Jason Collins - NBA Center, 12 years in the league, comes out

[sd'sker]

I saw someone on Facebook last night share a picture from some page about how straight people are being attacked, it's not OK to be straight in our society, and how you should be proud to be straight.

 

I LOLed so hard!

that is why i only have sex with my wife in the privacy of our own home. i fear being persecuted otherwise.

[JJ Husker]

I guess I don't understand what forces are keeping anyone "in" at this point.

 

I want to think this is joking around, but on the off chance you're being serious, I'll point out the following:

 

"Gay" sex only became legal throughout the United States in 2003 with Lawrence vs. Texas in which the Supreme Court invalidated sodomy laws in Texas and the rest of the country. Prior to Lawrence vs. Texas you could have been prosecuted simply for having sex as a gay person in more than 20% of this country. That was in 2003.

 

The LGBT Rights page on Wikipedia is a good resource for finding the raft of all-too-recent legislation across the country protecting the rights of the LGBT population. Notice that most of these laws and legal actions date from the 1980s through today. The reason that's significant is that, while legislation may change, changing the minds of those predisposed to harassment/discrimination follows in the wake of such legislation, and the process is typically ponderous.

 

Also, if you're not a fan of Wikipedia as a source, feel free to check the footnote links to the actual articles from which those excerpts arise. Those sources are far more legit than Wikipedia.

 

So the natural response to that could be, "We have these laws in place, so we're done with the problem, right?" Not so much.

 

We've had laws protecting us from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, marital status pregnancy and retaliation (in its many and varying forms) for going on 50 years (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), yet we have constant cases running through our legal system where people are, 50 years after the overt illegality of such acts, still suffering persecution because they are "different," in whatever manner of different the persecutor sees fit to persecute. We have, as yet, no sweeping legislation protecting the legal rights and freedoms of gays, and as such, persecution of LGBTs across the country is still prevalent.

 

Violence against gays is actually on the rise in America, becoming the second-most common hate crime in the country as of 2011 (the most recent year for which data is available. While a fair portion of the country has no fear of homosexuals, there are enough folks still out there who do that make being gay in America a dangerous proposition. TABLE

 

Of note, the category of hate crime that gay violence overtook in 2011 was religious persecution, which is now #3 on the FBI's list. But crucially, that "religion bias" bucket includes all types of religious persecution, with the vast majority of crimes being perpetrated against Jews (in America! In this century! ).

 

So yeah... not really sure what the motivation for that statement was, but in this day and age, in America, there are plenty of forces keeping people "in" at this point. Far, far too many, actually.

The motivation was twofold; 1- To show my acceptance and support for those who feel they have to hide who they really are from the rest of the world. I can only imagine the stress and inner turmoil that must cause a person. It certainly cannot be a healthy emotional state. 2- Because I really believe it is not that dangerous for a gay person to be "out" as opposed to "in". In fact, I believe the benefits of being honest with yourself and those close to you exceedingly out weigh the minute possibility of being targeted in a hate crime.

 

Your FBI statistics list just over 1200 incidents and 1500 victims for the year 2011. I have to believe that is somewhat less than the crime rate for something like road rage yet you aren't encouraging people to not drive and stay home. I also believe that a good portion of the incidents listed have to be from people not acting very wisely or taking logical precautions. I'm not saying it makes the crime any less or validates it but if a person goes to bars or clubs or other high risk activities and does the wrong thing with/to the wrong person, they are increasing their chances of being victimized. It's no different for a heterosexual person going to a bar and ending up in a fight because of alcohol and some misunderstanding.

 

Your citing laws against gay sex just recently being overturned is really grasping for straws. When was the last time any of these obsolete laws were actually enforced. Hell, until recently it was still against the law to chew gum on a public street in the town I live in.

 

I simply fail to believe the fear of hate crime is what is keeping anyone in the closet. I would bet the vast majority is due to a combination of embarrassment and not wanting to risk adverse reactions from those closest to them. And, considering I believe that, I feel the benefits of coming clean far, far outweigh the negatives. Anyway, I guess that was my motivation. I was being serious, and still am, but thanks for suggesting it must be a joke.

[Junior]

Your citing laws against gay sex just recently being overturned is really grasping for straws. When was the last time any of these obsolete laws were actually enforced. Hell, until recently it was still against the law to chew gum on a public street in the town I live in.

 

 

http://www.salon.com...al_sodomy_laws/

 

Last week, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli petitioned a federal court to reconsider its ruling on the state’s anti-sodomy law, asking the judges of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reinstate a ban on consensual anal and oral sex for both gay and straight people.

 

And, as Dana Liebelson at The Week notes, Cuccinelli isn’t the only lawmaker — and Virginia isn’t the only state — trying to legislate consensual sex.

 

In spite of the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas that ruled sodomy laws were unconstitutional, many states still have them on the books and continue to selectively enforce them. According to Liebelson:

 

But in 13 states (not including Virginia), the laws didn’t actually disappear: Montana, Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas still have laws specifically outlawing sex between gay Americans, and 9 other states outlaw anal or oral sex for for everyone. Mother Jones‘ Tim Murphy notes that “conservatives in those states know they can’t enforce the laws, but by keeping them in the code, they can send a message that homosexuality is officially condemned by the government.”

[Junior]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/21/justice/california-gay-student-killing

 

McInerney was 14 when he brought a handgun belonging to relatives to E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, prosecutors said.

 

He shot the 15-year-old King twice at point-blank range in the back of the head, while both were typing papers in a computer lab for their English class along with two dozen students and their teacher, authorities said.

 

Friends said King, an eighth grader who lived in a group home called Casa Pacifica, was proud of being openly gay. He liked wearing jewelry and makeup to school and he often wore high-heeled boots with the school uniform. He asked his teachers to call him Leticia instead of Larry. Some students bullied him, pupils said.

 

Other students said McInerney was also subject to some harassment because King had a crush on him and made it publicly known.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/30/tyler-clementi-gay-student-suicide

 

 

His last words, posted on Facebook about 10 minutes before he died, were brief and to the point: "Jumping off the gw bridge sorry."

The comment gave no hint of the torment and mortification that lay behind the decision of gifted 18-year-old violinist Tyler Clementi to throw himself off the George Washington bridge last week.

The cruel details began to emerge today when the body of a man believed to be Clementi was dragged out of the Hudson river at the northern end of Manhattan. At the same time, charges were brought against two of his fellow first-year students at Rutgers university in New Jersey. Like him, they are both 18. They have been accused of invading Clementi's privacy.

One was Dharun Ravi, his roommate at college, the other Ravi's friend Molly Wei, who had a room on the same corridor. On the evening of Sunday 19 September, according to the account given by police, Clementi asked his roommate to give him some time alone in the room they shared.

Ravi agreed, and went down the hall into Wei's room. There, he allegedly logged onto Wei's computer and used it to access through Skype a webcam he had set up on his own computer back in the room he shared with Clementi.

It is not known whether what happened next was accidental or preconceived, but Ravi and Wei are alleged to have watched Clementi in what authorities described as a "sexual encounter" with another man.

It is claimed that Ravi then streamed the video live, and that same night broadcast to the 150 followers of his Twitter feed details of his voyeuristic escapade, outing Clementi in the process: "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay."

 

Two evenings later, Ravi tweeted: "Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9.30 and 12. Yes it's happening again."

[JJ Husker]

I completely agree. I absolutely never have understood bigotry or persecution of a group of any kind. It truly is ignorance.

 

You even see it on this board. People are plugged into categories. Examples.....Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, Christian, atheist...etc. Then, what happens is if you post in a thread, some people automatically ASSUME your opinion on a subject based on what category they are perceived to be in.

 

I couldn't agree with this more. I (if I may) am a perfect example of this. I have not hidden the fact that I am white, male, Christian, Catholic, Conservative, and tend to prefer most republican policies over democrat. I think these few parts of who I am cause people to assume my position on a whole host of subjects and none more prominent than gay rights or homosexuality. I am constantly addressed and talked down to as if I am against gay rights. However, I have numerous times stated that I am supportive of civil unions, I believe gay people are deserving of all the same rights as anyone, and I have had to bend over backwards explaining any number of inane comments simply because some people assume I must be out "to get the gays". A perfect example is my post preceding this one. It grows very tiresome. I can only assume it is due to some bias others have against one or more of my admitted status' (based on the types of arguments aimed at me, I assume it mostly has to do with being Christian) but it likely also could be a conglomeration of things.

 

It is not all "woe is me" either as I am guilty of it also from time to time. I have on occasion mistakenly assumed the position of a liberal or left leaning poster only to discover I was wrong. The point to be learned is that everyone is an individual. Nobody fits completely and wholly into any one bucket except their own.

[Junior]

And one from this past week:

http://www.huffingto..._n_3164812.html

 

Legislation proposed in Washington state this week would allow businesses to deny service to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender population and others, based on religious differences.

 

Under the terms of the bill, businesses in the state could refuse service to anyone whose religious or philosophical beliefs differ from their own. They could not, however, refuse service based on areas protected under federal law, which does not include the LGBT community.

 

The legislation was sparked by a lawsuit filed in April by the American Civil Liberties Union against a florist in Richland, Wash., who, based on her religious beliefs, denied service to a gay couple who were getting married, The Associated Press reports.

 

State Sen. Sharon Brown (R-Kennewick), the lead sponsor of the bill, told The Associated Press that religion needs to be protected by the state government.

 

This one is great, it serves the dual purpose of allowing people to refuse service to gays AND Muslims (and probably blacks too, you know if your religious philosophy doesn't like them).

[JJ Husker]

 

This one is great, it serves the dual purpose of allowing people to refuse service to gays AND Muslims (and probably blacks too, you know if your religious philosophy doesn't like them).

 

Please enlighten me as to which specific religions hold specific beliefs and teach that there are specific groups of people who that religion doesn't like. I'm not looking for "this televangelist" or "that church over there on the corner" or this handful of radical people that obviously are not acting according to what their religion teaches. I'm talking a specific religion that, from top to bottom, holds this belief. Or are you referring to individuals who may be acting outside the tenets of their claimed religion?

 

Yes, I'm trying to make a point but I am also very serious. Is there a religion that claims to not like blacks? or Muslims? or gays? I'm not familiar with any.

[Junior]

 

This one is great, it serves the dual purpose of allowing people to refuse service to gays AND Muslims (and probably blacks too, you know if your religious philosophy doesn't like them).

 

Please enlighten me as to which specific religions hold specific beliefs and teach that there are specific groups of people who that religion doesn't like. I'm not looking for "this televangelist" or "that church over there on the corner" or this handful of radical people that obviously are not acting according to what their religion teaches. I'm talking a specific religion that, from top to bottom, holds this belief. Or are you referring to individuals who may be acting outside the tenets of their claimed religion?

 

Yes, I'm trying to make a point but I am also very serious. Is there a religion that claims to not like blacks? or Muslims? or gays? I'm not familiar with any.

 

That's kind of the beauty of religion... a group can warp it to mean anything they want it to mean, especially when you generalize laws like this. I can say that my views, as a devout Pastafarian, don't allow me to rent an apartment to a Christian. And also, as a side note, why I never understood the religious impetus behind a gay marriage ban. Just because YOUR (the royal your, not JJHusker specifically) sect of Christianity wants gays to burn in hell, doesn't mean that ALL do.

[JJ Husker]

 

This one is great, it serves the dual purpose of allowing people to refuse service to gays AND Muslims (and probably blacks too, you know if your religious philosophy doesn't like them).

 

Please enlighten me as to which specific religions hold specific beliefs and teach that there are specific groups of people who that religion doesn't like. I'm not looking for "this televangelist" or "that church over there on the corner" or this handful of radical people that obviously are not acting according to what their religion teaches. I'm talking a specific religion that, from top to bottom, holds this belief. Or are you referring to individuals who may be acting outside the tenets of their claimed religion?

 

Yes, I'm trying to make a point but I am also very serious. Is there a religion that claims to not like blacks? or Muslims? or gays? I'm not familiar with any.

 

That's kind of the beauty of religion... a group can warp it to mean anything they want it to mean, especially when you generalize laws like this. I can say that my views, as a devout Pastafarian, don't allow me to rent an apartment to a Christian. And also, as a side note, why I never understood the religious impetus behind a gay marriage ban. Just because YOUR sect of Christianity wants gays to burn in hell, doesn't mean that ALL do.

 

WTF? Are you outside your friggin mind or are you just too biased to know what the hell you're talking about? Not only does my sect of Christianity (Catholicism) not want to see gays burn in hell, they do not WANT to see anyone burn and I am not aware of any other Christian religion that wants it either. If somebody wants that, then they ain't Christian. Me thinks you have no grasp whatsoever of the huge difference between warning people about what type of behavior may lead them on a path to hell and wantonly condemning them there. There is room for debate with the secular community about what may constitute sinful behavior but there is no room for a blatant bullsh#t lie like you just posted.

[Someone]

Kansas Catholic Conference supported -- pushed for this new law:

 

Davis asked Kinzer if under Kinzer’s bill an apartment owner could cite his religious beliefs to fight a complaint if he refused to rent to a same-sex couple.

“That is generally correct,” Kinzer said.

 

Private individuals can withhold any service to anyone who they don't like basis on their religious beliefs.

[bhamHusker]

 

This one is great, it serves the dual purpose of allowing people to refuse service to gays AND Muslims (and probably blacks too, you know if your religious philosophy doesn't like them).

 

Please enlighten me as to which specific religions hold specific beliefs and teach that there are specific groups of people who that religion doesn't like. I'm not looking for "this televangelist" or "that church over there on the corner" or this handful of radical people that obviously are not acting according to what their religion teaches. I'm talking a specific religion that, from top to bottom, holds this belief. Or are you referring to individuals who may be acting outside the tenets of their claimed religion?

 

Yes, I'm trying to make a point but I am also very serious. Is there a religion that claims to not like blacks? or Muslims? or gays? I'm not familiar with any.

 

That's kind of the beauty of religion... a group can warp it to mean anything they want it to mean, especially when you generalize laws like this. I can say that my views, as a devout Pastafarian, don't allow me to rent an apartment to a Christian. And also, as a side note, why I never understood the religious impetus behind a gay marriage ban. Just because YOUR sect of Christianity wants gays to burn in hell, doesn't mean that ALL do.

 

WTF? Are you outside your friggin mind or are you just too biased to know what the hell you're talking about? Not only does my sect of Christianity (Catholicism) not want to see gays burn in hell, they do not WANT to see anyone burn and I am not aware of any other Christian religion that wants it either. If somebody wants that, then they ain't Christian. Me thinks you have no grasp whatsoever of the huge difference between warning people about what type of behavior may lead them on a path to hell and wantonly condemning them there. There is room for debate with the secular community about what may constitute sinful behavior but there is no room for a blatant bullsh#t lie like you just posted.

99.995% sure that his use of "your" was in the impersonal, general sense, not in the you, JJHusker1, sense. Don't let that get in the way of you feeling all persecuted and put upon, though.

[JJ Husker]

I didn't take it as if it were being directed at me. He said the Catholic religion wants gays to burn in hell. And that is complete bullsh#t. You might want to read and comprehend my response before deciding what it is you think you are hearing.

[Junior]

I didn't take it as if it were being directed at me. He said the Catholic religion wants gays to burn in hell. And that is complete bullsh#t. You might want to read and comprehend my response before deciding what it is you think you are hearing.

 

 

I didn't say that at all, if you would read the whole statement I even said that I was using the royal "your" not JJHusker specifically. Read the whole post, not just part of it.

 

 

That's kind of the beauty of religion... a group can warp it to mean anything they want it to mean, especially when you generalize laws like this. I can say that my views, as a devout Pastafarian, don't allow me to rent an apartment to a Christian. And also, as a side note, why I never understood the religious impetus behind a gay marriage ban. Just because YOUR (the royal your, not JJHusker specifically) sect of Christianity wants gays to burn in hell, doesn't mean that ALL do.

[knapplc]

Your FBI statistics list just over 1200 incidents and 1500 victims for the year 2011. I have to believe that is somewhat less than the crime rate for something like road rage yet you aren't encouraging people to not drive and stay home. I also believe that a good portion of the incidents listed have to be from people not acting very wisely or taking logical precautions. I'm not saying it makes the crime any less or validates it but if a person goes to bars or clubs or other high risk activities and does the wrong thing with/to the wrong person, they are increasing their chances of being victimized. It's no different for a heterosexual person going to a bar and ending up in a fight because of alcohol and some misunderstanding.

 

 

Others have addressed other parts of this post, but I don't see anything specifically addressing this, so I'll tackle it.

 

Crimes against gays for being gay are not all categorized as hate crimes. Many go unreported, many don't rise to the level of the legal definition of hate crime. But that doesn't mean the attack or slur or whatever they faced wasn't motivated by the fact that they're gay. Hate crimes are not always reported as hate crimes, and it's important to note that the federal stats I cited are gleaned from local police reports, and are thus affected by state and local laws pertaining to such crimes. The statistics can easily be skewed by states where such laws aren't considered hate crimes unless they're especially egregious, or if the state or local PD doesn't want to. States like Kansas, for example, or West Virginia, where such crimes could be more likely to occur because the citizenry can't or won't make their elected officials enforce such laws.

 

I fail to see what the road rage example has to do with anything. You could have named any other crime and it would be equally irrelevant in such a conversation. The fact that those crimes exist does not mean that crimes against gays for being gay do not exist, nor does the fact that we're not talking about those crimes in this thread have any relevance on... anything. If you want to start a discussion about the dangers of road rage, or any other crime, do. It would have no bearing on this thread, just as this discussion has no bearing on that.

 

I cannot tell you how disappointing it is to read this:

I also believe that a good portion of the incidents listed have to be from people not acting very wisely or taking logical precautions. I'm not saying it makes the crime any less or validates it but if a person goes to bars or clubs or other high risk activities and does the wrong thing with/to the wrong person, they are increasing their chances of being victimized. It's no different for a heterosexual person going to a bar and ending up in a fight because of alcohol and some misunderstanding.

 

This is, bluntly, bullsh#t. It's the "asking for it" excuse for rape. If your wife went out to a bar and had a good time with her girlfriends, and she happened to be loud and giggly and caught the attention of a guy prone to rape, is that a high-risk activity? There simply is NO EXCUSE for hate crime, just as there is no excuse for rape.

 

Being gay in public is not a "high-risk activity."

[Hooked on Huskers]

......positively, negatively, or not at all?

 

It depends on which generations. Most older generation banned all sports for gay/lesbian people, hard drug usage, gambling, etc. Similar to section 8 military law before "don't ask don't tell" position. Even a bunch of elderly people said all homosexuals type sent to mental institution stay ......hopefully "cured" like lobotomy or experimental drug . Also, reject same sex marriage.