http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/st...1369643,00.html


Shades of the Nazi party's massive bonfires of books anyone?

And yet again the campaign for equal rights proves itself to be a laugh-a-minute thrill fest...

Maybe I'm just being rather slow, but what really is the problem with homosexuality? I just don't get where the issue lies, and I've not found an anti-gay/bi campaigner yet that has managed to give me a logical justification for their feelings, some might begin to think that there is no reasoning, just blind fear of the unknown. It's almost xenophobia, fear of that which appears alien. To Gerald Allen homosexuality has never been a part of American culture and it is a foreign body that is imposing itself on his land.

This said, I don't think that 'Will & Grace' and 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' are exactly furthering a reduction in the stereotyping of gay people in the US or globally, but at least they mark some progress from gay people being the butt of jokes (pun not intended).

Racial equality has made good progress since the times of Dr King, but it still has a long way to go. Unfortunately the sexuality lobby has never really had such a dynamic spokesperson so it has been harder to crystallise public opinion. Also there is the issue of 'passing'. If your skin isn't pale pink then everyone can see that, but sexuality is something that cannot be judged solely on appearance, giving rise to paranoia in the manner of the communist witch-hunts. There're gays everywhere, EVERYWHERE MWAHAHAHAHAHA.... But of course there are and there aren't.

My parents have, as far as they know, never been friends with a homosexual. To my knowledge this is not through any deliberate act on their part, it's just the way that it has happened. Gerald Allen would probably suggest that this means that homosexuality was an option that members of my parent's section of upper-middleclass society chose not to take, but more likely it is due to gay/bi people passing for heterosexuals because of the convenience of this. My parents, like many from their generation, have issues with non-heterosexuality and so anyone who wasn't straight would be more likely to conceal this for the sake of a peaceful life.

Now that steps towards equality are being taken, people like Gerald Allen are turning up arguing that there weren't as many homosexuals when he was young and that they are destroying America. He doesn't realise that it was just that people could not admit to being homosexual for fear of discrimination or imprisonment.

More worryingly, I suspect that he prefers the idea that people who are gay should continue living miserable lives in denial of their feelings rather than come out and try to find love with their choice of partner without invoking the hatred of society... After all, if it was good enough for his generation to punish people for their sexuality then shouldn't it be good enough for ours? I think it is this that I find the most frightening. Allen believes that there was some golden age of American history to which we can return, but he is living in a fantasy, not only was the golden age horrible for many that were oppressed by its values (women, non-caucasian people, gays, bisexuals, those with physical or mental difficulties, people with different political or religious beliefs) but it can never be returned to. You cannot turn back one aspect of the civil rights clock and not undo everything else.

So it comes to this, Allen's campaign essentially would like to remove all civil rights progress from the last century. Well, call me mad, but somehow I just don't see that as a good thing. That the president of America should pay close attention to these kinds of people, but he should do so to learn about the prejudice and hatred in his society, not to concede to their whims.

I'll tell you what the problem with gays is. They're evil. Because my local priest/vicar/imam/rabbi says so. Evil, I tell you. And they want to steal your children, put AIDS up their bottoms, and sell them into prostitution.

See? That's pretty frickin evil, no?

It's a combination of ignorance (i.e. xenophobia), propogation of misinformation and downright propoganda. And, to be honest, blatent arrogance in that it relies on the belief that your opinion is 100% right, and more valid than anyone elses.

Ignorance and misinformation will slowly fade, as (despite the efforts of Allen and Bush) homosexuality becomes more visible. The propoganda issue is the one that needs nipping in the bud, and I don't know how that's going to work when 2 of the most powerful worldwide organisations (Catholic church and US gov.) are spreading the word that 'Gays Are Bad, mmkay?'

Maybe I'm just being a bit ditzy today because I am quite simply confussed by:



If I am being a ditz, could someone please explain what Allen means by this?

(I've not finnished reading through the article yet, btw.)

What he's saying is that not putting on plays that feature pro-gay themes should be common sense, just like stopping at a red light.

And he's saying it's not censorship, it's like stopping at a red light. Which isn't censorship. Censorship would be banning certain works of art from being performed. Which is nothing like stopping at a red light, is it? See?

those damn liberals. making kids think everyone is equal.
I can kind of understand not allowing gay marriages (kinda kinda kinda...kinda.) but gay books!?!?
"hello, this is Kat speaking.. when, may I ask, is your soonest flight to Canada?"
(with any luck, the 'location' under my avatar can be changed)
how far are these homophobes going to GO!?
first there's the rule in (certain schools) against two girls or boys going to the bathroom at the same time, then there's the ban on same-sex marriage.. now what!?
next they'll probably create a constitutional ban on purple.

Hate to bash the discussion but the issue is not banning homosexual work, it's banning the use of federal funds supporting the work which I'm all for. Of course I'm also for banning federal funds supporting non-homosexual work. The net effect of this legislation (except for electioneering) is that Barney and Sesame Street won't have homosexual themes (not gonna happen anyways, backlash too intense) and that books purchased by schools won't have these themes. Private schools can still do whatever they want as can most universities. The sooner government gets out of the art scene the sooner it will stop being a political issue and will instead turn into an artist makes money if people like his work thing which is what I actually want.

So...what books would you have schools purchase if you don't want them purchasing either homosexual or non-homosexual work? Books on bestiality? Or would you have them buy no books at all?

If it was about removing government funds from the arts they why are they not going after all mediums and subjects? They are not. They are targeting homosexual themed books, plays, art etc in public schools.

Government funds are needed in public schools. Do you know who goes to plays in high schools? The parents and friends of the actors and actress. There is no one to buy the artists work in a public school setting. Without government funding these programs will evaporate. To prevent the complete loss of arts in public schools, school districts have no choice but to abide by these laws if they pass. Without art education in public schools there will be no artists to support with your patronage later on.

Furthermore, most universities are private or state run. There is no place for government mandates in state universities. It is interfering with states rights.

Now private sector is a different story. People who try to make a living as an artist, fine. If the customer doesn't like they work they don't have to buy. But the government should not be able to provide funding for one and not the other.

There was a huge hubbub in my school after the drama department put on The Laramie Project which I find rather ridiculous. The play was performed after school hours, by which I mean, if you don't want to see it then you don't go see it. It's just that simple to me. Moreover, the play itself is protesting homophobia, exposing *GASP* information about gays and why people would be so ignorant as to be homophobic.

This new bill seems like insanity to me. Homosexual themes are everywhere, and if they propose pulling funding on nasty bad gay books, it'll creep out everywhere. Like world history, perhaps. Greek men, on whose ideas we base so much of our government, often had male lovers and companions. Wives were intended solely for the purpose of procreation. I'd like to see them try and rewrite history. It'd be like 1984.

Walt Whitman wrote some of the best poetry I've read. He was gay (according to many). Oscar Wilde was, too. Will they ban "Importance of Being Ernest?"

It just seems improbable to me. There's just too much to ban.

Elphaba raises an interesting point - what about history? Will they ignore Alexander the Great's male lover, do you think?

This is Section 28 all over again, except by now America should know better. Bloody fascists.

It was some time before I could reply to this without it being instantly removed by the Mods. I think that the American people have brought this on themselves by vting the bigot in again.

This is only the start of the inexorable slide down the bigoted slope that they will have to face in the next 4 years. Now Bush has a second term, it's effectivly a free reign for him. He doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected, he can do what he likes.

And what he likes, it seems, is to fit his mental image of America 'as it should be' over the USA and then chop off all the bits that don't fit. He will follow a policy of alienation of all those who don't fit into his American stereotype and then he will create such a mess that it will take years for the American people to sort America inot the place it should be.

God Bless America

humm, by this chaps rules the bible should be banned then

'love your fellow man' and stuff like that?

Jesus seemed to go round kissing everyone, male or female, hung around with prostitutes (mary magdelen) etc...

one to think about

Xeno, like Candice I'm also rather puzzled by what you mean here.

The ban is on anything that shows homosexuality not not being a negative thing. It's not about stopping some kind of 'indoctrination', because frankly I'm sure that every sane-minded person, gay, bi, or straight, agrees that that would be abhorent, Allen is suggesting a bill that ensures that no information about homosexual activities can reach young adults.

Again, this isn't an issue about 'promotion', it's an issue about equality, understanding, and also importantly about getting information out to people who are already going through a difficult time in their life to try and help them be as safe as possible.

To put it another way, if a play was giving sex education advice to young straight people then it would be fine, but if it, as part of the play, gave advice for people who are not straight then it would never get any sponsorship as a worthwhile project. That is discrimination; by denying young people access to information Allen wishes to put homo/bisexual people more at risk than heterosexual people.

This is where I'm confused by what you mean: Would you prefer that no-one or any sexuality gets any information from government funded sources?

If books purchased by schools never have any themes relating to homosexuality then how is society to progress towards a contented diversity? If people never learn that homosexuality is not an abnormality or a sickness then they will never challenge the hatred and mistrust of their parent's generation.

But that's the point of all this. As I said in my earlier post in this thread, Allen wants to turn back the clock of America 40 years. He sees that this is the only way that his ideas can be considered healthy, i.e. you have to remove all modern moral values and replace them with outdated ones.

1964: Four years before Dr King was assassinated, women were expected to stay at home, five years before the Stonewall riot brought homosexuality into the public, and the string of morally offensive positions could go on...

So would students no longer be able to study Shakespeare's sonnets because there is 'The Young Man' to whom some of the poems give praise... And how far would it go? Would implication of homosexuality be enough to get a book banned? If Allen has his way then it would seem so. If homoeroticism should never be given any state funding then almost every work of art in the past one hundred years featuring two characters of the same gender would need to be removed. If you don't believe me then you should see some of the theorising that academics get up to!

It could end up like a witch-hunt, with paranoid teachers terrified that any text they suggest might put them in breach of the law. It might sound silly, but in the UK for many years we had 'section 28' which banned the 'promotion of homosexuality' in schools. Of course, the definition of what was promotion and what was information was never confirmed decisively, and so instead teachers were as careful as possible and just avoided absolutely anything that they thought could be misconstrued.

For some reason Allen believes that by not giving this information it will prevent people from 'becoming' gay or bi. He'd like to think that society is the way it is now because of a liberal agenda of equality with people that he believes are unworthy, and that is what it comes down to. He thinks gay people are all unclean sinners, so he wants to enforce his ideal of a golden era of American history onto the modern world.

That 'golden era' might have been great if you were white, straight, male, and wealthy, but if you weren't then it left a lot to be desired. I'm not saying that the world is perfect now by any means, and we have a long way to go still on all these issues, but trying to push it all back under the carpet is not a progressive attitude.

I don't think public funds should buy any books (including those on bestiality). I should also point out though that I think that there should be no public education. In my ideal world, elementary schools would be privately owned with parents selecting one. Parents would got to a weekly or every other week meeting to make decisions as to what their children should be reading/learn next. You then move up. By High School at least students should also go to these meetings to be heard on what they want to read in their English classes. This would also be used to decide on areas of emphases for history classes and the like.

Cutting out most U.S. property taxes would give most families enough to pay for this (which mostly went to schools anyway) Install a safety net for those with no money and you have a better education system. I'd also make sure the home schooling system is more flexible. I just don't think the School board, the state legislature or Congress should be supporting one art piece over another (be it painting, writing, etc.). The only thing I'm undecided so far on is libraries.

Eh, I disagree. I'm for public education, personally...but aside from that, I also think that public funds should be used to purchase books. Had I not had access to such books at a library, I might be a far more intolerant person today. I really don't know. Chances are I would have, due to my extended family (and well, to a certain extent, my immediate family as well).

...is it bad that I'd rather kids be exposed to tolerance than follow their parents' wishes? Hmm. It occured to me that I really don't care whether or not the parents want their children to be exposed to such things...perhaps I'm too in love with my own causes.

Ah, it's good to see that America hasn't lost any of the bigoted spice that makes it extra nice. Maybe one day people like this will be looked back upon by all of humanity through disapproving eyes, but the resurgence of semi-fascistic, narrow-minded, confessional Christianity is pushing that day a long way into the future.

I'm with Cand on this. Parents are not always right. I totally agree that they should have some say in their childrens education but full reign? Not at all.

Parents will always be selective about what they want their kids to learn and in trying to protect them they will essentially damage them.

My son will be very pro - gay due to the fact that I have a close family member who is in a stable same - sex relationship. I'm sure this will cause all sorts of problems when he starts school and has to explain about these particular family members.

Parents directly choosing what their children learn would lead to a whole generation where significant segments of the population know nothing about evolution. I hardly think that's a good thing.

Why would making parents deciding what their children should learn make any difference, a large minority of perants would say that maths is of no use in adult life, that change is bad, what was good enough for them as children should be good enough now. conservitive with a little 'c'. On the walls of Pompie excavators found graffiti complaining that the children of today had no respect for there elders and things were better when they were young...written 2000 yrs ago....
some things never change

I've been through public school and I know next to nothing about evolution. None of my teachers knew the answers to my questions. I think we read too much into what's taught at school. I learned almost nothing useful at school. The important stuff I learned was in history books I bought because I was interested, my church's library (mostly secular histories, linguistic texts, the Koran, etc.), fiction, and real University professors who actually have large-scale discussions.

No, parents aren't always right. But do you think government is more right? Someone has to have the power. I may be biased though I was raised in the 'ideal' home where values, both individual and collective were encouraged. Digging to the facts behind something was a family pasttime. My parents never fought and were united in all their decisions, etc.

If the parents don't want their kids to learn math and become cultured, intelligent individuals they can pay the price and have morons for kids. Most of them will become so anyways so have them get away from me.

Also tolerance is a word that has lost all meaning. It means to be accepting of other's views. Generally tolerance has come to mean tolerating those I like. Those I don't are fascist, conservative, liberal, pinko-commie, Bible-bashing, hedonistic fools (tried to mix everyone in to stay unbiased) who are trying to screw up my life by assuming that because this is a democracy they have a right to push their political agenda. Just because you tolerate someone that a group doesn't tolerate doesn't give you the right to be intolerant to that group or you're not being intolerant. You're just choosing a side.

Then your particular education system is crap and needs overhauling and a major injection of cash and resources. Don't knock the entire philosophy of public education just because your country's failed to provide it properly. Many European countries (and, indeed, many countries outside of Europe) have well-run, well-funded public education systems. The idea can, and does, work if there is sufficient will.



That's a very defeatist and short-sighted attitude to take. Is it fair that the government should let parents ruin the lives of their kids just because they feel like it? We don't let parents abuse their children, so why should we let them destroy their education?

Not educating everyone properly is bad for you, anyway. It is important for the economy and for the efficient running and production of any services or goods that you might procure that everyone involved in providing those services or goods is well-educated. Otherwise, you get a shoddy product at a high price. It's pretty low-level economics. It is in your personal interest to ensure that every person in the economy has a good education.



And by providing universal education to all we encourage tolerance and diversity. Well, that does depend somewhat on the quality of the education system, but any education about tolerance is better than none, no?



So make government schools subject to the forces of competition. Those with low demand from parents get heavily reformed or overhauled, and those with high demand from parents get lots of cash and incentives to expand. Good schools can partner up with failing schools to give them advice, and Parents' Associations can give further advice and impetus for reforms. You don't need to do away with public education to make secondary education work.

Feyliya pointed this particular issue to me last night while we were doing our nightly debate (yes, there are couples out there that have enough intelligence on both sides to do this on a fairly regular basis and have an acceptable level of coherency). Although the particular wording was a little different than the way she explained it to me, my argument was fairly similar. BTW, for those of you who don't know, Feyliya is fairly left-wing liberal, and I am moderate conservative, nudging slightly closer to conservative, so please be prepared for that in my posting. Feyliya opted out from posting as she felt that her views were properly represented in the views that were already posted by members.

My take on this bill is that it is fairly harmless and a step in the right direction. Not because I'm a gay basher or am anti-equal-rights. I respect gays. If I was born a woman, I know fairly certainly that I would be a lesbian myself. I also have had acquaintances that were gay that have had the same reaction from me regardless of their sexual preference. My particular view is that the government should not have any hand in the promotion of anything other than economics and justice. The government has finally gotten the hint that it is not in the position to help people form opinions of right and wrong. I also do feel that it does not go far enough, as the funding is only removed from programs promoting homosexuality.

Here's a hint for all of those comparing this to 1984 or Farenheit 451: this is not a ban, this is not censorship, this is not oppression. Being gay is not going to be outlawed. Being gay is not going to have you running for your life as police dogs chase you down the streets. It just means that the homosexual community cannot rely upon the Federal Government to help them get the message across to people. To me, this is the equivalent to the repeal of the "Affirmative Action" laws that have only promoted the wrong messages (that a black woman who was far inferior in work skills was a better employee than the white/almost white man who has several awards and degrees and accolades). So far I have seen little to no evidence that Government is actively promoting religion (in fact, the reverse is fairly true), or of racial superiority in schools. I will break down each of the other issues that the government has successfully and non-destructively regulated below.

Religion:
Although some schools allow you to practice religion in schools, it never promotes one over another. It does not allow you to practice your beliefs when it would become disruptive to other students. Schools equally allow the use of their facilities out of business hours to different faiths (just because christian organizations seek the use more often does not constitute unfair play. A pagan group used my old high school about 1/2 as often as christian organizations did). Schools that allow "prayer time" make it plainly clear that you can meditate/scry/pray/whatever during that time, or you can use it for making up your homework before it's due. If you have questions about a particular religion, ask the community authorities on that religion, not your teacher/dean/principal. Complete religious freedom.

Racial equality:
Never will you see it said from anyone in authority at public schools that any racial group is better than another, unless it is from personal views that have no place in the education system. You will never hear a physics teacher say that Tommi Chang is his best student because he's Oriental and they're smarter than any other group. You will never hear the Phys Ed teacher say that William Johnson is as good at basketball only because he's black. Education has become exceptional at removing the racial stereotypes traditionally associated with the ethnic groups.

Gender equality:
In this day and age, women are most definitely the equals of their male counterparts. This is being taught in the schools, not by being pro-feministic, but by stopping the prejudice and showing a woman next to a man and lining them up. It's pretty simple really.

I do not think that being gay is going to affect the way a person performs as a citizen. A gay man and a straight woman SHOULD be considered equals. But should the government pay to PROMOTE homosexuality? I'll answer that: no. I do not feel that the government should throw money at promoting blacks or hispanics or whites. I do not feel that the government should throw money at promoting women or men. I do not feel that the government should promote straights or homosexuals. Society will regulate these things. Just like if someone wants to learn about Islam, they can go to a basque. Want to know about Catholicism? Talk to a Catholic or visit a Cathedral. Want to know about homosexuals? Find one and talk to them. There are infinite avenues beyond the government to find enlightenment; use them. Stop wasting my tax money on things that hinder me.

One more thing before I go, I figure I will give you a general idea of my views on homosexuality:

Gay marriage: What does it matter if you hold a piece of paper or not? The marriage is not illegal, just not recognized by the government. If you went through the private ceremony, meant the vows, and love each other, then go and be married and stop complaining that you don't have a marriage license. To be honest, I envy you. At least when you get divorced, your spouse isn't entitled to half of what you own, oftentimes more.

Pro-homosexual funding: Private funding I couldn't care less about. If someone feels so strongly about furthering the cause of homosexuality, then by all means let them pay for it. The government doesn't belong footing the bill for that sort of thing.

This bill: It does not call for the burining/trashing of existing books in government funded institutions. It will not ban homosexuality. It will not do anything other than get the government out of some facets of what it should not have been in in the first place.

If I missed any critical issues, please feel free to PM/EMail/Post it and I shall respond in due time. If you don't want your identity exposed when I post about it, I will respect your anonymity.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the better resourced state schools, the ones higher up the league tables, the ones who are in wealthier areas, who are the one who would end up with higher demands on school places. And so with the extra cash and incentives to expand, would this not mean that these 'better' school end up being highly selective when it come to choosing which students would be allowed to enroll?

Also These schools may be few and far between so pupils may have to travel many miles _if_ they had been accepted into one of these better schools. I mean waking up at the crack of dawn for five years, returning late in the evening, what good it that, less time to study, relax, bond with one's family.

Giving another school advice on how to improve is worthless unless that school (staff and students) has the resources and a motivated mentality to change. How practicaly would you go about it?

Further, I', pretty sure that primary and seniroe schools and colleges already operate under the system whereby they are rewared finacially for improving in league tables.

I hope I have put my thoughts across clear enought to be understood, and if I have made an incorrect statement please do correct me. Lastly, I've pretty much been going on about a worse case senario, and I do realise that.

How does it possibly hinder you? Sorry, you just lost me there. I don't think the government should promote any one viewpoint, either, but I believe they should teach about them so that people are well-informed and can make their own decisions.



Their spouse also isn't entitled to make decisions for them when they are in a coma in a hospital, nor even see them in many cases. Don't know about you, but it'd break my heart to spend my life devoted to someone, only to not be able to be there for their last words because our marriage wasn't legal in the governments eyes. Plus, they do not get tax benefits that hetero married couples get. So I think it's a bit unfair to tell them to "stop complaining" just because they don't have to go through the same divorce proceedings.

A lot of people in America claim they learned next to nothing in our school systems. Heh. I learned quite a bit. But my school is the exception. Yes, I did go to public school, and no, I do not live in a rich area. There are frequent budget cuts here. I was just lucky to land in a school with a lot of really good teachers. Unfortunately, the quality of the school has deteriorated since I left due to the teachers being quite frustrated. My senior year a LOT of books were banned from the school. Including Of Mice and Men. The whole thing was absolutely ridiculous...as is this proposal.

Woah came here looking at animations and all of a sudden all these debates are going on. Maybe my first post here, but still I got drawn into reading all these opinions.
Marriage isn't just a piece of paper for everyone it's just about feeling recognised and accepted by the society your in. It's a bit overly generalised to say that no one should care whether it's legal or not, since an overwhelmingly high number of people do seem rather bothered by it.
Another thing about marriage is it allows you to not pay the rather hefty inheritence tax in the UK. If you recieve inheritence from a non family member in the UK you suddenly pay a rather extremely high inheritence tax.. so a lot of older gay couples that lose loved ones are as well as losing their partners are getting a little screwed by the tax system.
Now i'm not in anyway suggesting it should be legalised for financial purposes.. but who can honestly say they'd be happy knowing that when they die, the the person that care about most isn't going to get the things you shared in life.
Basically my point is that legalising gay marriage isn't about status it's about recognition of how people feel, and that merely saying "i don't care what other people think" doesn't always help situations any.

Hmmm, OK. Some fair points there, but I don't fully agree with you. For one thing, I think that it is positive for the Government to support "positive depictions of homosexuality". In fact, I think that the Government ought to support all art and culture unless it is liable to incite hatred or violence amongst those involved in producing or watching it. It is vital for a healthy society that all art forms are encouraged, and that diversity and originality are nourished.

Of course, it is not sensible to fund projects that are wasteful, pointless, frivolous, bigoted, highly offensive or damaging to society. There do need to be limits on what governments give funding to, or much valuable money would be wasted. This, I think, makes it necessary to impose limits on which projects are funded, though the judgement should only be made according to how much the project will improve an area or society. Those may sound a little vague, but I'm not trying to pass a Bill here, just positing a few ideas.

Many aspects of our culture are by their nature not self-sustaining. Museums, theatres and other cultural institutions frequently suffer financial crises because the Arts sector is not very profitable. It is often very difficult for new artists (in all fields - visual arts, performing arts, literature, etc), important for maintaining a country's creativity, to get proper funding from private sponsors. Arts projects dealing with difficult social issues - such as poverty, sexuality, racism, etc - also have a very hard time finding proper funding, even though they improve society by presenting its problems and forcing people to do something about it. The Government, in the interests of the development of the nation's culture and creativity, and of liberalising society*, has a duty to ensure that these artists and projects are properly funded. How else can we hope to maintain the artistic vitality and liberal* values that we hold so dear?

And homosexual materials? Well, there are still major hurdles to be overcome before we treat homosexuals exactly the same as everyone else. There is still rampant homophobia in workplaces, amongst children, in rural areas, amongst older people, and in many other groups (in nearly all groups, actually). People need to be educated and informed about homosexuality, as they do about other minorities, so that they can see that homosexuals (and all minorities) deserve to be treated the same as anyone else. Is that not a worthy cause for the Government to sponsor? After all, isn't the Government meant to be encouraging tolerance, diversity and respect?

No-one is saying that the Government ought to promote homosexuality as the only suitable lifestyle; merely they are saying that homosexual lifestyles are as valid as any other lifestyle. Is that not true?

And in the end, encouraging the view that homosexual relationships are acceptable and can be stable, long-term and healthy will make homosexuals behave much more sensibly. This is because the flamboyant sexual abandon which many homosexual men indulge in is done as part of a rebellion against an unnaccepting and repressive society, and because they are not properly educated and informed about how to live a healthy, stable homosexual lifestyle. Showing them how to live sensibly and showing them that being different is not a problem will slow the spread of STIs and normalise homosexual culture (well, somewhat; it may always be quite flamboyant, but it will hopefully lose the rather sinister promiscuous edge). And, hey, why not do the same for heterosexual relationships, which seem to be taking a bit of a dive recently?

*When I say 'liberal', I am not talking about the traditional American liberal. I mean those values of modern, Western nations (democracy, liberty, tolerance, egalitarianism, etc), rather than those of the American Left (which are quite often very similar, but not exactly the same).



FROG:

I was just blabbing madly about how to run an education system properly, and didn't really think it through. You make some pretty devastating points. Maybe I need to iron it out a bit.

I feel like I've got a lot to say in response to this, so I'll work my way through it a bit at a time.


I can't help but feel that you've missed the point by just a fraction here. The issue isn't about programs explicitly promoting homosexuality, it's about existing works of art that contain themes and portrayals of gays that aren't negative. It's not about banning pamphlets that say it's 'OK to be gay', it's about banning classic works of literature because they might suggest to someone that gays aren't evil. It's plain censorship. GAY=BAD, simple as that.


Again, not quite. What it means is that the Federal Government is actively getting the message across to people that being gay is evil, and shouldn't be tolerated by fine, upstanding, god-fearin' americans. It's not about outlawing homosexuality, it's about making it socially unpalatable to polite society.

So you're saying that a Catholic school will never promote Catholocism above Islam or Hinduism? I'm sceptical to say the least.
Exactly. Was there ever a ban on literature featuring positive representations of black people, or women? My history's not that good, but there certainly isn't one now.

Again, slightly missing the point - it's not about actively promoting homosexuality, it's about keeping any existing positive representations of gays away from people. What the government is proposing is throwing money at stopping people getting the idea that gays aren't evil, through respected works of art.

this one's been done to death on here, and folk have already responded, but here's my view. Marriage in a church should be controlled by the church. Fine. But non-religious marriages aren't anything to do with a church. So why should religion have a say on how non-religious people get married? I had a non-religious marriage. Why shouldn't gay folk be allowed the same thing? I don't see one good reason why they shouldn't get the same treatment. To suggest otherwise is prejudiced and discriminatory.


Agreed. But the government needs to accept that people are going to be gay, and take the necessary steps to support that section of the community the same way they would with any other minority. Not pretend that they don't exist, and/or villify them.


Surely a government-funded library shouldn't be limited on what types of books it can stock? In an ideal world, it would have copies of every book ever made. It's a library - that's what they're there for.

Right, I'm done now...

Candice,

I had never even considered that viewpoint about a legal marriage. In fact, I never expected a legal system so cruel as to allow such treatment. Call me an idealist, but I feel that the general society to be supportive of relationships in general. Although from what I understand, commonlaw marriages (in the USA, meaning a social partnership between 2 people extending beyond a certain length of time, depending on the particular State. Oregon I know is 2 years. This law pertains to all relationships, homo or hetero) extend to decision making, especially when the person specifically designates their domestic partner as a legal decision maker. But trust me on this one, Candice, your reply has been looked upon with my utmost respect.

Jonman,

I feel that you did not get my complete view upon reading. Perhaps that is partly my fault; I would accept that. I can also accept the parts where we do not see eye to eye. One of those in particular is the view of what the government should be interested in. I think that the government should be indifferent about whether someone is gay or not. As I think I stated before, the government should have just as much interest in promoting homosexuality as it should tearing it down; nil.

Then there is the matter of the marriage. Regardless of whether it should be religious or non-religious, it has a fair deal to do with spirituality. Something had to prompt you to get married, and obviously it wasn't religious, so I am assuming it had to do with love and common interests. That's fine, get married. I still don't see how holding a piece of paper makes it any more "concrete" than without, especially when there is no issue of it being illegal. Same thing with gay marriages. Recognized or not, it is a marriage, and the people who do get married love each other and therefore make it "official" by going through a ceremony. Whether it is in a church with 200 people, or an open field with only one other person to officiate, there is a ceremony where people dedicate themselves to each other with some form of speech and such. Hippies often got married in vast fields of flowing grass with only their traveling buddies to witness them and no legal officiator; often times on purpose. The police never came after them for having non-recognized marriages, and the same will be true about gay marriage up to the point of them becomming illegal, which I personally would commit suicide upon it going that far. To me, a marriage is FAR more important spiritually and emotionally than legally. The Federal Government has not made homosexual marriages illegal, and so far the furthest that ANY state has gone is to make homosexual marriages unrecognized from a legal standpoint. In case I haven't beaten that dead horse enough, I could care less about the legal status of my marriage short of it being illegal. Feel free to be a hippy and get married wherever, wenever, and however you want.

On your standpoint of the government portraying homosexuals as EVIL, BAD, and such, that is merely a personal point of view. If society has the mindset that homosexuality is bad, then let the homosexuals prove them wrong. Just because the government is pulling funding does not prove to me personally that it is bad. If the government told all the carrot farmers that they will no longer be subsidizing carrot crops, would you decide that it is bad to eat and/or buy carrots? Relying on the government reaps inefficiency and unneccessary spending when if it is all done in the private sector things really get done. Tell me this: do you think that having the government in the loop is making the homosexual segment less inefficient? The truth is that any time that the government is involved, the beaurocracy actually withers the power away because people tend to rely on them, just like farms. Just like successful corporations raising the effficiency bar, so should social organizations. Only by SOCIAL reform can things like homosexuality be really accepted. I just happen to believe that the government should only pass laws that stop inequality and let society work on the equality part.

I'll stop now. I'm half way bewteen drunk and a hangover. Got to love early Christmas parties sponsored by multimillion dollar corporations.

Randy and I had a long, long, long conversation about this as he was writing the above post. I just wanted to mention the response I got from him when I mentioned textbooks in conjunction with the non-funding of books and such in government funded institutions. I told him that there would be some textbooks that would mention Alexander the Great as being homosexual, or the Greeks as being accepting of homosexuality to the point where it was uncommon for a man or woman to not have a same-sex partner, or that many original Olympic athletes were homosexual and that Olympic trainers often had sex with their trainees back then, and I mentioned to him that these textbooks would also fall under the non-funding law, and the fact that most public schools would be unable to buy those books because many are only funded by the government, and he IMMEDIATELY said, "But that would be censorship!" Go figure. At least I managed to get SOMETHING through that thick Aries skull of his!

I forgot to comment on your response, Jonman, about libraries having every book under the sun. I agree that in a utopian society, that would be the best.

I also think that libraries should get into the 21st century and have all books scanned into text and available online, therefore cutting a HUGE amount of spending by centralizing everything. Sure it would be a huge investment if you were to do it all right away with 100s of people scanning and proofing the scanned work, but if you drag it out over say a year, it could be done and prove to be worth the investment.

1) Just as indifferant as it is towards hetrosexual couples then? Also the law as they stand do promote hetrosexuality because there are more legal saftey nets for married hetrosexual couple. Infact there are nets there full stop. And, more incentives.

2) Call me cold hearted, but if I ever do get married, to a woman or a man I will have a pre-nuptual agreement written up, I would expect my spouse and I to be seen by my employers/ pension scheeme/ doctors/ (there are more, but I cannot think of thier names) the same way when it _does_ come to things legal regardless of thier gender. This has nothing to do with how much I love a person, to me having one is just plain sensicle. I expect that my long term partner (male or female) would be able to inform a doctor of my wishes not to be resussitated, or not to recive a blood transfusion, just as I expect and know that a doctor would act on my mother (my next of kin) informing them of my wishes if I were to find my self in a situation where a decision had to be made like that today. This is not to say that I would not marry for love.

3) How are homosexuals supposed to prove society wrong if there are only ever negative depictions of them? Being in a minority to me it make sense that the resources we would be able to pool together from private sources to show plays such as those mentiond, by Tennassee Williams, would be far smaller that than those pooled by the majority. I've read American polls that show that the majority of American people (ususally around 53%) are either for or against gay marrige. Pretty close. Just seems to me like the people in power choose to act in ways that do not acuratly represent the people.


I know I went over gay marrige, but I never did post in that thread so please don't bite me. If I am wrong, tell me.

Polo, we can do the ironing together any time you want hunny

1) I know of no safety nets built into the marriage system short of loopholes that allow vengeful people to take unproportionate amounts of monetary and material possessions from a marriage upon the dissolution. There is such a thing as social contracts that can be drawn up proving what each partner brings into a relationship, and if you keep records, you can prove who bought what and for what reason. If it ever goes to court, he/she who is prepared and in the right will always win. The same cannot be said about marriage, where if the spouse goes into court, you can't say, "I bought that damn 52 inch HDTV for ME! See? Right here on this credit card receipt it says I paid for it!" "Mr. McMathers, you don't understand. Anything in a marriage is community property. You are ordered to give the TV to Ms. Watkins." Etc.

2) I agree mostly with you. To me, I would prefer to only have the non-legal portion of marriage, as I view it as an emotional and spiritual bonding process, not a legal one. See above for most of the reasons I don't want the law getting involved.

3) The same way that minorities prove themselves to me every day. Here's a perfect example: Until this year, I had NEVER worked with ANY Russians. In my mind were burned the images of what I grew up exposed to in the mid to post cold war 80s and 90s. That's not to say I was prejudiced, just perhaps scared and misinformed. When I started supervising Russians (and I supervise A LOT of Russians now) I really got to know them and respect their culture, their language, and their big hearts. I think of them as muscular teddybears, though you couldn't tell that from looking at them or listening to them from afar; their brutish and crude manner of speaking is something you have to get used to and understand. If gay people would just go about their lives, perhaps even holding community events to expose their communities (which I'm sure they are somewhere, but as I see it, they're trying to bite the whole country at once instead of the trickle down effect). Within 2 generations we will have the tolerance that blacks have now. True, not 100% of the population is 100% tolerant of blacks even now, but it's a far cry from 100 years ago.

All I'm saying is that gay marriage is a moot point that they shouldn't be making a big stink over. If anyone has anything specific to show me that proves that I'm wrong, inform me. As I see it, legal marriage is nothing that I want anyways, so either waiting for it or letting it slide shouldn't be the horrible mess they claim it to be. This is, of course, speaking as if I were a homosexual.



I never said this, and it really doesn't alter my views anyways, but I'll say it anyways so that you can understand how diverse my interactions with homosexuals really are. I break down my experiences into 3 categories: the good, the bad, and the ugly. In the good are 3 of my either current or previous employers. They acted like normal people, they did fairly normal things, but when they went home, they were gay citizens. They didn't let their sex life alter the workplace, and they didn't ask to be treated differently; normal people. Two were lesbians, one was a gay man, positions ranging from top of the corporate ladder (corporate president) to the bottom (cook). The bad are the people who although have done nothing particularly wrong to me, have the annoying tendency to annoy those around them; attention starved. Some of them wanted everyone to know they were FLAMING homosexuals. Some of them were more needy than a baby. But all around, I cannot handle their constant need for attention and confirmation of their worth. I feel the same way about heterosexuals as well, but have encountered far fewer heteros than homos with this annoying trait. Finally... the ugly... It's hard for me to talk about, as I was almost raped by a bisexual black male who was drunk. He was my neighbor, and had heard rumors from my other neighbors that I was gay, since I never had women coming to my apartment (my girlfriend lived 100kms away in Canada, I was in Michigan). He knocked on my door, and since I knew he was a fairly good man, I opened it for him. If he wasn't drunk, I would never have been able to fight him out, as he outweighed me easily by twice my weight and was well built. There also have been many gay men who have the amazing talent of not only hitting on me, but also of riding the same bus as me on long trips across the USA. I can remember at least 3 seperate incidents where I was on a Greyhound and a gay man changes seats to sit next to me and try to change my "affiliation". Sorry boys, not interested. But they never get the point.

Regardless of my mainly bad experiences with homosexuals, the 3 good ones that I have had more than make up for them. The good part is that they are the only ones I have to live with anymore everyday. I'm sure I'll have more bad ones, but I'm hoping there will be more good ones as well with that. Also be alerted that this post did not include homosexuals that I talk to online. Generally I don't talk to gay men on here as they either try to hit on me, or I just don't know they're gay. If they are the latter, then all the power to them. My motto is that you can do whatever you want to after hours, just don't involve me in it. I don't want to see/hear about/participate in any of that. Although lesbians are sexy in thought, I doubt I would enjoy it as much as my imagination tells me I will.

Damn alcohol... every time I drink I start opening up and spewing my guts out...

What's the relevance in mentioning his skin colour?

(Still working throught the rest btw )

Was just mentioning details. FYI, I have had more black people do good things around me than bad. Short of my one bad experience in Selma, Alabama where the blacks are prejudiced against the whites. If you don't think it happens, I'm telling you it does. 80% black, 15-20% white, and no whities go into town between certain hours unless you want to risk your life. God honest truth.

Come on, people! Keep chipping away at him! Between us all, we can turn him liberal eventually!
/spam

I think the reason Randy can't quite grasp why non-funding of books that depict homosexuality in a good light is tantamount to censorship because he doesn't realize exactly how many books and plays would be left to rot. Not just classics, but many modern authors. Think of the "Vampire Chronicles". Anne McCaffrey's "Pern" series. Laurell K. Hamilton's "Anita Blake" books. Mercades Lackey's "Heralds of Valdemar" series. More books than I could ever list in just one post. Text books, too. And, like the article mentioned, the good old "Rocky Horror Show". What better way to get kids interested in the arts than having them dress up in drag and sing "Sweet Transvestite"? Why should such an emotional, heartbreaking work of art like "The Color Purple" be left behind? And if you've never seen "A Chorus Line" or "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", I highly suggest you do so as soon as you have the chance.

I think the reason that George Bush is working so hard on this is because he thinks that if he just does his best to cut off our access to the issue that it will go away. Like he's a little kid sitting in the corner with his hands over his eyes, singing "I can't hear you" at the top of his lungs. If it were that easy, society's taboo on the subject would have kept it from manifesting in the first place.

Cheers for responding, duder.


Abso-freaking-lutely. I'm 100% with you on this one. Which is why I believe that the banning of certain books by State Government (i.e. dragging back on-topic) is just plain wrong



Again, I think for the most part, we agree. I want everyone to be able to marry. As things stand though, in the US, a gay couple can't have a marriage that recognised by the legal system. So any legal or financial aspect of their lives that could be affected by marriage is knackered (pensions, welfare, health insurance, inheritances, medical decisions - the list is suprisingly large). And quite frankly, I see that as unfair on a very basic level.



80 years ago, society thought that black people were evil and bad. What do you think about that?

I have to confess, I'l not sure what you mean by 'making the homosexual segment less inefficient'. So no answer there, m'afraid.

And yay for social reform. Passing laws censoring a subject, and discriminating against a minority is clearly not the way towards social reform, however. There's a clear message coming from the government with these kinds of actions, and it's certainly not about equality.

My reply, mainly to your first post, here, Laramon:

I fully agree that the government has no place promoting homosexuality over heterosexuality, just as it has no place promoting heterosexuality over homosexuality (unless there was a severe population crisis, in which case I think it would be right to do so, but that's not really relevant here).

I think you'll agree that the government cannot promote any sexuality, then? Taking "promote" to mean "fund any work of art positively portraying a relationship of that kind", then, as this Bill does, funding must be withdrawn from any positive portrayal of heterosexual relationships. Romeo and Juliet? Gone. Any love story, in fact, is gone entirely. Can't promote heterosexuality, now, can we?

I agree, Commie. In all honesty, I don't believe that governments really have a place in culture. Museums, if in demand, can find their own funding, as can theatres and the like. Like I also said before, libraries COULD be funded by the government, just have a central database which every library accesses. This database would contain every published work in possession of every library. If authors are in fear of losing profits, there ARE ways to make it so that each instance of an electronic book can be locked allow only one person to "check it out" at once. Therefore each PHYSICAL book can have an instance in the digital archives. Technology is amazing, if we use it correctly.

I'm with Laramon. I don't think government should be supporting liberal arts. If it sells, it's worth the time put in. If it doesn't the artist needs to accept the fact that they will not get paid. Deal with it.

When I said I learned next to nothing in school I don't think I was clear. I meant next to nothing useful. American public schools do not encourage real discussion on any issue and the teachers are terrified of getting into a discussion that some kid is going to go home and talk to Mom and Dad about. The important stuff I learned a lot of in school just not when speaking to teachers. I was also taught in one of the most recognized high schools in the nation. I think the issues that really matter can't be taught in school....ever.

I still hear the word banning all over this thread. No one is banning anything. You're just not going to find the book in a school. Most parents don't want their kids reading it. There is a conservative majority in the U.S. This legislation would not stop homosexuals from spreading the word about their agenda, just not in schools where it is not taught anyways. I was taught nothing about heterosexual marriage in school either.

Legally in the U.S. you can fairly easily write up a will and give power of attorney to a homosexual spouse. The only thing homosexuals don't get is some tax benefits which are designed mostly around deductions for helping to raise children which homosexual couples can not possibly have naturally and can not legally adopt. I consider it a bonus to people who perpetuate society. I don't think there is any reasons for homosexuals to complain of not having it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but libraries are publicly funded buildings. So you won't be able to find those books in a library either. There should be no restriction, especially on established works of literature, in a library.

As for the schools, I studied The Clockwork Orange in school, aged 15. I'm sure that a lot of parents might have had something to say about that if they were familiar with the content of the book. However, I was in an English Literature class, and it's an established classic, with a lot of political overtones. Perfect for that kind of class if you ask me.



If you afford the legal fees, sure, you could write up a will. But what if something happens before you've gotten around to writing a will (for whatever reason). A heterosexual spouse will default to having power of attorney. A homosexual one won't. It's inequality, and there's no need for it. Imagine if a husband had full rights of power of attornet etc, but a wife didn't without explicitly laying it out in a will. There would be a fricking uproar. And rightly so.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure it's possible for homosexual couples to adopt. Not sure in which countries it is, but I'm sure I've seen TV programs about it.

Quoting from this news article:



This will impact on scientific facts:

::BLIND EXTREME RAGE::

This bill would take my books. I love my books. Who wants to march to Washington DC with me to protest this? So help me if this starts looking like it's going to go through, I'm going to spearhead a march. I will, by gods. I will walk my fat, out of shape @$$ all the way to Washinton DC to hold a sign and protest outside the White House gates. And if I don't get enough people to come protest with me to get the publicity to stop this, then this country isn't worth saving and I'll seriously start looking into immigrating.

Excuse my lack of real, concrete discussion on this thread. I feel that enough people have expressed the same sentiment and views that I would, so my posting on the subject would be redundant. Besides, Jonman and Commie speak from a more logical point of view than I ever could. This hits too close to the things I love for me to express my views without running close to flaming.

It's this kind of conservative extremism that the country doesn't need. There needs to be safeguards. There needs to be exceptions. In other words, there needs to be moderation.

I am fairly -right on most issues, and I can even be quite liberal on many subjects, too. This is far too conservative as it is drafted. Someone needs to take the extremism out and deal with the actual issues here.

Jonman, I realize that the current situation regarding legal and economical status aren't perfect for homosexuals right now. I have actually fostered a similar viewpoint to many of the posters for some time now about the seperation of marriage from the legal status. The legal part should hold true for any couple who chooses to go through the paperwork and do some form of oath, hetero or not. The spiritual one is the real issue here, since that is up to the particular person, assuming they have a religious or spiritual preference. If not, then that's one more expense they can do away with.

Xeno, I love reading your posts, because we almost look eye to eye on every issue. There are a couple where I do feel you are less of a moderate, but that does not mean your points don't strike me as valid. I loved it when you commented about the special tax status of heterosexual marriages mainly pertaining to the procreation of a species, and that is greatly true. The benefits truely are tied into the bearing and raising of children, at least on some level. I'm not sure if the people here realize it or not, but married couples have special penalties as well due to their legal status. Just thought I would point that out just in case it wasn't looked at.

Such as? I was married for 3 years (well, still technically am) and I cannot think of a single one. Being married only benefitted me...in a financial sense, anyway. It gave us a bigger refund at tax time and it also gave me more federal aid for my schooling. I honestly have tried very hard, but cannot think of any "special penalties."

As far as the tax breaks being for procreation of the species...not the case. Not every hetero couple decides to have kids. Not every gay couple decides to remain childless. Hetero married couples get a bigger tax break simply for being married whether they have children or not -- they simply get more breaks when/if they do have children. So a heterosexual married couple who never has children will obviously have *more* benefits than a gay couple who is not allowed to marry and also never has children.

I thought that one was far from scientific fact yet. Isn't it?

Homosexuality through genetics may not be a scientific fact, but it is a fact that homosexuality though genetics is one thing we are researching as a possible reason. I imagine books that mention any theoretical research about homosexuality would be banned every bit as swiftly as those that depict it as a possibility in any way, shape, or form.

You are correct that it is not scientific fact; this was sloppy wording on my part. There is, however, significant (if not conclusive) evidence that it is so. I would also remind you that the theory of evolution as origin of the human species is not scientific fact either.

Apparently it is now. They've found the missing link alive and well, living in Washington DC...

Defeating the theory of evolution is easy though, all you do is state that any supporting evidence (such as observable evolution of species through the fossil record, or the very fact that there are now many animals that no longer exist and that did not cease to exist simultaneously in a giant flood) is actually God testing your faith.

Interesting point, but from what I've seen, most people think that this argument is about legal marriages, not spiritual ones. We all agree that people can do whatever they like when it comes to non-legal marriage, but what is usually at issue in arguments about gay marriage is whether the State should recognise homosexual marriages and grant the spouses the same rights and benefits as it does heterosexual marriages. I'd be interested to hear what Xeno has to say on that subject.