation receives rational basis... so as long as the government can meet the lower threshold of showing that laws which discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation are rationally related to a legitimate interest, the law will pass muster.

I went into all of that to confirm for you that not all rights are equal as I stated... and yes, if you want to term it as such, the plight of gays is less than that of blacks.  No credible argument can be presented to show that gays have historically been as oppressed, ostracized, demonized and victimized as blacks have... and systematically so.  There simply is no argument.  That history of oppression is precisely why such hightened scrutiny is placed on race-based laws.

I'm guessing that Matthew Shepard's death wasnt really a "hate" crime then. Just a person who happened to be gay, and happened to be beaten and whose funeral just happened to be picketed by members of a baptist church with signs such as "god hates fags" and "matt shepard rots in hell".   Or the recent lesbian rape case - 4 of them I believe took turns raping her. Or the man in Brooklyn Jose Sucuzhanay  who was beaten and his attackers repeatedly hurled anti-gay slurs at him. He later died of his injuries and - this is the best part - he had two kids in his native Ecuador. What about Brandon Teena (the movie Boys Don't Cry was based on his story). The fact is that yep gays have been oppressed, ostracized, demonized and victimized. The reason whe don't hear about them as much as the beating of a black person, is very simply perhaps that most gays are pressured not to report the crimes for fear of retaliation. Or they are ashamed, not of who they are but of how they feel after the incidents occur. The other reason we don't hear about these types of hate crimes is probably because they don't occur in as high a frequency as a racial attack. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, doesnt mean these crimes don't exist. And just because someone who is gay goes to a church, and comes out saying he;s cured, does it really mean he is cured or does it mean he is conforming to what society wants him to do. There's nothing cured about that if in his heart he still feels or is gay. And to draw a comparison between sexual orientation and race - Back in the days of slavery there were those blacks that were lighter in color, who tried their damnest to "pass" as white so that they could live a life free of the oppression and the victimisation. Can it really be so hard to visualise a gay man or woman trying to do the same thing? "pass" as normal as defined by certain elements of society?

[Bakes]

I'm guessing that Matthew Shepard's death wasnt really a "hate" crime then. Just a person who happened to be gay, and happened to be beaten and whose funeral just happened to be picketed by members of a baptist church with signs such as "god hates fags" and "matt shepard rots in hell".   Or the recent lesbian rape case - 4 of them I believe took turns raping her. Or the man in Brooklyn Jose Sucuzhanay  who was beaten and his attackers repeatedly hurled anti-gay slurs at him. He later died of his injuries and - this is the best part - he had two kids in his native Ecuador. What about Brandon Teena (the movie Boys Don't Cry was based on his story). The fact is that yep gays have been oppressed, ostracized, demonized and victimized.

WHERE did I ever state that gays have never been oppressed, ostracized, demonized and victimized??

The reason whe don't hear about them as much as the beating of a black person, is very simply perhaps that most gays are pressured not to report the crimes for fear of retaliation. Or they are ashamed, not of who they are but of how they feel after the incidents occur.

In short yuh just guessing and trying to rationalize yuh answer as to why gays don't share the same history of persecution as blacks.

The other reason we don't hear about these types of hate crimes is probably because they don't occur in as high a frequency as a racial attack.

Lol, then doesn't that indicate that the oppression hasn't been as widespread as "systematic"??  Did you even read what I wrote before you responded to it?

Doesn't mean it didn't happen, doesnt mean these crimes don't exist.

Enough of the red herrings... no one has said gays haven't been persecuted...  simply put the persecution of gays have nowhere been as widespread or pervasive as has been that of blacks.  Throughout history and throughout the world, no one group of people has experienced the level of oppression that black people have.  NONE.

And just because someone who is gay goes to a church, and comes out saying he;s cured, does it really mean he is cured or does it mean he is conforming to what society wants him to do. There's nothing cured about that if in his heart he still feels or is gay.

And what if in his heart he believes he IS in fact cured as some 'ex-gays' have claimed?  Anyways, enough of this silly sidebar argument some of you seem stuck on this whole 'ex-gay' thing without paying attention to the bigger issue... sexual orientation changes.  If you can agree that some people living as heterosexuals have later come out the closet to reveal that they're homosexuals, or if you can agree that some people straddle the line between both worlds then that shows that sexual orientation isn't rigid and unchanging.

And to draw a comparison between sexual orientation and race - Back in the days of slavery there were those blacks that were lighter in color, who tried their damnest to "pass" as white so that they could live a life free of the oppression and the victimisation. Can it really be so hard to visualise a gay man or woman trying to do the same thing? "pass" as normal as defined by certain elements of society?

"Trying to pass" doesn't mean that blacks changed their race does it?  These blacks knew all along that they were black, they just pretended to be white.  It's true that some gays know they're gay but pretend to be straight, but it's also true that some gays genuinely think they're straight until coming upon a realization that they're in fact gay.  Again, not my place to argue with them and tell them they were lying when they say that they genuinely considered themselves straight and that their sexual orientation changed.

[pecan]

We're all entitled to our opinion on the 'immutability' issue but the fact remains that it is a criteria criterion... and obstacle, in the discussion of gay marriage. 

whey Bakes,  you slipping ... 

[truetrini]

homo talk have he fingers slippery

[capodetutticapi]

war start this bullerman shit,TT and bns on ah rampage.for puttin me tru this ordeal warmonga name is now harvey milk.

[Bakes]

We're all entitled to our opinion on the 'immutability' issue but the fact remains that it is a criteria criterion... and obstacle, in the discussion of gay marriage. 

whey Bakes,  you slipping ... 

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.

...And dat wasn't de only time ah use it nuh, lol.  Ah real slipping 

[verycute1]

The reason whe don't hear about them as much as the beating of a black person, is very simply perhaps that most gays are pressured not to report the crimes for fear of retaliation. Or they are ashamed, not of who they are but of how they feel after the incidents occur.

In short yuh just guessing and trying to rationalize yuh answer as to why gays don't share the same history of persecution as blacks.
 
No I'm saying we dont know, I don't know and neither do you. Thats why I used the word "Perhaps". While we (and from personal experience I) may know what it's like to be the victim of racial discrimination and or attacks, we don't know what goes on inside a gay person's head when he encounters such a situation. I have read articles in the past on  recounting gay hate crimes where the victims claim that the law enforcement officials they reported their attacks to, ignored them or worse belittled them. 

The other reason we don't hear about these types of hate crimes is probably because they don't occur in as high a frequency as a racial attack.

Lol, then doesn't that indicate that the oppression hasn't been as widespread as "systematic"??  Did you even read what I wrote before you responded to it?

No I think it means that there might more blacks than gays out there so the numbers are smaller. But I could be wrong and am woman enough to admit that I might be wrong.

Doesn't mean it didn't happen, doesnt mean these crimes don't exist.

Enough of the red herrings... no one has said gays haven't been persecuted...  simply put the persecution of gays have nowhere been as widespread or pervasive as has been that of blacks.  Throughout history and throughout the world, no one group of people has experienced the level of oppression that black people have.  NONE.

Well..... there was this little thing called the Holocaust. But there are those out there that are very firmly convinced that it never happened. I personally believe that it did happen. My ex's grandmother had these little numbers tattoed on her wrist that she said happened in something called a concentration camp. I read in quite a few history books that they were really horrible places to be in. Unless..... the history books lied? Maybe it's just all one big conspiracy theory and Hitler was in fact a really nice guy

[dinho]

if allyuh seriously believe that homosexuality is not a learned behavior, but ingrained from birth in all cases, then why not extend the same logic to all other vices like beastiality and incest too?