Prop 8

[jennylovskt]

And how exactly would that be a bad thing?

There are already too many people on the planet and the World's population only keeps increasing. We need less reproduction, something which homosexuality naturally lends itself to.

Bad thing, because it's morally unconscious. (I am talking about the non-biological "gays".) I am puzzled that how can one cheers on the result from it, even though the world is overly populated.

It won't have result, so I will stop on this topic.

You're not truly worried about the well being of the next generations, you're worried about your perceptions being wrong.

:scratch: Why should I?

 

[Bennett]

If you view homosexuality as wrong based on your faith or values, that's your own affair; I will certainly not tell anyone what to believe. But by arguing that gay people should be denied certain rights, you are forcing your beliefs on others - the very thing you seem to suggest LGBT people are doing. Can you really argue, taking into consideration historical and (sadly) contemporary attitudes regarding homosexuality, that people choose to be gay? Certainly many gay people are happy with who they are, with their identity and their relationships - which I think is wonderful. But homosexuals are still discriminated against in many places, and not accepted fully. It can be very difficult to live one's life out of the closet, which is why so many people remain in it.

I am just curious, are gay ppl often violently attacked in Europe and England, as it is common in the US?

In a country like Japan, I would never say that homosexuality is widely accepted. There are a lot of discriminations and few ppl would come out. On the other hand, gay ppl would not be a frequent target of violent attacks perhaps because being gay is not necessarily associated with sin of a religious term in the Japanese cultural/religious climate. So there are less religous/moral discussions on this matter.

I understand that in Europe, Oscar Wilde went to the jail for that at the turn of the century (BTW, I find De Profundis a masterpiece) and gay ppl were went to concentration camps during WWII. But I also know that the general public in most of the contemporary European countries and England are not as religious as the general public in the contemporary US. So I wonder if the situations could be a bit different over there than the ones in the US.

 

[Tonichelle]

how does religious discussion = violence?

it's no secret that during WW2 Hitler sent anyone who appeared to be homosexual to a concentration camp - recent reports/books have even suggested he himself was gay.... considering his family was partially Jewish (I'm tired I can't remember if it was his mother or father's side) it seems he was destroying everything about himself that he hated, for whatever twisted reason (no doubt the man was twisted. not matter what religious, biological, etc preference he had)

 

[Bennett]

how does religious discussion = violence?

it's no secret that during WW2 Hitler sent anyone who appeared to be homosexual to a concentration camp - recent reports/books have even suggested he himself was gay.... considering his family was partially Jewish (I'm tired I can't remember if it was his mother or father's side) it seems he was destroying everything about himself that he hated, for whatever twisted reason (no doubt the man was twisted. not matter what religious, biological, etc preference he had)

I do not think that my writing was well enough even though I never said in my post that religious discussion = violence, which sounds a lot more simplistic than my own thoughts. I was trying to make the point that in a society like Japan where the religions did not associate homosexuality with sin, there has been a paucity of socially organized beliefs/discourses that are strongly against homosexuality that promote moral reproaches against gay ppl. I don't think that homosexuality has been considered as sinful or criminal in the Japanese history, even though it may have been seen as shameful by some. There are a lot of ppl who hate gay, but I think that a paucity of moral reproach and criminal publishment in history has a lot to do with the way religion defined or did not define homosexuality there.
I also acknowledge that there are a lot of unreligious ppl who attack gays, by abusing religious discourses and that those who go the extreme would be only fundamentalists.

 

[Buttercup]

I am just curious, are gay ppl often violently attacked in Europe and England, as it is common in the US?

In a country like Japan, I would never say that homosexuality is widely accepted. There are a lot of discriminations and few ppl would come out. On the other hand, gay ppl would not be a frequent target of violent attacks perhaps because being gay is not necessarily associated with sin of a religious term in the Japanese cultural/religious climate. So there are less religous/moral discussions on this matter.

Bennett, I don't know about frequency of violent acts against gay people; I was mostly referring to more subtle expressions of homophobia that still persist today, even in gay-friendly countries - as you wrote in your post.

Among my friends, nobody cares if someone is gay or straight - but I'm not sure my friends and I, being young and relatively liberal, are representative of broader society. Maybe one or two generations down the road we'll get to a point where the vast majority of people will consider sexual orientation a non-issue. I don't think we're there yet.

 

[Bennett]

Bennett, I don't know about frequency of violent acts against gay people; I was mostly referring to more subtle expressions of homophobia that still persist today, even in gay-friendly countries - as you wrote in your post.

Among my friends, nobody cares if someone is gay or straight - but I'm not sure my friends and I, being young and relatively liberal, are representative of broader society. Maybe one or two generations down the road we'll get to a point where the vast majority of people will consider sexual orientation a non-issue. I don't think we're there yet.

Thanks, Buttercup, for your insights.
I think that "homophobia" is the thing that I perceive a lot more strongly in the US than in Japan. Physical violence is one of the most extreme forms of it. Perhaps I should have focused my discussions on homophobia in my original post, rather than focusing on such extreme examples as physical violence, camps, and criminal cases. Having said that, my gay friends who have lived in both Japan and the US do say that they feel safer in Japan. A part of the factors may be merely because of the general security in Japan. Putting this issue in a historical context, however, I would also think that differences in cultural/religious backgrounds on this matter is another major issue that is in play. So I wondered if the secularization in Europe and England might play some role in the changing perceptions about homosexuality from the past.
But this also may have a lot to do with political movements of minority groups in general. LGBT movements borrow and extend a lot of discourses that have been used in feminism, for example. So I would imagine that not only secularization, but also the general trends towards liberalization might be another factor which may have led to relatively gay-friendly societies.
ETA: In that aspect, I think that LGBT political movements in the US have made tremendous achievements in many areas, which would be followed by more to come.

 

[antmanb]

Sorry, you are not the only one who knows biology.

What is about 5% of those from biological reasons for being gays (those are the gays that I respect. Of course, no one, even themselves sometimes, know what is real. So it's better to respect them all but not emphasize and encourage it.) has been enlarged by all the irresposible behaviors to make it looks like the base is over 30%. I am worried about the next and next, next generations. It's for sure that we are going to have more and more "gays" in the generations to come if we continue to emphasize it. Those are not the gays from biological reasons, but from confusion and twist of emotions, from disappointments and rejects by the other sex, from the educations in the growing up period.... I truly believe that there are a large number of gays who are not biological gays. You know what? The natural reproductive process will be less and less in this way, and that is against nature which I am talking about.

I have yet to read or be pointed in the direction of any hard scientific eveidence to suggest that any percentage of people become gay because of biological reasons.

If exposing people to the possibility of being gay was such an encouraging factor in them becoming gay and leads to greater and greater numbers (which by the way i don't think is true - i think the number of gay people has remained constant it's the number of people who now have the confidence to be out that has gone up) then why hasn't active positive propaganda for marriage, in not committing crimes etc etc not worked and divorce and crime rates are up?

I just don't think these things wash as legitimate arguments.

Ant

 

[antmanb]

I am just curious, are gay ppl often violently attacked in Europe and England, as it is common in the US?

In a country like Japan, I would never say that homosexuality is widely accepted. There are a lot of discriminations and few ppl would come out. On the other hand, gay ppl would not be a frequent target of violent attacks perhaps because being gay is not necessarily associated with sin of a religious term in the Japanese cultural/religious climate. So there are less religous/moral discussions on this matter.

I understand that in Europe, Oscar Wilde went to the jail for that at the turn of the century (BTW, I find De Profundis a masterpiece) and gay ppl were went to concentration camps during WWII. But I also know that the general public in most of the contemporary European countries and England are not as religious as the general public in the contemporary US. So I wonder if the situations could be a bit different over there than the ones in the US.

Homosexuality in the UK was illegal until the Sexual Offences act 1967 was passed, so until 1967 it was illegal.

I don't know how frequently violence against homosexuals in the US occurs or how widely or well it is reported.

In the UK certainly - homophobic attacks are still fairly rife. Only the really high profile cases tend to be reported and even then sometimes they're not even deemed news (it seems reporting on stabbings is du jour at the moment so every last stabbing in reported and re-reported but a teen in blackpool who was was recently killed a horrific homphobic attack barely made the local press certainly not the national press).

Police figures in the UK are admittedly not accurate because less than 40% of homophobic attacks are even reported, either because of the circumstances (sometimes these attacks occur in areas known as gay cruising grounds e.g. Hampstead Heath in London), or because of the perception that the police will not be sympathetic.

The last very high profile attack that killed and hurt many people all in one go was a nail bomb that went off in the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho in London (on comptom street which has several gay pubs on it) i think this was about 8 years ago or so.

Personally i live in Manchester which has one of the highest number of gay people living in it. There is a large area of the city near the canal which is full of restaurants/bars/pubs/clubs/shops which are all "gay" or gay friendly. All of the cities varied counselling and support services for LGBT people are there too. The city is a very cosmopolitan multi-racial diverse city. Europride was held here just a couple of years ago. I think it is widely accepted here and the "gay village" is a large tourist attraction and adds something to an already bustling and busy city. If i want to walkthrough the city hand in hand with my partner no-one would bat an eyelid, except maybe people not from the area!

Sadly i think attacks do still happen fairly frequently both in big cities and in more rural areas. In reality I think people in more rural areas either stay in the closet, or eventually move to the more accepting sites of the big cities in the UK.

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

On biological discussions of the Gay gene or many other factors which make a person a gay person, there is no evidence that it is a choice. Absolutely none!

The religious zealots' view is that it is sin brought about by choice, and it provokes god's anger into eathquakes, deluges, and forest fires to punish all the people for allowing gays to exist. (Should we kill them? Mercifully, of course.) Jerry Falwell made a lot of money blaming all catastrophes on gays, and he admitted it.

Can you imagine a 7 year old boy or girl waking up one morning and telling their mothers that they choose to be gay?

 

[Bennett]

Homosexuality in the UK was illegal until the Sexual Offences act 1967 was passed, so until 1967 it was illegal.

I don't know how frequently violence against homosexuals in the US occurs or how widely or well it is reported.

In the UK certainly - homophobic attacks are still fairly rife. Only the really high profile cases tend to be reported and even then sometimes they're not even deemed news (it seems reporting on stabbings is du jour at the moment so every last stabbing in reported and re-reported but a teen in blackpool who was was recently killed a horrific homphobic attack barely made the local press certainly not the national press).

Police figures in the UK are admittedly not accurate because less than 40% of homophobic attacks are even reported, either because of the circumstances (sometimes these attacks occur in areas known as gay cruising grounds e.g. Hampstead Heath in London), or because of the perception that the police will not be sympathetic.

The last very high profile attack that killed and hurt many people all in one go was a nail bomb that went off in the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho in London (on comptom street which has several gay pubs on it) i think this was about 8 years ago or so.

Personally i live in Manchester which has one of the highest number of gay people living in it. There is a large area of the city near the canal which is full of restaurants/bars/pubs/clubs/shops which are all "gay" or gay friendly. All of the cities varied counselling and support services for LGBT people are there too. The city is a very cosmopolitan multi-racial diverse city. Europride was held here just a couple of years ago. I think it is widely accepted here and the "gay village" is a large tourist attraction and adds something to an already bustling and busy city. If i want to walkthrough the city hand in hand with my partner no-one would bat an eyelid, except maybe people not from the area!

Sadly i think attacks do still happen fairly frequently both in big cities and in more rural areas. In reality I think people in more rural areas either stay in the closet, or eventually move to the more accepting sites of the big cities in the UK.

Ant

Thank you for your informative post. 1967 is indeed quite recent! What were the rationales and socio-cultural backgrounds for the British society to legally ban it until then?

I am also very sorry to hear about the gay attacks in the UK. Do you think that the rate of incidents are declining (Though it may be hard to tell if they are not often reported)?

It's interesting to hear about the area you mentioned. Who run the counselling and support services? Are they non-profit organizations? Do they get financial support from the government?

ETA: regarding the incident rate in the US, Wikipedia lists the following statistics (but I could not get the stats for the overall incident rate. Perhaps you could do math if you could find the incident rate or number of hate crimes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#cite_note-fbicrime-64

In the United States, the FBI reported that 15.6% of hate crimes reported to police in 2004 were based on perceived sexual orientation. Sixty-one percent of these attacks were against gay men

ETA2: I also learned from Wikipedia that Japan also had a legal restriction on homosexuality five years after the country opened to the Western societies. But the laws lasted only seven years (1872/3-1880).
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/同性愛者

 

[Medusa]

BBC Docu Drama about Homosexuality in Britain - not safe for work, NC-17 (?)! If you want to see the rest, just click on poster of the vids.

The front-runner for gay rights in Europe is France. And I mean front-runner. Before the French Revolution homosexuality was a capital crime - but even back then very very few died, I think 5 men during the 18th century. There are examples of famous Frenchmen, e.g. Jean-Baptiste Lully, a famous composer of the early Baroque, who was often reprimanded by the Sun King for his numerous affairs with women and men alike - but managed to stay at court for his entire life. Homosexuality/homosexual activities became legal in 1791 after the French Revolution - Napoleon kept those laws and every French republic / empire / government of France, except for the Nazi-regime during the 2nd World War, kept those laws. It's pretty amazing.

One of the main authors of the Code Civil (Napoleonic Code) was Jean-Jacques-Régis de Cambacérès and he was openly gay - Wiki says about this

His sexual orientation was well-known, and he does not seem to have made any effort to conceal it. He remained unmarried, and kept to the company of other bachelors. Napoleon is recorded as making a number of jokes on the subject.

After Napoleon conquered most of Europe - his laws were implemented in the conquered countries. This is, among other things, why Napoleon isn't seen solely as a monster as Hitler or Stalin or other monarchs / dictators are. Napoleon's laws, his Code, brought liberty and certain equality to Europe in a way most parts of Europe hadn't experienced before - e.g. freedom of religion (Aachen, the city where I live, got its first protestant church the year Napoleon conquered it - because before he came everyone had to be Catholic).

So for a short time homosexuality wasn't illegal in major parts of Europe. That of course didn't change the prejudices in the heads of the people - but it was an important step. Some countries brought back the old laws as soon as Napoleon was banned.

The Dutch e.g. brought back sodomy laws in 1913, right after Napoleon left the stage. In the end they were quite progressive anyway and legalised homosexuality early in 1911, they were the first country in the World to legalise same-sex marriage and an overwhelming 82% of the population of the Netherlands are in favour of same-sex marriage, that is the highest percentage anywhere in the World.

Their neighbours and brothers, Belgium, were even more progressive, despite the fact that Belgium is more Catholic and the Netherlands are more Protestant. In 1843 homosexuality was decriminalised in Belgium and it hasn't been a crime since (times of occupation excepted ). In 2003 Belgium became the second country to legalise gay marriage and 62% of the population were in favour of gay marriage in 2006. I would explain the difference between the Netherlands and Belgium here with the fact that Belgium is mostly Catholic. Interesting is also that anti-discrimination laws exist since the 80ies in Belgium, which is quite early.

I live about 0,8km from the Dutch border and 2,5km from the Belgium border, I understand both French and Dutch and know lots of people there - and I haven't heard anything about discrimination or hate crimes, not even once.

But those things always happen, in France the case of Sebastian Nouchet was especially prominent about 5 years ago. He was harassed for months and later burnt alive. France created a new law after that, making it possible that people can be jailed for sexist and anti-gay remarks for a maximum of a year (so, be very careful what you say in France...).

European Union 44% 32%
Netherlands 82% 69%
Sweden 71% 51%
Denmark 69% 44%
Belgium 62% 43%
Luxembourg 58% 39%
Spain 56% 43%
Germany 52% 42%
Czech Republic 52% 24%

Oi, finally found the whole statistic concerning gay marriage here. The eight countries listed above are the ones where the population is in favour of gay marriage. So the first number is for gay marriage, the second one is for complete adoption rights. I always thought that a EU average of 44% is pretty bad, but considering that we have lots of people in the Union who, because of the enlargement in 2004 and 2007, live in countries where homosexuality was 20 years ago a crime worthy of a long and extended vacation in Siberia - 44% doesn't sound too bad.

Funnily enough, only 3 out of the 8 listed above allow gay marriage (Norway is the 4th European country that allows gay marriage, but it is not part of the European Union). It looks good in Sweden though. Other polls suggest different numbers, a poll in 2005 found that 53% of the population in the European Union was in favour of same-sex marriage - but that was without Bulgaria and Romania. Another poll in France actually concluded that over 60% of the French population is in favour of gay marriage and nearly 50% is in favour of gay adoption - and these numbers seem more accurate in my opinion, 48% sounds very low.

3 countries of the European Union have a constitutional ban against gay marriage, these happen to be the usual suspects: Poland, Lithuania, Latvia.

I guess some people expect the European Union to act, but I doubt it will happen. They do that sometimes, e.g. the Highest European Court ruled in the late 90ties that Germany has to allow women access to military service (which was forbidden till then) and that ruling applied to the entire European Union then. But as I said, I doubt this will happen with gay marriage - it just wouldn't be the smartest political move by the Union. They wrote a paper once though - where they urged the member countries to ensure equal rights for everyone etc. - but hey, nobody listens to some official paper they write.

 

[antmanb]

Thank you for your informative post. 1967 is indeed quite recent! What were the rationales and socio-cultural backgrounds for the British society to legally ban it until then?

The usual biggotry?! I'm being flippant but isn't that always the way? You have to remember that England has more or less been a religious country - that is why we have blasphemy laws in the UK applying only to church of england denominations - state and church are not separate. If i recall correctly - the Queen is not only the head of state but also head of the Church of England. I suppose that historically people have pointed to religion as a justification for making homsexuality illegal. Interstingly the statutes outlawing homsexuality applied only to men as queen victoria could not even conceive of lesbianism, so it has only ever been men who were subject to prosecution!

I am also very sorry to hear about the gay attacks in the UK. Do you think that the rate of incidents are declining (Though it may be hard to tell if they are not often reported)?

I honestly don't know, i was only very young in the 80s which is when i understand there was a huge increase in homophobic attacks largely based on the outbreak of HIV and AIDS which many back in the day dubed a Gay disease. The concervative government here through Margaret Tatcher did nothing to dispell this myth and furthermore enacted the famous "section 28" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28 which outlawed the publishing of materials "promoting" homosexuality and more importantly that any state schools (which is the overwhelming majority in the UK) could not "promote" homosexuality as a valid alternative family life. My impression is that in the 80s homophobic attacks were more frequent and a large number of the population thought it was an acceptable risk and part and parcel of being gay.

While i think public feeling has changed tremendouly there are still the minority of hate mongers who will still commit these crimes. Legislation has been enacted in this country to stop people frmo not providing goods or services to people based on sexual orientation, however, there are still cases where the legal system has found the wrong way. There was a high profile case recently of a lady employed by a local council who carried out civil marriages. When civil partnerships became legal she refused to carry them out based on her religious beliefs. Courts have held that she should be allowed to do so. Now to me that drives a coach and horses through the whole thing. I think her religious beliefs should have no part in secular local authority which is funded by my tax money. Her beliefs affected her ablity to carry out her job, she should therefore change jobs to one that fits with her religious beliefs. If her beliefs are help up then where do you draw the line. Another council work might object to inter-racial marriages - should their objection to it be upheld such that they don't have to carry out that integral part of their job description. Anyway I think the case is being appealed so sit tight!

IIt's interesting to hear about the area you mentioned. Who run the counselling and support services? Are they non-profit organizations? Do they get financial support from the government?

I'm not 100% sure but i think most are charitable non profit making organisations. I think some do get some minimal funding from local government, but the majority comes through chritable donations and special fund raisers that are put on. I'm very proud to say that a close personal friend helped set up a charity that is going from strength to strength, it is to support LGBT teens aged between 16 -19 who are thrown out of home by their parents as a result of their being LGBT. That is 100% funded by charity.

Ant

 

[museksk8r]

Thanks Ant, Medusa, and Bennett. Very informative and interesting posts! While it's evident the world has progressed from where we were, the LGBT community still has a very long way to go towards any sense of true equality. Here's hoping for further positive progression rather than more regression, though sadly the regression appears to be winning in the States. It really does come down to "walking a mile in the minority's shoes" and "doing unto others as you would have done to you". It really is incredibly sad that society can have such a lack of love and respect for fellow man and woman to allow Prop 8 to pass. It's like for every baby step forward we take, we end up taking a gigantic step backward, but the community must continue to press on, rise above and fight the good fight, and never give up. We shouldn't back down from a mandate that forces us to concede our happiness and our love.

 

[antmanb]

I also want to add, that in my personal experience, the most sane and easy going deabtes i've had on homosexuality have been with religious people. My experience is that truly religious people who take great pride in their faith will put great stock in loving their neighbour and treating me with perfect respect.

I think religious believers get a really bad reputation based on the actions of idiots who carry out homphobic acts (be they physical, printed anti-propaganda, or simply ignorant comments) and then later justify them by pointing at a bible or other religious book.

I have only ever heard idiots claiming the bible says Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Ant

 

[Tonichelle]

Ant - thank you for your last post.

In the UK certainly - homophobic attacks are still fairly rife. Only the really high profile cases tend to be reported and even then sometimes they're not even deemed news (it seems reporting on stabbings is du jour at the moment so every last stabbing in reported and re-reported but a teen in blackpool who was was recently killed a horrific homphobic attack barely made the local press certainly not the national press).

I just wanted to point out the media does the same here in the US... I think we heard more about it towards the turn of the millenium than we do now. We don't discuss it in any of my journalism courses... we've talked extensively on how to treat blacks in the news, or other ethnic groups, women's rights are talked more than the gay movement... it's *interesting*.

 

[Ptichka]

Ant, I know my rabbi has really struggled with this issue (I go to a Chabad house, which is extremely orthodox by definition, but the rabbi is a very welcoming and tolerant guy by nature). Two of the "original members" of his synagogue are a gay couple (in fact, the mother of one of them has contributed a very large portion of the down payment on the synagogue building which was until recently also used as the rabbi family's house). His decision has been that he welcomes this couple both to the temple and to the Shabat dinners at his house, teaches their kids in the Sunday school, etc. However, he never calls either of the gay guys to the Torah (though I suppose he will call one or both of them to Torah when their sons get bar mitzvah'ed, but that's an exception, not the rule). I don't know if you consider that to be a homophobic or a tolerant solution...

 

[Mathman]

Homophobic.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

The question at hand is proposition 8!

Would all these wonderful understanding rabbis and ministers of religious organizations vote against proposition 8? Of course not. And they will continue to discuss or preach that it is against the law of god., but be tolerant of sinners.

Interesting point here is that recent immigrants, legal and illegal voted for prop 8.

 

[Mathman]

Primary financial support for television and print ads supporting Proposition 8 came from the Mormon Church. About 2% of the population of California is Mormon. Estimates are that twenty to twenty-five million dollars, more than 50% of all the money spent on passing the proposal, came from individual Mormons at the urging of the Salt Lake City hierarchy. (They also spent $7 million in Ariziona on a similar bill.)

 

[Tonichelle]

I don't agree with any state's people coming into another state telling that state how to vote. Alaska gets a bunch of states butting into our business and it drives me nuts. We're more than capable of handling it on our own, thank you very much!