Day of Silence and Day of Truth Options

[trunks_girl26]

So, tomorrow is April 26, 2006, also known as the Day of Silence. What the Day of Silence is (from their official website) is:

Now in its tenth year, the Day of Silence, a project of GLSEN® or the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network in collaboration with the United States Student Association (USSA), is a student-led day of action where those who support making anti-LGBT bullying and harassment unacceptable in schools participate in events to recognize and protest the discrimination and harassment—in effect, the silencing—experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students and their allies.

My uni's GSA, of which I'm on the executive board for, is participating in the day of silence for the first time, so I was reading up about it. In my reading, I found what's called to be the Day of Truth, schedualed for April 27, 2006. Here's a quote from their site:

The Day of Truth was established to counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda and express an opposing viewpoint from a Christian perspective.

In the past, students who have attempted to speak against the promotion of the homosexual agenda have been censored or, in some cases, punished for their beliefs. It is important that students stand up for their First Amendment right to hear and speak the Truth about human sexuality in order to protect that freedom for future generations. The Day of Truth provides an opportunity to publicly exercise our free speech rights.

Interesting, ne?

So, I leave you fellow Matazonians with

Day of Silence

vs.

Day of Truth

(and maybe we won't turn this into a 'bash the rightwings' type thread)

Discuss how you'd like, though I am interested in also hearing which you think is more effective and why.

[gingerpig]

The Day of Truth stuff says it comes from a Christian perspective, which may or may not be appropriate to your situation - I don't know lol. Day of Truth does sound more positive, but the exaplaination behind the name, Day of Silence is pretty powerful. Maybe you could have a Day of Silence, incoporating some type of representation from different religions, if you could find suitable representatives from within those religions?

Good luck!

[Sir Psycho Sexy]

Day of Truth looses all respect for claiming their belief is true, I have no problem with what people believe, nor do I think their freedom of speech should be taken away (we have the freedom not to listen after all), but the sheer arrogance of calling it the day of truth and claiming they speak "the Truth about human sexuality" bugs me no end!

[gingerpig]

Whoops, should have read that more closely....I thought the day of Truth was promoting Christian gay people *sighs*. So it's not a choice between how you promote positive attitudes towards alternate sexualities. Personally I would have to go for the Day of Silence, just becuase of that lame old line, that I have so many gay friends, and I really dont see what it has to do with me. I like Sir Psycho's point about anything calling itself the Truth is perhaps overstating the point.

it is actually also possible to be a member of a religious group and not be homophobic, even if thats what the teachings imply. A gay member of my Buddhist community explained to me, that yes, although the Buddha was quoted as saying things that could be interpreted as being anti-gay, the real point was that you're just not supposed to be so hung up on sex (having it, not having it, who else is having it, whatever), and that, like the Bible, it was written in the language of it's time. I'm certain a lot of people would find this very hard to accept, and would argue for it to be completely written out, btu taht again would miss the point of tolerance and understanding, you have to be prepared to put yourself, and your judgements on the side for a bit and just listen. Personally I find it very hard that such things do exist, but as long as they're no being used to discriminate (and my teacher has quite a few openly gay students), then as long as they're ok, it's actually not about me.

How to translate that to your position? Well I would always try and support the underdog, and be wary of anything that tried to repress stuff, without a reasoned discussion, in fact at all. To me, anything that doesn't allow human beings free will, and the choice to make their own choices is on a hiding to nothing, as we aren't built like that, and I feel it's only through making informed choices that we can actually grow and develop as human beings. I'm certainly not anti-Christian in that, I think I just prefer it when we're trusted to be grown-ups. So I would go for the former and not the latter. If there was a lot of support from your campus for the latter, it might be very interesting to try and tale some sort of carefully controlled debate to encourage both sides to at least talk to each other. I think that would be very fun, but also probably very unpopular, and difficult to do, without either side saying you were siding with the other.

[bryden42]

I find it interesting that the Christian led day is aimed at persecuting/nay saying a life style (in a religion where tolerance and loving your fellow "man" is one of the accepted virtues) and that the LGBT day is aimed at promoting empathy for their position through an exercise that by its very nature is non agressive and passive.
You tell me which is the more negative and improper of the 2 days.

Silence isn’t freedom. It’s a constraint.
Truth tolerates open discussion, because the Truth emerges when healthy discourse is allowed.
By proclaiming the Truth in love, hurts will be halted, hearts will be healed, and lives will be saved.

the above is a quote from the day of truth site, silence is what the LGBT community has to go through in order to not be persecuted and is exactly what the day of silence is meant to show, The Truth is that LGBT relationships are full of love and through that love hurts WILL be halted, hearts WILL be healed, not sure about the lives bit! the sooner the christian and other anti communities understand this the better /endrant and right wing bashing

[Phyllis]

Day of Truth looses all respect for claiming their belief is true, I have no problem with what people believe, nor do I think their freedom of speech should be taken away (we have the freedom not to listen after all), but the sheer arrogance of calling it the day of truth and claiming they speak "the Truth about human sexuality" bugs me no end!

Not to mention that psychologists (particularly those involved in sex research) overwhelmingly disagree with them. Hmmm...who am I going to side with? Someone who has spent decades studying human behavior and learning the science of how our minds work....or someone reading from a text I don't believe in? It's not difficult to figure that one out.

[gothictheysay]

Well obviously, I think the Day of Truth is a crock of [expletive]. I like the idea of the day of silence, but for me it wasn't practical to do with school - I would want to honor them, though. I'd rather do more than just be silent about it for the effort, but I understand the reason, and I know people DO do more. I'd just rather talk. Anyway, I find it highly offensive and disgusting that people would observe this day of truth thing. The Day of Silence is to honor people who died as a result of hate crimes (I think that's what it is primarily, correct me if not) and here they are with their day of truth bashing other sexualities right after that day. It's like they're saying "we don't need to honor them, we're going to try to counter you because you're wrong, they don't deserve to be honored anyway because they are wrong too." They're not actually saying that, but that's the attitude I get.

argh.

[Astarael]

Day of Truth looses all respect for claiming their belief is true, I have no problem with what people believe, nor do I think their freedom of speech should be taken away (we have the freedom not to listen after all), but the sheer arrogance of calling it the day of truth and claiming they speak "the Truth about human sexuality" bugs me no end!

Not to mention that psychologists (particularly those involved in sex research) overwhelmingly disagree with them. Hmmm...who am I going to side with? Someone who has spent decades studying human behavior and learning the science of how our minds work....or someone reading from a text I don't believe in? It's not difficult to figure that one out.

The annoying refrain I hear about that one on other forums is that a handful of closeted gay psychologists somehow strongarmed the whole APA into declaring homosexuality not a mental disorder and the brainwashed them all into falsifying their results to reflect that homosexuality is in no way a choice. I have yet to see any proof of this that doesn't come in the form of a rant from a violently anti-gay website.
Anyway, I'd go with the Day of Silence. If I'd seen this last night then I probably would have participated. I don't see the day as being pro-gay, but rather pro-empathy. Part of the point is that GLBT teens are tired of the constant "that's so gay" and little jokes and barbs because people think they're okay. How is trying to get people to think a little before they spew insults such a horrible day of lies? I would completely approve of the Day of Truth if they kept it confined to an issue of free speech and censorship in schools, but they stepped over my mental respect line when they got to the "truth about human sexuality" bit.

[Calantyr]

Day of Truth. Yes, your truth. You do not have a monopoly on the word.

How people can think they are persecuted like this after having the law on their side for almost 2000 years I do not know...

I suppose some people need to feel like the underdog to give their opinions value, when everything seems to point out its flaws.

Yes I know this sounds like bashing, but I realy am opposed to such bigotry.

[trunks_girl26]

Day of Truth looses all respect for claiming their belief is true, I have no problem with what people believe, nor do I think their freedom of speech should be taken away (we have the freedom not to listen after all), but the sheer arrogance of calling it the day of truth and claiming they speak "the Truth about human sexuality" bugs me no end!

Not to mention that psychologists (particularly those involved in sex research) overwhelmingly disagree with them. Hmmm...who am I going to side with? Someone who has spent decades studying human behavior and learning the science of how our minds work....or someone reading from a text I don't believe in? It's not difficult to figure that one out.

The annoying refrain I hear about that one on other forums is that a handful of closeted gay psychologists somehow strongarmed the whole APA into declaring homosexuality not a mental disorder and the brainwashed them all into falsifying their results to reflect that homosexuality is in no way a choice. I have yet to see any proof of this that doesn't come in the form of a rant from a violently anti-gay website.
Anyway, I'd go with the Day of Silence. If I'd seen this last night then I probably would have participated. I don't see the day as being pro-gay, but rather pro-empathy. Part of the point is that GLBT teens are tired of the constant "that's so gay" and little jokes and barbs because people think they're okay. How is trying to get people to think a little before they spew insults such a horrible day of lies? I would completely approve of the Day of Truth if they kept it confined to an issue of free speech and censorship in schools, but they stepped over my mental respect line when they got to the "truth about human sexuality" bit.

[breaks her silence temporarily]
mental illness
n.

Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma. Also called emotional illness, mental disease, mental disorder.

well, from the technical standpoint, it could be considered one, however, I believe it's more the connotation than the denotation, which makes it unacceptable.

Personally, I believe that it's not a choice, however, I do believe that the underlying causes are a combination of genetic and environmental ones. Proof of it being environmental would be that there have been reported cases of identical twins in which one has identified as being gay and the other does not. Genetic proof would be that in gay males a portion of the brain seems to be larger (which part escapes me as of now) than in straight ones. Of course, there's still a lot of reasearch that is still going on, (and there may sctualy be cases in which some are choosing, though my guess would be very few) but you wanted proof that wasn't a rant, and there you go .

[/breaking her silence temporarily]

[pgrmdave]

Genetic proof would be that in gay males a portion of the brain seems to be larger (which part escapes me as of now) than in straight ones.

While I agree that genes play a part of it, I think this fails as a proof - it's a case of causation vs. correlation, we don't know if the brain was changed by the environment to be gay, thus part became larger, or whether that part of the brain was larger, thus the person had a higher chance of becoming gay. Better proof is in the research in which certain genes have been changed in another animal to 'induce' homosexuality.Genetic proof would be that in gay males a portion of the brain seems to be larger (which part escapes me as of now) than in straight ones.

[trunks_girl26]

Genetic proof would be that in gay males a portion of the brain seems to be larger (which part escapes me as of now) than in straight ones.

While I agree that genes play a part of it, I think this fails as a proof - it's a case of causation vs. correlation, we don't know if the brain was changed by the environment to be gay, thus part became larger, or whether that part of the brain was larger, thus the person had a higher chance of becoming gay. Better proof is in the research in which certain genes have been changed in another animal to 'induce' homosexuality.Genetic proof would be that in gay males a portion of the brain seems to be larger (which part escapes me as of now) than in straight ones.

See, that would be why I put in the bit where there's still testing, though I admit it was bad wording on my part.

[gothictheysay]

People who think it's a choice should TRY choosing. I could "choose" to be a lesbian, but man, I'd still be attracted to guys.

[trunks_girl26]

People who think it's a choice should TRY choosing. I could "choose" to be a lesbian, but man, I'd still be attracted to guys.

I think the "it's a choice" argument is rather amusing, especially when it's considered from the standpoint of the teenager, which is when many people find out ("choose") to be gay.

I tend to wonder why so many people would choose to be something for which they are ridiculed and tormented for.

[Astarael]

[breaks her silence temporarily]
mental illness
n.

Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma. Also called emotional illness, mental disease, mental disorder.

well, from the technical standpoint, it could be considered one, however, I believe it's more the connotation than the denotation, which makes it unacceptable.

Personally, I believe that it's not a choice, however, I do believe that the underlying causes are a combination of genetic and environmental ones. Proof of it being environmental would be that there have been reported cases of identical twins in which one has identified as being gay and the other does not. Genetic proof would be that in gay males a portion of the brain seems to be larger (which part escapes me as of now) than in straight ones. Of course, there's still a lot of reasearch that is still going on, (and there may sctualy be cases in which some are choosing, though my guess would be very few) but you wanted proof that wasn't a rant, and there you go .

[/breaking her silence temporarily]

Thanks for the information! (and to dave for the other stuff.) The connoatation is indeed the problem- we see diseases as bad things that need to be fixed, so a technically correct classification becomes a slanted insult. It's nice to see a more levelhead approach to the subject. I'm sorry for not clarifying it properly- those who call it a mental disorder generally mean it in the context of "mental disorder that needs immediate and violent therapy to be cured because it's so horrible" and say that they have absolute proof. I'm inclined towards your genetic and environmental theory, as it seems to make far more sense than one cause that we can't seem to find or people choosing something that puts them in the path of many problems and a lot of ridicule.

[Phyllis]

I'm inclined towards your genetic and environmental theory, as it seems to make far more sense than one cause that we can't seem to find or people choosing something that puts them in the path of many problems and a lot of ridicule.

That's the official stance of the APA -- that the cause is not known, but it's believed to be a variety of genetic and environmental factors.

[Saratina]

It's difficult and frustrating to participate in this sort of debate (Christians vs. homosexuals) when you belong to both sides.


That is all.

[trunks_girl26]

It's difficult and frustrating to participate in this sort of debate (Christians vs. homosexuals) when you belong to both sides.


That is all.

One of my best friends is both Catholic and gay.

Yeah, it's not a fun situation sometimes.

[{Gothic Angel}]

I agree with SPS that calling your opinion fact is extremely irrtating. I actually went to a communion mass last sunday (my local church holds "rockmass", which is a mass where all the hymns and music are rock music, and there are cool lighting effects and things) to see my friend perform, whilst notbeing christian myself, and I found much the same attitude there - you have free will, but you're going to hell if you don't follow christ. I pointed out that I had lived a relatively sin-free life according to the bible, with the one rider I don't believe in Christ or God, and was told I would still go to hell, so... yes. Our way is the only way is a bad thing to be promoting and a bad persuasional tactic. </spam>

On the sexuality side of things I think there was an article in New Scientist about this a while back. It cited several examples from nature of homosexual tendencies in animals (including female hyenas - you'd have to look up the specifics, as this was a long time ago), where obviously no conscious decision is made due to peer pressure or whatever. Personally, I don't know about you, but I'm not really in control over who I'm attracted to, and I'm inclined to believe homo/bisexual people aren't either. Ergo, even without my predisposition to be against some christian dogma, I would support the Day of Silence first.

Also - FREE WILL! If someone can "choose" to be gay, it's their choice, so let them go to hell. Besides, if it were really all that bad, wouldn't we be due another great flood round about now?

[trunks_girl26]

Also - FREE WILL! If someone can "choose" to be gay, it's their choice, so let them go to hell. Besides, if it were really all that bad, wouldn't we be due another great flood round about now?

Well, technically, it's promised that God won't flood the Earth again. Fires, frogs and various other wipe-outs of humanity are possible though.

I personally hope for rabid squirrel death, since they're evil to begin with >.>

[/spam]

On a non-spammy note, there are actually tons of doccumented cases of homosexuality in animals, most notably the bonobos and various species of dolphins. This tends to eliminate not only the choice argument, but the 'it's not natural' one as well.

Oh, and apparently no one on campus participated in the Day of Truth, however, a few of the people participating in the Day of Silence were harassed by people at various times during the day.

[Daria]

My chickens are gay, if it is any help to the animal arguement, but I think it is just because they are bored (we don't have a cockeral)
/spam

[Jan.McNeville]

See, if the Day of Truth were actually about truth, then people like Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell wouldn't be endorsing it. I think the genetics of homosexuality are pretty obvious, but then, not everyone has such an interesting family. Frankly, until the 'day of truth' crowd actually finds a copy of the Homosexual Agenda on official Gay Mafia letterhead with the signatures of Sir Elton John and Ellen DeGeneres, with the requisite sequin and glitter binder intact...I'm not going to believe one word they say. They're the ones with the agenda. It looks to me like gay people just want the same civil rights God gave everyone...or have the 'truthers forgotten "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? If gay persons A and B get married, how in the nine does it affect conservative person Z? The cost of the wedding offsets any tax changes. (Weddings are expensive, la...) It's not like gay couples want to go about kidnapping conservative children and bringing them up with the Teletubbies to form a Gay Army and conquer Red State America. If anything, I'd think the red-staters should endorse gay marriage and gay rights -because a bigger pool of potential adoptive parents means more demand for infants which means ...dun dun daa! Fewer abortions!
See? You can twist anything if you know how to talk enough. We just have to resolve; Never shall we shut up. That way, they can never win.
And even if the whole thing ends in a sore-throat stalemate, we'll have fought the enemy where he lies.
Everywhere.

[bryden42]

It's difficult and frustrating to participate in this sort of debate (Christians vs. homosexuals) when you belong to both sides.


That is all.

Please try, i think that comments or insights from you would be the most helpful of all!

[Saratina]

hmm.

I didn't participate in the Day of Silence because only a few people know that I'm bi, and I'd rather keep it that way. They say you can't be a Christian unless you're straight, but my entire identity is built around my faith.

When talking to Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin, I like to compare it to alcoholism; wanting to drink and actually drinking are two completely different things. Being attracted to your own sex and being involved with your own sex are different things.

Right now all I can say, I guess, is that it's an interesting mix of guilt and frustration. And as for the Day of Truth, I'm sure everyone knows how Christian leaders feel about the issue, so why does there need to be another day devoted to the topic?

[Phyllis]

They say you can't be a Christian unless you're straight, but my entire identity is built around my faith.

That kind of comment kind of frightens me. I don't really know you, but I am sure there is so much more to you than simply your faith. It's just my opinion...but I always thought that someone's faith should fit in with his/her identity, rather than trying to make his/her identity fit within the confines of a religion. But then...I'm not now nor have I ever been a Christian, so maybe I don't fully understand where you're coming from.

And who says you cannot be a Christian if you aren't straight? I don't know a whole lot about Christianity, but I really don't think Jesus would have said such a thing. I think the only people who might say that would be other Christians, who really have no place to be judging you. They all have their own inner struggles with sin. Though whether or not homosexuality is a sin is a different matter. I still really struggle with trying to understand how love could ever be a sin.

When talking to Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin, I like to compare it to alcoholism; wanting to drink and actually drinking are two completely different things. Being attracted to your own sex and being involved with your own sex are different things.

Homosexuality is not a mental illness. It is not an addiction. I really hope you don't think it is. It would make me really sad to see anyone be that self-loathing. It is a natural thing. Though the exact causes are not completely agreed upon it's believed to be a mix of genetic and environmental factors (as mentioned earlier in this thread). I know it must be one hell of a struggle to deal with what the morals you were raised with are telling you conflicting with what you're feeling, though.

And as for the Day of Truth, I'm sure everyone knows how Christian leaders feel about the issue, so why does there need to be another day devoted to the topic?

Nope. There really doesn't.