The Official LGBTQ Thread

[bearfan]

I guess what I do not understand your pointing towards the US, gays have equal rights before the law in the entire country (it is legal to be homosexual, laws that prevent discrimination in the workplace and in housing, and military service is permitted) with the exception of marriage and that right is there for several states and that number has increased dramatically over the past few months and most people believe that pretty soon that will be nationwide.

This puts the US on par or ahead of some first world countries and behind some first world countries ... essentially in the middle.

 

[bearfan]

The bigger problems are closer to home like this (which has gone through the US courts and been declared that sex-ed is permitted)

Croatia's Constitutional Court Suspends Sex Education in Schools

May 28, 2013
Croatia’s Constitutional Court ruled Wednesday to suspend all of the country’s sex education curriculum just months after public schools began teaching it.
In February, Croatian Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic’s government launched sex education programs in schools as part of an effort to “raise awareness of sexual health,” reports the Agence France-Presse. The Catholic Church opposed the program, and two church-supported associations filed objections to the curriculum, claiming that the program’s lack of parental authorization defied the constitution

 

[Brigantium]

I think patchy international media coverage of US public affairs has a lot to do with generalised perceptions about the ways the American population thinks. We rarely hear any news along the lines of 'gay marriage law passed in another state', it's always dominated by the extremes, like Westboro Baptist Church's latest protest, small children being killed in gun accidents, violent crime, and exposés of people suffering from easily curable medical conditions because they have no health insurance.

 

[bearfan]

Yeah.. mundane stories are not exciting, but Westboro (despite having at most 100 members .. and probably not that many) gets in the news all the time.

 

[Forostar]

Brig, not sure who you mean, having generalized perceptions, nor do I see what you mean by patchy international media coverage of US public affairs.

But I wouldn't underestimate the contributors in this topic.
Sometimes we speak about extremes (I am glad we do not ignore these, because they do exist), but we also deal with bigger phenomena. The Boy Scout issue was covered in various international media and (as argued) it is not a small, extreme issue.

 

[bearfan]

Perhaps context gets lost and the meaning of of certain institutions in the US do as well ... as I am certain they do for us about other countries. The way you posted the Boy Scouts story and comments made it sound like a horrible thing, when in reality them moving at all on this issue would have been unthinkable just a year ago and at least here is seen as a huge step forward for gays and their acceptance in the US. Certainly few reactionary groups are opposed for it and making a stink about it, but the reality is that incredibly few kids that are Scouts now or would be joining the Scouts in the next few years will still be Scouts in the years to come ...

On to of it, the Scouts (Boy and Girl) are incredibly good organizations. Beyond merit badges, camping, and other things they do ... the most useful thing they do for the kids is for Scouts to interact with one another and as we have seen with racial integration, now there will be further integration in the Scouts as the next generation will see there is nothing to be afraid of.

So, I am mystified about how you originally posted this ... and maybe I am mistaken ... as a bad thing (because gay leaders are still excluded) and an example of rampant homophobia in the US ... I see it as exactly the opposite.

 

[Forostar]

Alright, I didn't want to speak about this earlier on, but now that you keep doing this, I will make a point:

Deliberately done or not, I think you made my words look worse by changing them. Some examples:

I think the problem is you treat everyone who belongs to a religion of being mindless drones.

So, we have a large organization whose main selling point really is traditional values becoming more open to gays and you are seeing this as bad and how bad Americans are?

No. No. No. I have not said this. And I have not meant this.
Especially the first is ridiculous. Maybe you missed what I said in the Pope topic, but I actually uttered faith in the Pope! I uttered my hope for change and progress. Does that mean that I should be silent about things that don't go well in religious circles? No.

I do see progress in the US as well, but that doesn't mean that I can not utter my dismay about things that don't go well.

Should I be mystified by such defensive reactions? Not really. I realize I am touching a sensitive spot here.

 

[Forostar]

So, I am mystified about how you originally posted this ... and maybe I am mistaken ... as a bad thing (because gay leaders are still excluded) and an example of rampant homophobia in the US ... I see it as exactly the opposite.

You have a point here. The vote itself was a form of progress, but when reading the article, there's lots of trouble left. Up until recently I was not even aware of the ban on homosexuals in Scouting. So for me it was new (an example of undefendable discrimination). The affiliation of some churches, the threat of exodus. I get negative when I read that.

 

[bearfan]

Yeah, but threat and action are entirely different, there is always a big outcry when changes occur and in general most of it is just bluster. I am sure some with withdraw, but if you were to look at the membership the day before this was announced and the membership one year from the day it was announced, we will see it is pretty much the same with recent trends (Boy Scout membership had already been declining, in part I think because the outdoors holds less appeal than an X-Box, iPhone, and the internet to a lot of kids)

The other point I wanted to make about this is that it did not come about because of a law, a judge, or some other governmental action. This is a group that is synonymous with traditional values deciding on it's own accord that at a minimum homosexuals should not be shunned or that homosexuals are okay.

The Boy Scouts are a private organization and so are churches, they have some overlapping social agendas (several of them good things like community service) and work together on practical matters (for example using church property for Boy Scout meetings/Boy Scouts joining with the church for community service projects/some churches donate money to the Boy Scouts).

 

[Forostar]

In Wales I have also seen scouts doing activities in a church. I wonder if, these days, it has more to do with tradition and religion, than with practical need.

In my country it doesn't go like this anymore. Scouting Netherlands says:
Scouting Netherlands is open to everybody, regardless of faith, race, skin colour, handicap, political background, sexual orientation, young and old."

I admit that before 1973, scouting in my country was divided in three large groups. For general people, for
Protestants and for Catholics. Probably around that time, there was a big affiliation with the church as well.

Now other buildings can be used. Community service can be done without the Church. Scouting can be done without Church funding.

Without the Church affiliation, the anti-gay attitude would be easier eradicated.

 

[bearfan]

I think it is more practical, both my kids were in Scouts (one Girl, one Boy) ... I would say from my interaction with them that 99.99999999% of their activity, if not more, was concerned with practical considerations of where to meet (churches would let them meet for free) and how to raise funds/support for their community activities (which various churches help with) and scouting activities. Neither of my kids attend church on any kind of regular basis and that was never an issue with the scouts, nor were the (at least nominally) Hindu, Muslim, Jewish kids in the troop.

The more political issues like gays dealt with at higher levels (region, state, national) ... not so much or hardly at all at the troop level.

 

[Forostar]

Alright.

In my country every scouting club has their own 'home'. The membership isn't free. Looking at my own club (I was a member from 1987-1995), right now it is 10 euro per month. The activities are self organized.

 

[bearfan]

... meanwhile in France

http://www.spiegel.de/international...inst-same-sex-marriage-in-paris-a-902073.html

Police estimate that up to 150,000 people rallied in central Paris on Sunday against a new law legalizing same-sex marriage. The law, which also legalizes gay adoption, came into force just over a week ago, but organizers went forward with the protest to show their continued opposition and frustration with embattled Socialist President François Hollande.

After the rally ended, several hundred demonstrators clashed with police, shouting "socialist dictator" and lobbing smoke bombs at security personnel and journalists. The police used tear gas on the rioters and arrested at least a hundred people. Six people were injured, including four police officers, a press photographer and a protester. Interior Minister Manuel Valls attributed the violence to right-wing groups.

 

[bearfan]

Alright.

In my country every scouting club has their own 'home'. The membership isn't free. Looking at my own club (I was a member from 1985-1995), right now it is 10 euro per month. The activities are self organized.

Depending on location, it is about $10/year here, they use free help where they can get it, which is usually a church rec room (or a school) to make it as affordable as possible for the scout and their families and use as much money as possible for camping and field trips.

 

[Brigantium]

You said the 'amount of discrimination and intolerance in the States' amazed you, Foro, which came across as implying it's a significant percentage of the population, spread across the US, and maybe more prominent than in other countries.
Casual perceptions on the level of intolerance and political/religious extremism within the US are not unusual in Britain, for one. I've seen media coverage elsewhere which also homes in, maybe excessively, on vocal minorities like Westboro, not making it clear that these groups and their views aren't mainstream.

Documentaries and articles which gain a lot of prominence often focus on the views and reactions of opponents to change, or organisations or individuals with extreme views. Much less prominence, and less consistent coverage, is given to the non-confrontational everyday debates among moderates and those seeking change, ultimately giving some readers/viewers the impression they're a minority being shouted down by the others.
I don't think for a minute the Scouts issue is small or extreme!

 

[Forostar]

... meanwhile in France

http://www.spiegel.de/international...inst-same-sex-marriage-in-paris-a-902073.html

Yes, lots of uproar still in France.

In Ukraine, the first gay pride march went better than I'd expected:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22667015

About 100 activists have staged Ukraine's first gay pride march in the capital Kiev, ignoring a court ban.

"This can be considered a historic day," Olena Semenova, one of the organisers, said.

Police arrested 13 people for trying to break up the rally - in a country where homophobia is widespread and generally accepted.

In neighbouring Russia, more than 20 gay activists were detained by police at an unsanctioned rally in Moscow.

The campaigners tried to march on Russia's parliament building, denouncing what they described as "homophobic" legislation recently approved by MPs.

The bill bans "gay propaganda" in an effort to protect children, but human rights campaigners say its real aim is to curb the rights of sexual minorities.

more: click

 

[Forostar]

You said the 'amount of discrimination and intolerance in the States' amazed you, Foro, which came across as implying it's a significant percentage of the population, spread across the US, and maybe more prominent than in other countries.

The amount of discrimination amazes me indeed, because in other fields the USA is up par, or even further than other Western nations. I do think that a significant percentage in the US are under the influence of the church, and the amount of inequality that is preached in these societies is indeed more prominent than in some other countries. It has more effect. There is more affiliation. I admit it is a bit double: perhaps I should not be amazed because I know the church plays such a strong role. But this role is bigger than I originally thought. I wonder how long it takes before I discover another form of discrimination.

Much less prominence, and less consistent coverage, is given to the non-confrontational everyday debates among moderates and those seeking change, ultimately giving some readers/viewers the impression they're a minority being shouted down by the others.

And why would that be? Because of conservative (which are 'incidentally?' religious) people putting money into media stations?

 

[bearfan]

I am not sure how you are determining the big outreach of churches or even assuming they act as one ... there are churches in the US (a minority, but they do exist that allow gay pastors) .... People attending church (not that I really think there is anything wrong with people that do) is on the decline in the US.

Also, for the conservative point, it is worth noting that the last (so far as I know) gay marriage ban passed by voters happened in California in 2008 when masses were out to vote for Obama, many members of his coalition was voting to ban gay marriage. Exit polls show the largest groups voting in favor of the ban (in order) were Blacks, Latinos, Asians, "other", White.

Poorer people favored the ban more, but younger people were opposed to it. All of which leads to the conclusion that while religion is certainly a factor, racial identity (in the case of blacks, I do not think they want to share the Civil Rights podium with anyone along with religion), and as time goes on (ie old people die), support will increase.

All of this indicates a population that is more and more favoring of gays and pending some massive event will continue to be so despite any church influences.

Yes on Prop 8 means being in favor of a gay marriage ban.


http://www.madpickles.org/California_Proposition_8.html


Race

Looking at the vote by race reveals a curious detail:
Race % of respondents Yes on prop 8 No on prop 8
White (63%) 49% 51%
African-American (10%) 70% 30%
Latino (18%) 53% 47%
Asian (6%) 49% 51%
Other (3%) 51% 49%

That data can be reduced to:
Race % of respondents Yes on prop 8 No on prop 8
African-American (10%) 70% 30%
Other (90%) 50% 50%

Poorer people also favored the ban

Vote by Income % of respondents Yes on prop 8 No on prop 8
Under $15,000 (5%) 46% 54%
$15-30,000 (10%) 48% 52%
$30-50,000 (15%) 54% 46%
$50-75,000 (19%) 54% 46%
$75-100,000 (17%) 50% 50%
$100-150,000 (17%) 54% 46%
$150-200,000 (7%) 47% 53%
$200,000 or More (9%) 45% 55%


Vote by Age % of respondents Yes on prop 8 No on prop 8
18-24 (11%) 34% 66%
25-29 (9%) 39% 61%
30-39 (17%) 50% 50%
40-49 (22%) 57% 43%
50-64 (26%) 51% 49%
65 or Over (15%) 61% 39%

 

[Brigantium]

Foro - conservative, maybe. Religious? I don't think so, not here at least, they're suspicious of religion more often than not, especially extremists or foreign religious organisations. Xenophobic? Now that's a real possibility. Foreign affairs given prominent coverage are the ones that might affect the country of the target audience negatively, or offer justification to that audience for being suspicious of foreigners.

 

[bearfan]

In some ways I think Americans are more adaptable to other cultures, lifestyles, gender preferences, races, etc ... because we have been integrating with them since day one ... not always willingly, but it keeps happening here and somehow it keeps working and everyone eventually becomes just an American.