LeCharivari

Veering off-topic, but when I was last there (1980's) it was quite "bohemian", and apart from on a few beaches I barely noticed any gays.

..... apologies if it was felt my post was "OT" - it was simply an observation on the lack of any relevance of this test in the real world, with no cynicism or sarcasm intended or, even in hindsight on re-reading, readable into it.

I would have loved to have lived in San Fransisco in 70s.

Or live in in SF any time

As far as I am aware you do not need to pass this particular "test" to be permitted to move there ..... although apparently it may help in some quarters, so why not?

Mr. LC has twisted this topic in a very silly way.

To definitively demonstrate how absurd and cynically DISINGENUOUS his POV is, I will take "the test" but asking gay people about heterosexuals.

But its beyond silly. He's arguing against our deserving equality based on a FAKE argument.

Most all gay people would pass, definitely, and as we all know a very large chunk of hetero people would fail. This is independent of the reality that the straight people have the power and often act as our oppressors and the reverse is simply NOT the case.

Here goes:

If you have a HETERO friend (or sister or coworker or...) but still think that HETERO people should not be able to get married, then you are anti-hetero.

I PASS AS WOULD PRETTY MUCH ALL GAY PEOPLE. DUH!

If you're fine with hetero people as long as you don't have to see them kissing or holding hands, then you are anti-hetero.

I PASS AS WOULD PRETTY MUCH ALL GAY PEOPLE. DUH!

If you don't have anything against hetero people but wouldn't want a hetero man leading your daughters's scout troop, then you are anti-hetero.

I PASS AS WOULD PRETTY MUCH ALL GAY PEOPLE. DUH!

If you think that inside hetero people there is anything lurking -- however small -- that causes us to have any less integrity or humanity than gay people have, then you are anti-hetero.

I PASS AS WOULD PRETTY MUCH ALL GAY PEOPLE. DUH!

It's a shame as we excercise freedom of speech the same amount of energy isn't spent on freedom of thought.

We are a very small miniority who have these activists demanding and speaking absolute equality - who elected them ? they certainly don't speak for me. The more I read about activism, told what I should think, taking tests or being told I'm wrong because I don't give a toss, the more I want to go back into closest. I spent so long in the closest I'm quite comfortable being there. (warning joke - isn't that why we're considered better dressers ? because we spent so much time in the closet ? end joke )

I am a member of society first, part of the 3% miniority and I do take offence to PDA's young, old, gay or straight, I as a gay man respect the majority's concern rightly or wrongly that leading a Scout troop could be seen by some as not appropriate - rather than stand on my soap box demanding equality I choose not to subject myself to being in that role out of respect for the majority.

Perhaps because some of us have equality in our home country we are able to look at things differently. The so called fight if there ever was one, is over, & we're just getting on with life with freedom of thought.

Let me limit my reply to one which is strictly about this "test" by saying that while I do not consider JT in any way "anti-straight" I disagree with his conclusions about how he would fare on this absurd test.

Tests of this sort are seldom designed to be self-administered with any validity, and individual's and group's opinions of their own homophobia/heterophobia are not necessarily a reflection of how others see them, and this test is no exception.

CARM, for example, is recognised as one of the most homophobic Christian groups around, yet they are adamant that "No, CARM is not homophobic ..... We are no more homophobic than they are heterophobic. ..... we reject the label of being homophobic ..... We are not homophobic. We are pro-traditional marriage and we are pro-traditional sexual practice. It is the homosexual community that wants to redefine proper sexual conduct and marriage definitions. We could easily say that the pro-homosexual movement is heterophobic and/or christophobic."

http://carm.org/carm-homophobic

In their view, they too would pass any "test".

That always seemed the likely option - the Indian Government are simply asking the Court to do their job for them so that whatever the outcome they can't be held responsible and they can avoid having to show their true colours one way or the other.

India's politicians clearly have as little backbone as most in the West - India's gays deserve to have the law repealed and their rights acknowledged on more than a technicality.

VERY interesting, since they talk about "a same-sex marriage or other legal same-sex relationship" while previously all the references I have seen here (and the comments from our US experts) have been along the lines that only a "marriage" will be good enough.

While its not yet definitive, its certainly an indicator that "civil unions or other legal same-sex relationships" are not quite condemned to the dustbin of history in the US.

We don't deserve equality.

From someone who claims to identify as a gay man.

That is so twisted.

This is very, very strange.

A gay man defending the point of view that parents not trusting their kids with a gay scout master is understandable and acceptable!?

But it gets even more strange, a poster says that it is understandable and acceptable that a parent may not want or even allow a straight adult male to lead a team of young girls.

Could it be that a gay man can actually be a homophobe? Is this possible? I have never encountered anything like this before.

An interesting post from JT which I would full support - any gay man who said "We don't deserve equality" would, in my view also, be at least a little "twisted".

I am unable to find any such post here, though, so without knowing who is supposed to have made this unqualified statement or where it came from I can see little point in commenting on it further.

The "homophobe" question has also been raised before here, on a number of occasions, but each time without naming the supposed offender or giving a link to the supposed homophobic comments. Name them and shame them, I say!

We don't deserve equality.

From someone who claims to identify as a gay man.

That is so twisted.

This is very, very strange.

A gay man defending the point of view that parents not trusting their kids with a gay scout master is understandable and acceptable!?

But it gets even more strange, a poster says that it is understandable and acceptable that a parent may not want or even allow a straight adult male to lead a team of young girls.

Could it be that a gay man can actually be a homophobe? Is this possible? I have never encountered anything like this before.

No "gay man" here has ever said that parents not trusting their kids with a gay scout master is "acceptable" – there is no such post (again).

I fail to see what is "even more strange" about any parent preferring that when his daughter goes off to her girl scout meetings or camps she should be solely in the company of other girls and supervised by a woman, not a man. I don't see how allowing her and her parents the freedom to choose between her attending either a girl scout group (run by and for females) or a mixed scout group (run by and for both sexes) can be either wrong or "strange" – what I would see as distinctly “strange”, though, would be removing that freedom of choice.

I also fail to see how something which is about how “a parent may not want or even allow a straight adult male to lead a team of young girls” can lead to the idea that "a gay man can actually be a homophobe", but that is a different matter.

Understanding someone else's point of view does NOT mean either accepting or condoning it - they are radically different. I can, for example, understand why the child soldiers in the Khmer Rouge, in the CAR and in other countries do what they do/did, but that does not mean I accept or condone it.

If someone can’t or won’t understand another person's point of view they have little chance of changing it.

It's a shame as we excercise freedom of speech the same amount of energy isn't spent on freedom of thought.

We are a very small miniority who have these activists demanding and speaking absolute equality - who elected them ? they certainly don't speak for me. The more I read about activism, told what I should think, taking tests or being told I'm wrong because I don't give a toss, the more I want to go back into closest. I spent so long in the closest I'm quite comfortable being there. (warning joke - isn't that why we're considered better dressers ? because we spent so much time in the closet ? end joke )

I am a member of society first, part of the 3% miniority and I do take offence to PDA's young, old, gay or straight, I as a gay man respect the majority's concern rightly or wrongly that leading a Scout troop could be seen by some as not appropriate - rather than stand on my soap box demanding equality I choose not to subject myself to being in that role out of respect for the majority.

Perhaps because some of us have equality in our home country we are able to look at things differently. The so called fight if there ever was one, is over, & we're just getting on with life with freedom of thought.

I have to disagree slightly, Todd, as I don’t really have any problem with “absolute equality” as a logical end game for all, based on equality regardless of sexual preference, gender, race, religion, ethnicity or special needs, but I think that the best way of achieving that is by mutual understanding and mutual respect rather than by the demands and insults which some prefer.

On the other hand I don’t think that everybody is either entitled to or deserves “absolute equality” other than equality under the law, otherwise we are going down the path to anarchy. The problem is that sometimes the more “rights” one person gets the more “rights” someone else loses, so there has to be a balance and that balance is usually decided by the majority.

...

Sometimes I am so ashamed of the bigotry of some of my fellow gays and the way that they demand that they be treated with respect by our straight counterparts while they see no need to reciprocate

...

How is insisting to have all the same rights that straight people have bigotry? Isn't this the most reasonable and humble demand?

This line of attack is one of the favorite lines of anti gay organizations, like NOM, National Organization for Marriage, and many other hate groups. Those groups very often use the word 'family' in their names.

They always start by saying gay people are demanding special treatment.

Stephen Colbert, of The Colbert Report produced hilarious parody of NOM's online ad campaign 'The Storm Is Coming'

Here is the NOM original campaign ad:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FtjbmAaWFMg

And here is Stephen Colberts take on NOMs ad, please watch the whole 6 minute clip, it starts with NOM ad, Stephen then comments how he feels about the NOM campaign, and at 3.29 mark, Stephen streams his take on NOM ad.

Please, please watch it, i promise, you will not regret the wasted few minuts!

Here is Stephens take, fast forward to 3.29 mark:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224789/april-16-2009/the-colbert-coalition-s-anti-gay-marriage-ad

And here is one more very well made parody of NOM campaign:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L0pPEAdDn64

"How is insisting to have all the same rights that straight people have bigotry?"

I never said or implied in any way that having equal rights was bigotry - even the single line of my post which has been both edited and taken out of context states exactly the type of bigotry I was referring to.

My views on organisations like CARM and the FRC do not need repeating here.

We're getting back to my original point - this dreadful "we" thing.

Sometimes I am so ashamed of the bigotry of some of my fellow gays and the way that they demand that they be treated with respect by our straight counterparts while they see no need to reciprocate that I can understand, in some ways, why we are sometimes treated as we are.

If this "super-strict test of gayness" was applied in reverse gays would become the bigots and the prejudiced, but to some that's excusable just because we're a minority.

Well, we don't need an excuse. What we need is to respect others and to earn respect ourselves. Some have done that, and it rubs off on the rest of us. Others haven't, and that rubs off too.

Are you "missing the point here"? Hard to say since you are talking about posts and "statements" that simply don't exist and never have.

No, I am not missing the point, alltho I admit it is sometimes very difficult for me to fully understand your posts. Probably a language barrier, but sometimes I read some of your posts several times, and it gets even more confusing after each time.

In the thread about Indias court ruling you said the following:

'in other words, and despite all the hype, there was NO evidence presented that there has been any "blatant oppression against our brothers and sisters, the GLBT people of India" at all.'

I used the word 'idiotic' to describe that post from you. I should have used a different word to describe that posting from you. 'idiotic' is offensive term, and I regret using that term, and I apologize!

Should have desribed it as odd or very strange.

But what has ThaiVisa member Naam to do with it?

I have commented on this in the appropriate thread ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/688196-indian-supreme-court-makes-homosexuality-a-criminal-offence/page-2#entry7182122 ) if you want to discuss the India issue further there.

(Moved from http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/689888-super-strict-test-of-anti-gayness/page-2#entry7182093 to avoid going off-topic there)

Are you "missing the point here"? Hard to say since you are talking about posts and "statements" that simply don't exist and never have.

valgehiir:

No, I am not missing the point, alltho I admit it is sometimes very difficult for me to fully understand your posts. Probably a language barrier, but sometimes I read some of your posts several times, and it gets even more confusing after each time.

In the thread about Indias court ruling you said the following:

'in other words, and despite all the hype, there was NO evidence presented that there has been any "blatant oppression against our brothers and sisters, the GLBT people of India" at all.'

I used the word 'idiotic' to describe that post from you. I should have used a different word to describe that posting from you. 'idiotic' is offensive term, and I regret using that term, and I apologize!
Should have desribed it as odd or very strange.

But what has ThaiVisa member Naam to do with it?

Please tell me what part of posts # 26 and 33 you don't understand or disagree with and I'll try to clarify it.

Please tell me what exactly is "idiotic" ... "odd or very strange" about repeating the judges' view that one side "miserably failed" to make their case and, if you disagree as you seem to, please show any evidence they presented that was valid and made their case.

You say you " read posts here how things are not all that bad for gay people in India. Im sorry, it just idiotic thing to claim." Please tell me, WHERE ARE THESE POSTS?

Please show me where anyone has said "things are not all that bad for gay people in India."

I agree with all that.

However, what percentage of people do you think would fully pass that test? I think small. So we've got to live in the world as it is, with some level of homophobia existing in most people we encounter.

Thinking about this I just thought about my parents. They both loved me but they both never entirely became homophobia free. Should I have rejected them for that fault? I think not.

Of course, we have to realistic, and not expect every person to like us. Especially older generations, it is probably very difficult for a 72 yr old man to suddenly change his life long beliefs, and predjudices.

Your example abouy your parents.. Very well understood that they may never fully support your 'lifestyle'

But my reply was to Naam. Not trusting his kids to the care of gay teacher, or sports team trainer is simply wrong, and homophobic. If that is not homophobia, what is?

People often confuse gay man with a pedophile. That is simply ignonant. Why on earth do many think an adult gay man is a threat to a 10 yr old boy? How much more ignorant can it get!

Meanwhile the same parents trust their boys under the care of catholic priests.

Im sure you follow boy scouts news from US. Same exact issue there.

So when you say we have to be realitic, how accepting people are towards us, sure, we must know that these kinds of social changes take long time. But blatant hate and homophobia we can not tolerate, and make excuses for.

even though i strongly resent your assumptions drawn from thin air you are excused because obviously you read my posting without your reading glasses. there was no mentioning of "my" children and there was no mentioning that i personally would act or have those reservations i mentioned.

like it or not, the fact remains that a majority of parents would strongly object that a gay male or lesbian female leads a group of teenage boy/girl scouts for "outings".

there was no reference in my post concerning teachers or trainers and the same applies to JT's post which mentioned a "boy scout leader".

by the way, those who do not accept "gayness" couldn't care less what you tolerate or don't tolerate; that's another fact. gay people, both genders, have come a long way within an extremely short time after centuries, respectively milleniae of be hounded, punished and treated as pariahs. being a German i still remember Paragraph 175 of our penal code and i remember people going to prison.

views and opinions are changing, outings of famous persons help(ed) a lot. patience is required, not unsubstantiated accusations based on assumptions.

"like it or not, the fact remains that a majority of parents would strongly object that a gay male or lesbian female leads a group of teenage boy/girl scouts for "outings"."

Just the point I was trying to make (and trying to make in an earlier thread).

I can quite understand why "a majority of parents would strongly object" to a straight man leading a group of teenage girl scouts, and vice-versa. I think most of us can. Their "fears" may be groundless and their "worries" may have nothing to do with pedophilia per se, but that doesn't make them any less real or any less valid.

.... and IF a straight man should not be leading a group of teenage girl scouts, its equally logical and rational that a gay man should not be leading a group of teenage boy scouts for exactly the same reasons.

... and equally, IF there's nothing wrong with a gay man leading a group of teenage boys there should be nothing wrong with a straight man leading a group of teenage girls, and vice-versa.

You can't support or oppose one, rationally, without the other.

Its not just about EQUALITY, which is what the authors of these sort of tests bang on about, but about CONSISTENCY - applying the same rules and same "tests" to everyone ... and in the context of scouts, consistency would seem to mean that parents and children should have the choice of girl scouts, boy scouts, or mixed scouts (including boys, girls, special needs, LGBT, all religions, no religions, etc).

Equality without consistency is simply a sham.

If we excuse our own bigotry on the basis that we're only a small minority so our bigotry doesn't do as much harm as the big majority's, and we don't pay others the same respect in return that we demand from them, then we don't deserve equality.

Well, my example isn't exactly the same thing. The way the politics of DISGUST is used by anti-gay forces is a real thing and a big challenge for gay rights activists to combat. I mentioned being forced to do a sex act, of course that's an over the top example. Now if a gay man is viscerally disgusted by seeing two attractive straight people kissing on the street (as opposed to just not approving of PDAs) then that would be the equivalent of a straight person being similarly disgusted by seeing too attractive men kissing. I say attractive to eliminate the issue that people might be disgusted by unattractive people being sexual, period. Now as a discriminated against minority, not sure it really hurts anyone for gay people to be disgusted, but the straight majority DOES use disgust as a rationalization to continue to discriminate against gay people. So, again, NOT equivalent and the example does NOT negate the issues raised in the questions from the OP.

i wish i could understand what you are trying to tell. alas, my poor English can't cope.

Apparently because we are a "discriminated against minority" its quite OK for us to be "disgusted" by straight people, but because they are a "majority" its not OK for straight people to be disgusted by us .

So much for equality!

If you don't have anything against queer people but wouldn't want a gay man leading your son's scout troop, then you are anti-gay.

i [not so] humbly beg to disagree

simple reason: parental objections and thoughts concerning their children are usually subjective and not objective.

I've got to agree with you.

As has been pointed out, gay people are no more threats to children than straight people, but some parents may not want a straight man leading their daughter's Girl Scout troop for similar reasons. That doesn't mean that they are somehow "anti-heterosexual" or that they think every straight man is a pedophile - just that they have some worries which in 99% (maybe more, maybe less) of cases have no foundation at all. Those worries should be resolved by reason, not by a dogmatic you are anti-whatever response.

.

I really detest people who constantly talk about "we", as if they have some God-given right to speak for "us".

"It's scary to challenge the people we love. It hurts to consider what could happen when we confront them and tell them that we will no longer accept anything less than truly unconditional love that embraces us exactly as we are. But how much is it worth? How much are we worth? And when we think about the alternative, do we really have any other choice?"

I get "unconditional love" from my dogs, but I don't want, expect or deserve "unconditional love" from anyone - nobody does.

We get what we earn in life, whether its love or respect, and in my view that's the way it should be whatever our sexual orientation.

I'm afraid I'd only heard of a couple of their "top 10" (the Pope was one, I should add!).

The rest would seem to be "the best" only in their own rather limited world.

This is getting really twisted, over small semantic points.

OF COURSE the freedom to marry is a civil right, one DENIED same sex couples in most of the world, including Australia at this point.

Bing Dictionary

• civ·il rights

• basic rights: rights that all citizens of a society are supposed to have, e.g. the right to vote or to receive fair treatment from the law.

Just because they label same sex marriage a civil right doesn't make it so - it's an individual choice straight or gay. I would call classify it as liberty once passed into law or equal right not civil right.

Calling sexual orientation a "choice" tells us two things about you:

1. You stopped paying attention to the world around you in like 1973

2. You don't actually know any gay people. Which means you can't possible know what the F you're talking about.

Therefore; your argument is invalid.

Now please, in the name of science and all things holy, go out tonight and prove to the world that you can choose to change your sexuality on command.

We eagerly await your results.

"Just because they label same sex marriage a civil right doesn't make it so - it's an individual choice straight or gay."

vs.

"Calling sexual orientation a "choice" tells us two things about you:" (etc)

Hmmm ..... I think that total misrepresentation of what was written tells us a couple of things about you!

Like Todd Weston, I was born with my sexual orientation and I chose to have a same-sex marriage.

Sexual orientation and marriage are hardly synonymous.

This is getting really twisted, over small semantic points.

OF COURSE the freedom to marry is a civil right, one DENIED same sex couples in most of the world, including Australia at this point.

Bing Dictionary

• civ·il rights

• basic rights: rights that all citizens of a society are supposed to have, e.g. the right to vote or to receive fair treatment from the law.

Just because they label same sex marriage a civil right doesn't make it so - it's an individual choice straight or gay. I would call classify it as liberty once passed into law or equal right not civil right.

So now the Bing Dictionary is the arbiter of what constitutes a "civil right" ?

..... and to be fair to the Bing Dictionary, they DON'T actually "label same sex marriage a civil right" at all!

Personally I'd go for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a bit more of an authority (although I may OF COURSE be wrong), but unfortunately its a bit ambiguous as it refers to "men and women", not "men or women" which is a bit of a stumbling block - and even then some countries apply unchallenged limitations of their own, making it far from "universal".

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a16

Repealing a law does make a lot of difference to a lot of people. It also makes a huge difference in how the State treats an individual.

Yes and no in this case.

Yes, it would make a lot of symbolic difference to a number of people in India (and outside).

No, it wouldn't make any actual difference to how "the State" (India) treats anyone. Police who harass LGBT would continue to harass LGBT; anyone who doesn't want to employ LGBT could continue not to employ LGBT; treatment of MSM with HIV (see the judgement for relevance) would continue unchanged - no applicable laws would have been changed.

What would be needed to make any difference would be either new anti-discriminatory laws or a radical change in the public view of LGBT.. "Repealing a law" doesn't do either of those.

There is a world of difference between what is symbolic and what is effective.

When you are fighting both the public opinion and the law, there is a problem. The law should be the place where people can get justice and protection. In India, it appears they have neither.

That depends on who "they" are.

Those who support gay rights think that the law should protect them - quite rightly, in my view. That would require not a repeal of 377, which is purely symbolic, but a whole new set of anti-discrimination laws.

Those who are anti-gay rights think that the law should protect them - some previous links explain their view of what from. 377 doesn't do that, but Indian public opinion currently does.

Some here appear to have difficulty reading what has actually been written through the haze and steam.

Neither I nor the Indian Judges said or even suggested that there was no oppression or discrimination against LGBT in India. The judges did NOT say that, despite what the New Yorker reported, NOR DID I as some here have said equally incorrectly.

That was the whole point of my opening paragraph:

It's interesting to compare what some of the media said the judges said with what the judges actually said, since the judges did NOT say that they believed "that the criminalization of homosexuality did not cause sufficient harm to justify any action from the court" but that they simply considered that the applicants had "miserably failed" to make their case. Hardly the same thing.

Let me repeat: "HARDLY THE SAME THING"

Let me try to make it as simple as I can:

It was a court case.

Judgement in a court case is supposed to be based on the evidence presented, nothing else. This was.

The evidence presented by those claiming discrimination was "singularly laconic" and "wholly insufficient" and they "miserably failed" to make their case.

There may be plenty of discrimination (in my view there is), but NONE WAS PRESENTED TO THE COURT. It was claimed that the law (377) had been used to prosecute gays, but not a single case of such prosecution was cited and the ONLY case cited was of a man having sex with a cow's nose nearly a century ago.

One side presented a good case. They won. The other side presented virtually no case. They lost. That's what happens in a court case - and this WAS a court case, not a moral debate.

I don't think anyone's not as good as me - just not as fortunate.

In Thailand, I could just go to certain gay bars!

... are they "virgins", though?

No, they know what they're doing (pretty bored about it, too, some of them). Anyway, how would you know?

If they were (and particularly if they were the canvas, not the brush), I doubt if they'd be bored!