Do You Support Legalization Of Same Sex Marriage In Thailand?

[trisailer]

<br />I'm all for equal rights for gays, but, I think it should be called something other than "marriage".<br />Marriage should be used only for a union between between a man and a woman.<br />Maybe call it Civil Union with all the same rights as marriage.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Why not call it what it is in fact. A marrage, with all the rights and responsabilities of any other marrage. Currently married people do not have any claim to a word that describes a relationship that is committed just like theirs. Married people don't have any special claim on the constitutional protection of equal rights.

[SteeleJoe]

I'm all for equal rights for gays, but, I think it should be called something other than "marriage".

Marriage should be used only for a union between between a man and a woman.

Why?

EDIT to ADD:

I honestly want to know the answer to the above but aside from that, I'm going to come out and say it:

"I'm all for equal rights for___, but..." (emphasis mine) sets off alarm bells already. It's hard for me to imagine any reasonable conditions placed on being for equal rights for anyone.

Edited June 4, 2011 by SteeleJoe

[Ulysses G.]

I like the sound of "domestic partnership" with rights equal to marriage between a man and a woman. That should make most non-fanatics on both sides happy.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Richard4849]

I'm all for equal rights for gays, but, I think it should be called something other than "marriage".

Marriage should be used only for a union between between a man and a woman.

Maybe call it Civil Union with all the same rights as marriage.

I think this is a moot point in Thailand, isn't it? Since the only legal "marriage" is the civil union that a couple registers at the district.

Monks have been performing religious (though not legal) same-sex marriages forever, just as they have for different-sex couples.

[jdinasia]

I like the sound of "domestic partnership" with equal rights to marriage between a man and a woman. That should make most non-fanatics on both sides happy.

Brown V ....... 1953 ...... in the end where we come from UG they will have to legalize marriage to include same-sex partners ... may even be in this decade. There is simply no way that anything else will work out to equal rights for all citizens.

Again ... in Thailand all marriages are civil unions The problem in Thailand is that even if a test-case went before the high court ... no precedent would be established. That means it will either need to expressly be written into organic law ... OR the constitution.

[Jingthing]

I like the sound of "domestic partnership" with rights equal to marriage between a man and a woman. That should make most non-fanatics on both sides happy.

This varies between countries as my understanding in the UK such a thing is indeed very close to full marriage rights, but in the US as I have explained before, civil unions in the rare places they exist have VERY FEW of the full marriage rights granted. In the US states that have so called gay marriage aren't really marriage at all legally at the really important federal level, with issues such as social security benefits/taxation/immigration, etc. So without labeling myself fanatic or not, its fair to say UK gays in my experience are mostly happy with the law there, while most US gays want actual marriage rights because any of them who are at all informed quickly realize the offered alternative is total crap and an insult to our intelligence. I agree most gays including myself would give up the word marriage if we got everything else, but frankly, even that is apartheid and wrong ethically.

Edited June 4, 2011 by Jingthing

[jdinasia]

JD, in this case I have to take issue with you. I think the question of sexual orientation is valid in the context of this thread. When someone says they are for gay marriage, for example, then add that he or she is straight, I think that is relevant. Or, if someone who is gay is against gay marriage, I think that would be equally relevant.

Now if the thread was about the English Premier League or The Hangover Part II, and they volunteer that information, well, OK, I can see your point. But in this thread, I think it is relevant.

Me too. (Again, it's about context. Precisley how, why and when it's stated.

your parents might be gay, your children might be gay, your siblings might be gay ---- stating you are not gay doesn't eliminate the idea that there may be bias still --- except in some folks .. and they don't think it through too much ....

NOTHING can eliminate the possibility. If one wants to question that deeply -- absent any reasonable cause...well, then it's hard to have a discussion. All things being equal, a certain amount of good faith has to be allowed...

I would suggest to you that some (not all by any means) of the opponents of gay marriage would state that to be for it at all represents a bias. I would also suggest that feeling the need to make a personal statement about oneself not being gay ... might be a tish of internalized ..... (ah hell ... like I said earlier ---- to you str8 folks that actually support equal rights ... Thanks!) My points are on a totally different level about society and how we as men and women see ourselves and others .... it goes beyond the scope of the discussion ... probably to the level of mental mastur...........

[SteeleJoe]

...I would also suggest that feeling the need to make a personal statement about oneself not being gay ... might be a tish of internalized .....

Yes. In some cases I'm sure that's so. But...context. (How quick is someone to say it? How compelled? How emphatic? Phrased in what way? What circumstances?)

Sometimes it's simply someone trying to point out what they think is relevant and/or trying to bolster sincere claims of relative objectivity. Nothing more.

[jdinasia]

...I would also suggest that feeling the need to make a personal statement about oneself not being gay ... might be a tish of internalized .....

Yes. In some cases I'm sure that's so. But...context. (How quick is someone to say it? How compelled? How emphatic? Phrased in what way? What circumstances?)

Sometimes it's simply someone trying to point out what they think is relevant and/or trying to bolster sincere claims of relative objectivity. Nothing more.

Byte me! I said "Thanks!" already ... Twice!

I admit that the distinction I am making is on a different level --- and that it might only be valid on a purely intellectual level ... not consistent with life in the trenches I think it is time to expect people to be for equal rights across the board and, that being the case, adding to it takes away from the power of the statement .

edit ----- this whole line of thought made me look up something from a work of fiction. A TV show called The West Wing .... pardon me from quoting from it (and yes I wear the badge of being a liberal, proudly!)

Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."

-- Matt Santos, The West Wing

I think it is time to add to that ... not only "back home" but wherever we are

Edited June 4, 2011 by jdinasia

[SteeleJoe]

Byte me! I said "Thanks!" already ... Twice!

I admit that the distinction I am making is on a different level --- and that it might only be valid on a purely intellectual level ... not consistent with life in the trenches I think it is time to expect people to be for equal rights across the board and, that being the case, adding to it takes away from the power of the statement .

edit ----- this whole line of thought made me look up something from a work of fiction. A TV show called The West Wing .... pardon me from quoting from it (and yes I wear the badge of being a liberal, proudly!)

Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."

-- Matt Santos, The West Wing

I think it is time to add to that ... not only "back home" but wherever we are

Why are you saying "thanks"? And what does it have to do with what I'm saying? I don't think straight people deserve thanks for being tolerant or right thinking (ie believing in equality and justice). In fact, I'd be pretty disgusted with any straight person who thought they did.

I think it is time to expect people to be for equal rights across the board and, that being the case, adding to it takes away from the power of the statement

Adding conditions or qualifiers to it would. Otherwise...don't see how.

When someone said, "I'm a lifelong Republican and I oppose everything George Bush is doing" -- as some did -- I took notice and thought his/her party affiliation relevant and noteworthy -- for an example. (I hope I don't need to explain how I'm not comparing a choice of political affiliation to sexual orientation ).

I remember that bit from West Wing. And it's pretty cheesy (as the show often was though I still liked it a lot) but I share the sentiments 100% (though I'm not sure of the relevance -- but I'm admittedly pretty groggy).

[jdinasia]

JD, by the way, if we were having beers and you preferred a gay bar so you could perve I'd probably go along as most of the gay bars I've been to have been a hoot.

I actually don't like gay bars all that much ... I go to bars in Niemanheiman (sp) that pull a wide variety of people. Thailand being Thailand ... gay people go everywhere

[samran]

I found this in an article in Time magazine

The full-grown homosexual, as Bergler sees him, wallows in self-pity and continually provokes hostility to ensure himself more opportunities for self pity he "collects" injustices—sometimes real, often fancied; he is full of defensive malice and flippancy, covering his depression and guilt with extreme narcissism and superciliousness. He refuses to acknowledge accepted standards even in nonsexual matters, assuming that homosexuals have a right to cut moral corners as compensation for their "suffering." He is generally unreliable, in an essentially psychopathic way.

It confirms what I've known all along that Homosexuality is a disease of the mind and the good news is that it is curable.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,808760-1,00.html

Can we cure you of being a Collingwood supporter? That is a bigger 'problem' in my book.

I mean...

"wallows in self-pity and continually provokes hostility to ensure himself more opportunities for self pity he "collects" injustices—sometimes real, often fancied" CHECK..Collingwood supporter

"full of defensive malice and flippancy, covering his depression and guilt with extreme narcissism and superciliousness" CHECK..Collingwood supporter

"He refuses to acknowledge accepted standards" CHECK..Collingwood supporter

" assuming....a right to cut moral corners as compensation for their "suffering." CHECK..Collingwood supporter

"He is generally unreliable, in an essentially psychopathic way." CHECK..CHECK..CHECK..CHECK..CHECK..CHECK..CHECK..Collingwood supporter

Would be proud of my son if my son or daughter turned out to be gay. I'd disown them if they supported Collingwood.

typical collingwood supporter....

Edited June 5, 2011 by samran

[Ulysses G.]

It is interesting that being gay was considered a mental disease until very recently and all the psychiatry books described it that way. Homosexuals were just as despised as pedophiles are now. It makes one wonder about the conventional wisdom on a lot of things.

[samran]

It is interesting that being gay was considered a mental disease until very recently and all the psychiatry books described it that way. Homosexuals were just as despised as pedophiles are now. It makes one wonder about the conventional wisdom on a lot of things.

so long it is between consenting adults....I think that is the difference.

[Ulysses G.]

I agree, but it is hard to believe that most people felt that this kind of judgmental thinking was "right" just a few decades ago and in some parts of the world, they still do.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Berkshire]

I'm all for equal rights for gays, but, I think it should be called something other than "marriage".

Marriage should be used only for a union between between a man and a woman.

Maybe call it Civil Union with all the same rights as marriage.

Flawed thinking. This is consistent with America's attempt at "separate but equal" back in the day when dealing with African-Americans (re education). Won't work and actually encourages discrimination.

[Berkshire]

I'm rather shocked to see some of the attitudes here regarding gays. Some still believe that homosexuality is a disease, or that it's a mental disorder, or that it's disgusting...last I checked, we're in the year 2011, correct? Jingthing is correct, there was a recent survey in the US (weeks old, not from the freakin 50's) that indicated the majority of Americans supported gay marriage. And not surprisingly, it's the older folks who were against it. This is where the young have it over the old in spades. They are more tolerant and accepting. Perhaps the world would be a better place if the old bigoted views would die off with the old folks, no? Makes me embarassed to be an older gentleman (well, not that old).

[trisailer]

I'm rather shocked to see some of the attitudes here regarding gays. Some still believe that homosexuality is a disease, or that it's a mental disorder, or that it's disgusting...last I checked, we're in the year 2011, correct? Jingthing is correct, there was a recent survey in the US (weeks old, not from the freakin 50's) that indicated the majority of Americans supported gay marriage. And not surprisingly, it's the older folks who were against it. This is where the young have it over the old in spades. They are more tolerant and accepting. Perhaps the world would be a better place if the old bigoted views would die off with the old folks, no? Makes me embarrassed to be an older gentleman (well, not that old).

Don't worry, there's hope for us old guys yet. You can teach an old dog new tricks. I am one of those people who prescribed to the "separate but equal" argument for many years, but when I saw the issue presented as a equal rights question where gay couples are being discriminated against I changed my thinking. They do not have the same rights as I do as a married man and that simply is not right.

I suggest that anyone who still subscribes to the "separate but equal" argument read the case that will soon be argued before the US Supreme court by two of America's most eminent lawyers; David Boies and Theodore Olson. One is a liberal and the other a Conservative. Both agree that gay couples are being denied their constitutional rights.

The recent referendums in California and Maine to permit gay marriage were very close indicating the shift in most peoples attitudes. Had it not been for the lies that were spread by the church both would have approved gay "marriage" Unfortunately the US leaves marriage up to the states to decide and that is why the soon to be decided Supreme court decision is so important. If it is decided in favor of recognizing gay marriage as a equal "marriage" than it will apply to all the states and the issue will be put to rest. 20 years from now we will all wonder what the fuss was all about just like other civil rights issues.

[happyrobert]

Why is it that if someone does not approve of something that another approves of, that the one disapproving is labeled fearful?

Why is Saraburioz and others on this thread labeled "homophobic?" Are you afraid of homosexuals, saraburioz? Or do you just exercise your right to disagree with their demand that you approve of them? Do you run, screaming, away when a pleasant, intelligent gay engages you in a friendly conversation?

Do you feel they may attack you at any moment (outside this forum, anyway)? Do you have a persistent, intense and irrational, abnormal fear of them? When meeting a gay, do you suffer from dizziness, rapid pulse, dread or panic?

No? I didn't think so.

Nor do I. All things equal, I engage with them like anyone else. I just don't agree with the demands that some make, nor those of their hetero self-righteous-we're-better-than-you-because-we're-more-caring defenders.

I don't care one way or the other about this matter--legalize it for all I care, I still won't agree with you, though--and I see immaturity and false or unproven claims on all sides, but it is sad and offensive when people with an agenda utilize a hot button word to beat someone down.

It backfires and turns the otherwise neutral people against the namecallers. Just as statements, "we're going to win--get used to it."

Get a life.

I'm fully on board with the idea that throwing around labels gratuitously and without foundation -- whether it's (depending on the issue at hand) "homophobe", "racist" or anti-semite" or whatever - is intellectually dishonest and counterproductive if one has genuine debate or discussion in mind.

But there are times when clearly people have eraned such a label and the fact si relevant as it is a primary motivator i their argument. This predictable and overly used dodge -- 'I'm not a homophobe becasue I'm not afraid of homosexuals' -- is faulty on 2 counts: prejudice is largely about fear, conscious or not. (of course no racist, homophobe et al will admit to such a fear even if they are conscious of it). Secondly, the denial is based on a too literal approach -- but everyone knows what "homophobe" means...

Homophobia

noun: prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality

And I'm genuinely mystified by this idea -- in your post andthat of thers -- that one can be OK with homosexuals but not 'agree with it/ approve of it'. What's that about? What is there to disapprove of or not agree with? The fact that they are sexually attracted to their own gender? If so, then how can you say you aren't against homosexuality per se?

First, homophobia is a made up word by a group who selected it as a weapon to shame people who don't agree with them. Phobia is a legitimate psychiatric disorder. Sometimes a very serious one. So, here you don't like people suggesting/claiming that homosexuality is a psychiatric disorder, but you turn around and use the same tactic on others. Shame on you. I think that is a legitimate definition of hypocrisy.

Racist is a techncally correct word and there are racists in the world. Shame on them. Misogynist is a technically correct word and there are such men in the world. Shame on them.

Second, I do not approve of homosexuality. But to each his own. Many males regale others with their sexual exploits. I do not. I don't enjoy hearing about how someone shagged so-and-so from heterosexuals, and I don't enjoy it from homosexuals.

Do what you want to do in your own home between consenting adults. Get the laws changed if you can. I do not demand that my gay friends and co-workers approve of what I do in my bedroom. That would make me insecure and be indicative of low self-esteem. I don't need your approval.

And do not demand that I must approve of what you do.

A supreme court justice once wisely stated, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Live your life and let me live mine without criticism, threats and name calling.

[Richard4849]

"First, homophobia is a made up word by a group who selected it as a weapon to shame people who don't agree with them."

Wrong. The word was first coined in an article in "Screw" magazine in the US in the 1960's, to describe straight men who had a fear of being misidentified as gay. The writer who coined it wasn't gay, and he wasn't harping on gay rights. It's right there on Wikipedia -- look it up.

Phobia is a legitimate psychiatric disorder. Sometimes a very serious one. So, here you don't like people suggesting/claiming that homosexuality is a psychiatric disorder, but you turn around and use the same tactic on others. Shame on you. I think that is a legitimate definition of hypocrisy."

You are getting way, way, too worked up on semantics. No one has ever suggested that being prejudiced against gays is a mental illness. You are tearing apart a made-up word -- one that was made up on the fly in a sex tabloid, but one that has stuck -- to try to get to a root meaning that just does not apply.

The research community agrees that it is not the best word to mean a prejudice against or hatred of gays. Other terms have been proposed (homonegativism, among them).

In the meantime, "homophobia" has stuck. But you are taking the word far, far, too literally if you think that it actually means someone has a mental disease if they are prejudiced against gays.

So, in my opinion, you need to get your hackles down on this trivial point.

[sbk]

Off topic bickering deleted. This is a public forum and if you post here you can expect others to respond. If you aren't willing to entertain that notion, then I suggest you refrain from posting.

Keep it civil and mind your manners

[jdinasia]

Why is it that if someone does not approve of something that another approves of, that the one disapproving is labeled fearful?

Why is Saraburioz and others on this thread labeled "homophobic?" Are you afraid of homosexuals, saraburioz? Or do you just exercise your right to disagree with their demand that you approve of them? Do you run, screaming, away when a pleasant, intelligent gay engages you in a friendly conversation?

Do you feel they may attack you at any moment (outside this forum, anyway)? Do you have a persistent, intense and irrational, abnormal fear of them? When meeting a gay, do you suffer from dizziness, rapid pulse, dread or panic?

No? I didn't think so.

Nor do I. All things equal, I engage with them like anyone else. I just don't agree with the demands that some make, nor those of their hetero self-righteous-we're-better-than-you-because-we're-more-caring defenders.

I don't care one way or the other about this matter--legalize it for all I care, I still won't agree with you, though--and I see immaturity and false or unproven claims on all sides, but it is sad and offensive when people with an agenda utilize a hot button word to beat someone down.

It backfires and turns the otherwise neutral people against the namecallers. Just as statements, "we're going to win--get used to it."

Get a life.

I'm fully on board with the idea that throwing around labels gratuitously and without foundation -- whether it's (depending on the issue at hand) "homophobe", "racist" or anti-semite" or whatever - is intellectually dishonest and counterproductive if one has genuine debate or discussion in mind.

But there are times when clearly people have eraned such a label and the fact si relevant as it is a primary motivator i their argument. This predictable and overly used dodge -- 'I'm not a homophobe becasue I'm not afraid of homosexuals' -- is faulty on 2 counts: prejudice is largely about fear, conscious or not. (of course no racist, homophobe et al will admit to such a fear even if they are conscious of it). Secondly, the denial is based on a too literal approach -- but everyone knows what "homophobe" means...

Homophobia

noun: prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality

And I'm genuinely mystified by this idea -- in your post andthat of thers -- that one can be OK with homosexuals but not 'agree with it/ approve of it'. What's that about? What is there to disapprove of or not agree with? The fact that they are sexually attracted to their own gender? If so, then how can you say you aren't against homosexuality per se?

First, homophobia is a made up word by a group who selected it as a weapon to shame people who don't agree with them. Phobia is a legitimate psychiatric disorder. Sometimes a very serious one. So, here you don't like people suggesting/claiming that homosexuality is a psychiatric disorder, but you turn around and use the same tactic on others. Shame on you. I think that is a legitimate definition of hypocrisy.

Racist is a techncally correct word and there are racists in the world. Shame on them. Misogynist is a technically correct word and there are such men in the world. Shame on them.

Second, I do not approve of homosexuality. But to each his own. Many males regale others with their sexual exploits. I do not. I don't enjoy hearing about how someone shagged so-and-so from heterosexuals, and I don't enjoy it from homosexuals.

Do what you want to do in your own home between consenting adults. Get the laws changed if you can. I do not demand that my gay friends and co-workers approve of what I do in my bedroom. That would make me insecure and be indicative of low self-esteem. I don't need your approval.

And do not demand that I must approve of what you do.

A supreme court justice once wisely stated, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Live your life and let me live mine without criticism, threats and name calling.

That's a silly argument, isn't it?

Homophobia is a word like all words ... that is "made up". Your claim (incorrect) of why it was "made up" rightly doesn't matter as it is a real word used in common English. As is xenophobia etc

http://phobialist.com/

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/105/3/440/ The APA certainly discusses homophobia ---I do not believe that there is a clinical definition for homophobia in the most recent DSM.

Your second point ... flawed logic. Either it is "each to his own", which certainly implies tacit approval that people have rights to do as they will in their private lives ..... OR it is "I do not approve". Playing it both ways isn't sensible. Your non-approval of the public discussion of private sexual acts is an absolute statement that for some reason you divide into two parts. --- you apparently don't approve of men speaking publicly about their private sexual behavior. You do not comment on women. The difference between a civil libertarian and someone who is not .... is obvious. I'll defend your right to cross the street or close your eyes when my BF and I walk down the street hand in hand ((something we rarely do --- not out of fear of how some bigot (not applying this term to you) will react, but out of a marginal deference to social custom in Thailand. We have walked hand in hand more on the beach and other more romantic places

Your supreme ct. justice statement would appear to favor legislation for equality. You must realize though that the justice did not make any statement regarding your rights ending at your eyes or ears

[jdinasia]

It is interesting that being gay was considered a mental disease until very recently and all the psychiatry books described it that way. Homosexuals were just as despised as pedophiles are now. It makes one wonder about the conventional wisdom on a lot of things.

Very recently?

I will assume you linking the discussion of homosexuals and pedophiles is nothing more than baiting and leave that one alone.

Flawed argument again UG --- it presupposes that in the places it was considered an illness are significant ---- it ignores the rest of the world and it suggests that 38 years ago is "recent"... If you were from South Africa you could make the same argument about blacks being biologically and mentally inferior with a date 20 years more recent. Jews have been targetted too and historically so far longer than gays have ...

It does say a lot about "conventional wisdom" though

[Ulysses G.]

It is interesting that being gay was considered a mental disease until very recently and all the psychiatry books described it that way. Homosexuals were just as despised as pedophiles are now. It makes one wonder about the conventional wisdom on a lot of things.

Very recently?

I will assume you linking the discussion of homosexuals and pedophiles is nothing more than baiting and leave that one alone.

Flawed argument again UG --- it presupposes that in the places it was considered an illness are significant ---- it ignores the rest of the world and it suggests that 38 years ago is "recent"... If you were from South Africa you could make the same argument about blacks being biologically and mentally inferior with a date 20 years more recent. Jews have been targetted too and historically so far longer than gays have ...

It does say a lot about "conventional wisdom" though

What "argument"? Why are you getting so defensive? You are arguing for the sake of arguing. I am not baiting. I am trying to point out how things were in most of our lifetimes (that seems recently to me) and that it is wrong, but it was how most people thought.

To me it seems that what I wrote was very clear, but if not, I apologize.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[jdinasia]

It is interesting that being gay was considered a mental disease until very recently and all the psychiatry books described it that way. Homosexuals were just as despised as pedophiles are now. It makes one wonder about the conventional wisdom on a lot of things.

Very recently?

I will assume you linking the discussion of homosexuals and pedophiles is nothing more than baiting and leave that one alone.

Flawed argument again UG --- it presupposes that in the places it was considered an illness are significant ---- it ignores the rest of the world and it suggests that 38 years ago is "recent"... If you were from South Africa you could make the same argument about blacks being biologically and mentally inferior with a date 20 years more recent. Jews have been targetted too and historically so far longer than gays have ...

It does say a lot about "conventional wisdom" though

What "argument"? Why are you getting so defensive? You are arguing for the sake of arguing. I am not baiting. I am trying to point out how things were in most of our lifetimes (that seems recently to me) and that it is wrong, but it was how most people thought.

To me it seems that what I wrote was very clear, but if not, I apologize.

Actually the post I replied to with the pedophile remark wasn't clear as it possibly reflects a connection between the two ---- that not only doesn't exist but also is commonly used as a club to beat the gay rights movement with.

That being said --- your posts afterwards were clear and I should have revised my post to indicate that.

Most of MY lifetime homosexuality has not been listed as a mental illness. I was 9 when that was changed 38 years ago. That means you'd have to be over 76 years old for it to be most of your lifetime. It really was a long time ago that it was changed.

[Ulysses G.]

I am 55 and I said that it was that way in most of our lifetimes, not for most of our lifetimes.

The pedophile remark was not meant to compare the two. It was meant to point out how homosexuality was thought of not very long ago - even though it shouldn't have been.

I can not think of anything else to illustrate how much things have changed in - what seems to me - to be not a long time.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[jdinasia]

I am 55 and I said that it was that way in most of our lifetimes, not for most of our lifetimes.

The pedophile remark was not meant to compare the two. It was meant to point out how homosexuality was thought of not very long ago - even though it shouldn't have been.

I can not think of anything else to illustrate how much things have changed in - what seems to me - to be not a long time.

Again --- I concede that your further posts defined your position better than the one I replied to, and I should have revised my reply.

We will have to disagree about history --- I was 9 when they deleted homosexuality and am 47 now --- that seems like a LONG time ago to still have people using (in this very thread) the concept that homosexuality is a mental illness. (granted the guy had to use a 1956 Time magazine book review to do it ...)

I can think of several things that more recently and directly show much more radical change --- Apartheid ending in the 1990's

I can also think of situations not based upon the US that show far more tolerance of homosexuality going back to before you were born --- in some pretty strange places for it to be tolerated --- Like Jordan in 1951

[SteeleJoe]

First, homophobia is a made up word by a group who selected it as a weapon to shame people who don't agree with them. Phobia is a legitimate psychiatric disorder. Sometimes a very serious one. So, here you don't like people suggesting/claiming that homosexuality is a psychiatric disorder, but you turn around and use the same tactic on others. Shame on you. I think that is a legitimate definition of hypocrisy.

Gee, you seem awfully worked up.

All words are "made up". The dictionary is FULL of words that once had a different meaning or which if broken down to their derivative parts and interpreted 100% literally would have a completely different meaning than the one that is commonly understood.

Shame on me? It's an absurd straw man to claim I am claiming/suggesting that "homophobes" have a psychiatric disorder. Everyone know what the word means. if you are a language pedant (I can relate to that) and it irks that the word doesn't conform to your rigid definition of what is a phobia and therefore should not contain that suffix, fine. But that's a seprate issue from equal rights for homosexuals.

Let's try this instead of homophobe lets insert "people who suffer from an irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality" -- everybody knows that what it means (whether they agree that such people exist or not) and that's what the dictionaries say.

Second, I do not approve of homosexuality. But to each his own. Many males regale others with their sexual exploits. I do not. I don't enjoy hearing about how someone shagged so-and-so from heterosexuals, and I don't enjoy it from homosexuals.

Why would you ever consider approving or disapproving of sexual activity between consenting adults that does no harm to anyone? How very odd. Approve?

And I don't enjoy hearing about how someone shagged so-and-so from heterosexuals -- and it hasn't happened since I was a teenager, as I don't hang out with people like that I guess -- and I can't imagine I'd enjoy it from homosexuals neither -- but that's NEVER happened to me. It seems a very odd thing to be worried about - or to even bring up in this context.

Do what you want to do in your own home between consenting adults. Get the laws changed if you can. I do not demand that my gay friends and co-workers approve of what I do in my bedroom. That would make me insecure and be indicative of low self-esteem. I don't need your approval.

And do not demand that I must approve of what you do.

Say what? First of all, I'm not Gay so presumably I have your approval (yipee). But where do you get the idea that anyone -- including Gay men -- has asked for it?

But out of curiousity, and leaving aside why you think you are in a position to "approve" or "disapprove" of what consenting adults do in bed, why do you disapprove of men having sex together?

[trisailer]

The vast majority of people support allowing gays to marry. The TV poll currently shows 53% in favor of "marriage" and that majority is reflected in polls in the US (I don't know about other places).

Unfortunately when the issue comes up for a vote, as it has in California and Maine the church pulls out all the stops to mis-characterize gay marriage using lies and deception.

Hopefully the US Supreme Court will decide the issue soon. Weather they decide in favor or against I am sure that gays will eventually have the right to marry. More and more people every year are recognizing the suffering that is caused to citizens who are denied this basic right. I am also sure that after they gain this right nobody will be able to remember what the fuss was all about.

[SteeleJoe]

The vast majority of people support allowing gays to marry. The TV poll currently shows 53% in favor of "marriage" and that majority is reflected in polls in the US (I don't know about other places).

You have an interesting idea of "vast"! (And apparently base it entirely on the US populace and responders to a poll on TV -- maybe there's some people you're leaving out?)

Edited June 5, 2011 by SteeleJoe