When did same-gender relations become "wrong"?

[Makalakumu]

If somebody dosent "like" something they arent going to be made to "like" it no matter what you argue, I too think theres a difference between "rights" and "acceptance". Like Paul, Id just be satisfied with everybody having equal rights just because we are Americans and we are all free to do what we want as long as it dosent infringe on somebody elses rights. The whole "you must accept" argument isnt going to reach very far downrange...

Yet your ideals is that people must accept "equality" among all people as citizens. This still forces a belief on someone. Many people do not believe that homosexuals deserve equality as citizens of the US and they actively oppose this.

 

[loki09789]

Isn't it rather judgmental to deny a homosexual their chance to express their love in the eyes of god with a vow of marriage?

Isn't it rather judgemental to deny a homosexual who feels a spiritual calling to preach the Word of Jesus by denying their ability to become ordained?

In religion, at least the Christian stuff that I have been exposed to there are two distinct parts:

1. Personal relationship with God

2. The "Body" or Community to include the rules/regulations and such that define that community. Those 'rules' are based on a certain interpretation of NT/OT text.

That said, it isn't necessarily 'judgemental' in an 'evil' way that Christians that see Homosexuallity as outside of those rules to say that the "Body" has no right to judge you or deny you access to the community because any 'sins' you carry (whether being gay, alcoholic, adultery...) is something that you have to reconcile with your maker at a personal level - the community is there to support you (in theory).

Within that community, if there are certain 'sins' (mortal and venal come to mind for Catholics) that can disqualify you for authority/power positions within the community it is no different than saying that if you are a convicted spousal abuser, you are not going to be allowed to legally own a gun.

It IS judgemental IMO to assume that tolerance should mean that no standards are allowed to exist at all. I can tolerate my son's tendency to lip off (meaning that I understand the psychological/developmental/situational conditions that surround the lipping off) but that does not mean that I have to throw away any standards of appropriate conduct of a 12 year old when talking to an adult.

 

[Makalakumu]

What I am saying is that if homosexuality is against someones moral or religious beliefs, then it is their right to disagree with "gay lifestyles" or "same gender relationships." They can "love the sinner but hate the sin" as the saying goes, and no, it is NOT a cop out to do so. How many of you have had a child or family member or friend who has done something that you despised, yet, you love them anyways? Was it a cop out for you to dislike the behavior but still love the person? I think not.

I don't think that you can separate the sin and the sinner in this case. The "sinner" is expressing themselves as an individual by choosing someone they love. If someone told me that it was wrong to love my wife, I'd throw my hands up in the air and tell them I have no choice BUT to love her. That love is a part of me and it is no different among homosexuals. Therefore, "love the sinner, hate the sin" still hates both. We love who we love because of who we are. These are inseparable.

And why the heck would loving someone be a sin anyways...

 

[7starmantis]

Thats a great statement, and gives everyone warm fuzzies and everything, but simply not so. Its not possible to refuse to use labels. Labels aren't what make people biased, or bigoted. Defining what "gay" or straight" is in the context of a discussion like this is pretty important, if you want to get anywhere with the discussion.

Having to say that there is a "sliding scale" if you will, to determine who is "gay" or "straight", in order to accept someone who is gay is in my own opinion, still closed minded a bit. If you have to take the "label" on yourself by saying, "well I'm 27% gay", in order to accept someone who labels themselves gay, is still not getting it, in my opinion. Like Paul said, there needs to be acceptance even across from your own beliefs. Someone who is not gay, who believes being gay is wrong, should still be able to accept a gay person. Thats acceptance, not blurring the lines enough to include yourself so you can then accept them. If your a "christian" and believe being gay is wrong and anabomination against God, you should still be able to accept a gay person, because isn't speeding also wrong? I guess those people never speed either?

What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't have to include yourself in a group to accept them. I'm not gay, I'm pretty far from gay, but I completely 100% accept all my gay friends (male or female). I also am openminded enough to understand that there are differing reason to be gay or bisexual and not everyone's are the same. I'm also comfortable saying that finding someone of the same sex as "attractive" is not "stepping towards being homosexual". I dont have to step towards being gay to completely accept someone who is gay, its this kind of thinking that fools people into thinking they are openminded when they are still not allowing themselves to really open up if you will.

7sm

 

[loki09789]

Yet your ideals is that people must accept "equality" among all people as citizens. This still forces a belief on someone. Many people do not believe that homosexuals deserve equality as citizens of the US and they actively oppose this.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Nation for which it stands...."

If you are going to be a fully vested citizen of this country (which the pledge demonstrates a gesture of intent....), then no one 'forces' you to accept equality - you accept it as a tenet of being an American citizen. If you don't agree with "equality" then you can try to buck the system (say attack gays or shoot an abortion doctor) and accept the consequences. You could also leave the country.

People CHOOSE to accept the rules of being an American citizen by choosing to stay in the country and choosing to maintain their citizenship and not becoming a Canadian/Mexican/German....citizen instead.

There are people who are in opposition to gays civil liberties being fully recognized...and they have the right to feel that way! They DON'T have the right to attack people they don't like, exclude them from jobs/fire them simply for being gay or something else....as long as they object within the 'rules' they aren't 'wrong' simply because they feel that way. They disagree with you, me and others who don't see it the same way...that is all.

The system isn't set up to have someone come to you and say "Hey, are you being treated poorly? Gee, let me take care of you."

THe system is set up so that the individual has opportunity and processes to take action to stand up for him/herself and fight for his/her rights to equality when they feel that unfair treatment is present.

Sort of like the sitting in the dark complaining vs. lighting the candle with the match in your pocket...even if that means teaming up/coordinating with others to get that match (which means that you still have to quite complaining and DO something about it) No one likes a whiner, but people do respond to alternatives - even it takes some 'influence' through the constitutional/legal process at times....

 

[loki09789]

I don't think that you can separate the sin and the sinner in this case. The "sinner" is expressing themselves as an individual by choosing someone they love. If someone told me that it was wrong to love my wife, I'd throw my hands up in the air and tell them I have no choice BUT to love her. That love is a part of me and it is no different among homosexuals. Therefore, "love the sinner, hate the sin" still hates both. We love who we love because of who we are. These are inseparable.

And why the heck would loving someone be a sin anyways...

Homosexuallity isn't automatically 'love' but IS a preference for sex with same gender people. Romanticising it doesn't help clarify the issue.

I am a Heterosexual and can honestly say that fact did not automatically mean that I 'loved' every girl/woman I tried to get together with in life.

Quite honestly, with all the different denominations/variations within those denominations and such, even in Christianity there are places that are more accepting and allow Gays to be fully vested, even evangelical/priestly figures in their practice - instead of complaining about how these folks aren't getting fair treatment, just find the group that will - or start one.

 

[shesulsa]

First, my semantical point about the word "lifestyle" was not directed at Paul and we agree more than you apparently know, Tulisan. My point was really about euphemisms when we discuss these topics. The term "lifestyle" is used, in my opinion, by some as a catch-all which includes many things, the consideration of each of which should be separate and thank you for doing this anyway.

What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't have to include yourself in a group to accept them. I'm not gay, I'm pretty far from gay, but I completely 100% accept all my gay friends (male or female). I also am openminded enough to understand that there are differing reason to be gay or bisexual and not everyone's are the same. I'm also comfortable saying that finding someone of the same sex as "attractive" is not "stepping towards being homosexual". I dont have to step towards being gay to completely accept someone who is gay, its this kind of thinking that fools people into thinking they are openminded when they are still not allowing themselves to really open up if you will.

7sm

I would have to agree with this, of course, though I never have felt the need to identify or participate in an activity I think the rights for which should be protected. For example, I despise and am intolerant of racism, but I accept that people with these opinions have a right to live and prosper in America and they can marry and have children and raise them as bigoted as they want to. I may not agree with it, I won't participate in nor tolerate it and I refuse to condone it but I accept their place here in America.

It is clear that as Americans we have a mandate to rise above our personal and individual beliefs, our religious beliefs, our comfort zones to accept that people unlike us - outside of our frame of reference, live here and have a right to do so. It is my personal opinion that we are treated equally and refrain from harming one another in the process as much as possible.

 

[loki09789]

It is clear that as Americans we have a mandate to rise above our personal and individual beliefs, our religious beliefs, our comfort zones to accept that people unlike us - outside of our frame of reference, live here and have a right to do so. It is my personal opinion that we are treated equally and refrain from harming one another in the process as much as possible.

That is the 'thing' that is the struggle for Democratic citizens. We have the right and freedom to be individuals but must balance that with how we treat other 'different' individuals - even when we don't agree/condone/approve of their practices or 'lifestyle.'

People, as citizens, seem to loose sight of a common goal or mission and therefore are not working toward that, letting the 'differences' become assets because someone else might come at a problem in a way that you don't and therefore solve it better, but see citizenship as something that gives them permission to complain and vent cart blanc.

I see it in the students at school and from talking to veteran teachers and reflecting on the 'old Corps' vs the new.

Though not completely so, there was more cooperative and 'mission' focused work and people did their part. That has changed over time from a group to a group of individuals that are willing to let the mission/task go uncompleted because of differences and what they individually aren't 'getting' to their satistfaction. I am sick of hearing the phrase "I'm not comfortable with that." from students as an excuse not to participate instead of a starting point for ways to modify/adjust the activity or even find a different perspective/reassurance so that they will at least try. I am NOT talking about something that is life threatening or abusive here, just regular things like answering a question in class, reading out loud, moving from one seat to another to avoid distractions in class.....you know basics.

I have even had 7th graders say "Can't you just tell us the answer?" to which I reply "No, that isn't learning."

People are expecting that if they just sit there and stare long enough, someone else will do the thinking, acting, deciding for them...

THAT scares me more than anything else right now.

 

[loki09789]

I don't have to define it. I'm saying that you may be who you are. Our language does not describe reality and I think that understanding the "homo" or "hetero" in us all really gets to the heart of who we are as individuals. We are beautiful beings who love a variety of different things. Why bind that beauty with a label?

This POV is contradictory to statements about how scientific discipline and systematic understanding was what was 'real' in the past (Wisc School/Creation thread for example) on the surface. There you said that Science is real and things as subjective as beauty and 'heart' (another term for 'spirit' in some contexts) are not 'real' because they can not be defined or verified with evidence.

Can you clarify this surface contradiction for me please?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I have to interject here...

I keep seeing "lifestyle", "Choice", etc.

I've been thinking on that a bit....ran down the list of everyone I ever lusted after, dated, or even asked out, or just plain fantasized about.

It was an, interesting, trip.

One point that was constant though. I never once went "I think I'll lust for you". I just did. There was no choice involved that I could see. It just happened. If I were to choose the object of my desire, it would be a long haired asian or redhead with large breasts....so why am I with a brunette with average boobs and a short do? I just am. I didn't decide 1 day "thats the one". It just was. I didn't pick her outta a line up, going down a checklist. I'm drawn to what I'm drawn to. Now, if those LOTR elves were redheads rather than blonds....well.....I might have faced some challenges. :rofl:

Seriously, I don't believe it is a "choice". It just is. People say "yes, but we've deprogrammed gays". In the real world, we call that brainwashing. I can make anyone think anything if I just repeat it enough and reinforce it enough. In the arts, we call it 'muscle memory' or 'ingrane' etc. Well, you are a computer, and can be programmed and reprogrammed.

If we're in a dark room, cuddling, caressing and otherwise pleasuring, we've been trained that if the lights come on, and the person you're with is the same gender as you, to react with horror. But, now that the lights are on....does that change how it felt?

Some other questions:
What is homosexuality?
Is it sexual attraction, and if so, what is sexual attraction?

Many guys who insist they are 'straight', have posters of young buff men, all oiled up, muscles buldging, while wearing little bity posing pouches on their walls...and subscriptions to magazines that feature them. Where does appreciating a healthy body end, and 'gayness' begin? Its incredibly grey.


Lifestyle...thats another one. My lifestyle is currently sitting around in an apartment with 3 cats, online, watching Iron Chef when I can. If I were to choose my lifestyle, you can bet your bippy it would be alot closer to Hefs, than what I currently have.


American is spirling backwards into a ultra conservative mindset that is just scary. I can go to Toronto, a mere 90 minutes away, and see same-gender couples walking, talking and enjoying life in the open, freely. In fact, Canada is now either about to pass or has passed laws making same-gender mariage legal throughout the nation. So again, when is it wrong? In Canada, it's right...and in the US it's wrong.




As a sidebar:

According to the words of Jesus preserved in the Gospels he didn’t speak about homosexuality at all -- though he did devote serious time and effort to denouncing the “rich” along with self-righteous religious hypocrites.
- E.T.B.

 

[loki09789]

1. I have to interject here...I keep seeing "lifestyle", "Choice", etc.

3. Seriously, I don't believe it is a "choice". It just is. People say "yes, but we've deprogrammed gays". In the real world, we call that brainwashing. I can make anyone think anything if I just repeat it enough and reinforce it enough. In the arts, we call it 'muscle memory' or 'ingrane' etc. Well, you are a computer, and can be programmed and reprogrammed.
:

1. What a wonderful word choice to prove your point about choice .

2. And, if the supporting data about sexual preference being genetic/biological can be compared to the studies that also link antisocial behavior to genetics...there is no proof that any 'reprogramming' of a genetic tendency is real or successful.

UNLIKE antisocial behavior, though, sexual preference is not a threat to society, my family or me individually therefore it should not be a basis to bar people from legally recognized marriages and all the benefits that come with that.

NOTE: I AM NOT IMPLYING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS ANTISOCIAL! I am simply saying that, IF the genetic theory holds true, you can say that 'reprogramming' of a genetic tendency is not successful based on studies of attempts to rehabilitate antisocial criminals (rapists, serial killers....) so any claims of groups that they have 'reprogrammed/brainwashed (better word in this case)' gays are thin at best.

Chances are that all the 'reprogramming' accomplished is to induce traumatic/self hating shame in the individual which forced them farther into the closet....

 

[loki09789]

Excuse me a moment - are we saying there were no marriages before Christ? before Juadism?

Nope

 

[Makalakumu]

Thats a great statement, and gives everyone warm fuzzies and everything, but simply not so. Its not possible to refuse to use labels. Labels aren't what make people biased, or bigoted. Defining what "gay" or straight" is in the context of a discussion like this is pretty important, if you want to get anywhere with the discussion.

It is possible to use other language to describe sexuality. It is possible to be specific about what you like as an individual. Labels help people generalize sexuality. They allow people to lump behavior together and suddenly everyone under that label MUST do the same things. Truly defining who is "gay" and who is "straight" is impossible.

Having to say that there is a "sliding scale" if you will, to determine who is "gay" or "straight", in order to accept someone who is gay is in my own opinion, still closed minded a bit. If you have to take the "label" on yourself by saying, "well I'm 27% gay", in order to accept someone who labels themselves gay, is still not getting it, in my opinion.

You don't have to label yourself at all. All you have to do is make your preferences known. You express your sexuality in an individual way that need not include numbers. For instance one could say, "I find both men and women attractive. I've never slept with a man and I'm not interested right now. Yet, I have no problem with people of the same sex loving each other or sleeping with each other." No label fits this statement.

Like Paul said, there needs to be acceptance even across from your own beliefs. Someone who is not gay, who believes being gay is wrong, should still be able to accept a gay person. Thats acceptance, not blurring the lines enough to include yourself so you can then accept them. If your a "christian" and believe being gay is wrong and anabomination against God, you should still be able to accept a gay person, because isn't speeding also wrong? I guess those people never speed either?

Am I blurring the lines or did Nature do that for us? Perhaps the "answers" regarding sexuality are not found in Christianity. For instance, I love my wife. That love is a part of me and I can never make that go away. If someone said that it was wrong, all I could do is throw my hands in the air and tell them that I couldn't help it. For someone to accept me, they need to accept all of me or its just a cop out.

What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't have to include yourself in a group to accept them. I'm not gay, I'm pretty far from gay, but I completely 100% accept all my gay friends (male or female). I also am openminded enough to understand that there are differing reason to be gay or bisexual and not everyone's are the same. I'm also comfortable saying that finding someone of the same sex as "attractive" is not "stepping towards being homosexual". I dont have to step towards being gay to completely accept someone who is gay, its this kind of thinking that fools people into thinking they are openminded when they are still not allowing themselves to really open up if you will.

You may not have the choice. You are what you are and you cannot escape that. Finding someone attractive of the same sex doesn't make you "gay" but it demonstrates something that you and a "gay" person have in common. IT IS a step in their direction if you will. Hell, you could even check guys out together...

In the end, you are not making a step toward anything, you are just making your sexual preferences known...and that is the ideal expression of who you are. You might be able to walk down the street and point out hot guys with your "gay" buddy and this doesn't mean that you want to take it further. It means that you have acheive a comradery with that person by sharing in the commonalities of your preferences. There is nothing wrong with this...

 

[Makalakumu]

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Nation for which it stands...."

If you are going to be a fully vested citizen of this country (which the pledge demonstrates a gesture of intent....), then no one 'forces' you to accept equality - you accept it as a tenet of being an American citizen. If you don't agree with "equality" then you can try to buck the system (say attack gays or shoot an abortion doctor) and accept the consequences. You could also leave the country.

Or you could attempt through political might to change the rules upon which this country was founded in order to actively condemn and discriminate...

 

[loki09789]

Or you could attempt through political might to change the rules upon which this country was founded in order to actively condemn and discriminate...

Actually, the rules on which this country was founded was pretty intolerant of homosexuallity. That is why there are actually laws on the books that state outright that anyone engaging in sex other than vaginal/penal contact is illegal (to include sodomy, beastiallity, homosexual acts...). Recognizing the rights to equal and fair treatment of gays in the US is, as was mentioned by an earlier poster, the new racism issue.

 

[Makalakumu]

Homosexuallity isn't automatically 'love' but IS a preference for sex with same gender people. Romanticising it doesn't help clarify the issue. I am a Heterosexual and can honestly say that fact did not automatically mean that I 'loved' every girl/woman I tried to get together with in life.

Yes it does, because what we really are talking about is love AND sex. You may not have "loved" every woman you've slept with, but there probably was a pretty good reason you ended up in bed together. Those reasons are part of loving another person.

I realize that some people have "sex" out of very negative feelings. Perhaps they want to dominate a person because of something they feel inside. Who knows, it doesn't matter. This type of behavior isn't about sex or love and does not determine "homo" or "hetero".

Quite honestly, with all the different denominations/variations within those denominations and such, even in Christianity there are places that are more accepting and allow Gays to be fully vested, even evangelical/priestly figures in their practice - instead of complaining about how these folks aren't getting fair treatment, just find the group that will - or start one.

I find your assumption harsh. I feel like you are assuming that I am just "complaining" and doing nothing. That is really unfair considering the medium in which we are communicating. How do you know that I am not active about these things?

If you believe in ending discrimination, then you need to fight for it. And you need to fight the people who actively promote it...aka a Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. This is truly a new Civil Rights movement.

 

[Makalakumu]

This POV is contradictory to statements about how scientific discipline and systematic understanding was what was 'real' in the past (Wisc School/Creation thread for example) on the surface. There you said that Science is real and things as subjective as beauty and 'heart' (another term for 'spirit' in some contexts) are not 'real' because they can not be defined or verified with evidence.

Can you clarify this surface contradiction for me please?

There is no contradiction because I haven't said that. Science describes nature and those things are part of our natures in an objective sense. In fact, there are lots of scientists who study love and beauty...they do so in an objective way, though.

 

[shesulsa]

Lifestyle...thats another one. My lifestyle is currently sitting around in an apartment with 3 cats, online, watching Iron Chef when I can. If I were to choose my lifestyle, you can bet your bippy it would be alot closer to Hefs, than what I currently have.

This is the point I was trying to make - a lifestyle may include but is not indicated by one's sexual preference. LOL about Hef's!!

I agree with your point about "choice" as well. I don't know any people who felt that they had, while growing up, a multiple choice quiz in front of them, or an old IBM punch card with their name on it. Seriously - if I knew I had a choice and understood the test question a little better, I might have made a different one! (HUMOR - JUST KIDDING!) Is it too late to call, "Do-Over?" (more humor - still kidding).

 

[7starmantis]

It is possible to use other language to describe sexuality. It is possible to be specific about what you like as an individual. Labels help people generalize sexuality. They allow people to lump behavior together and suddenly everyone under that label MUST do the same things. Truly defining who is "gay" and who is "straight" is impossible.

Thats an avid avoiding of the true issue. You dont have to negate lines and labels to accept a person either. Labels are ways of communicating, not (neccessarily) only ways to generalize and "lump behavior together". You have a much darker and bleaker outlook on the world than I do I guess. A label in no way means people "must behave the same". I guess "Native American" is a label, right? In that case for me to call myself Native American, do I have to become an alcoholic and gamble my little income away in a casino? Do I have to run around naked and wear feathers in my hair? Your assuming that a label is bad, many times labels can be good, to help us communicate. For example: We are all dying. "We are food for worms". In the Sylvia Plath sense of the word, everyone on this board is dying. However, dont we still use the "label" "dying" to describe a certain group? If we are all dying then who are those people being sent home to hospice? Aren't they truly dying? That example shows what labels can be good for...communicating. Its also as thin as your statements about everyone being gay and straight at the same time and being on a sliding scale of straightness.

You don't have to label yourself at all. All you have to do is make your preferences known. You express your sexuality in an individual way that need not include numbers. For instance one could say, "I find both men and women attractive. I've never slept with a man and I'm not interested right now. Yet, I have no problem with people of the same sex loving each other or sleeping with each other." No label fits this statement.

Except the "label" of the word "love", and "sleeping". You see, you yourself are using labels to talk, lets not get on a semantic argument, the point is that the word "Gay" or "bisexual" has a definition and we must come to a common deffinition in order to truly discuss it. Are we saying "gay" means havin sex with a same sex partner? Being attracted to, loving, sleeping with, looking at, talking to, where does it end? What your saying includes all of this and I understand your point, but its self defeating. All it does is circumvent the issue and allow you to ease your conscience about accepting people different from you. "We are all gay to a point, so lets all get along". That isn't acceptence or tolerance, because there is nothing to accept or tolerate, everyone is the same in your scenario to a point.

Am I blurring the lines or did Nature do that for us? Perhaps the "answers" regarding sexuality are not found in Christianity. For instance, I love my wife. That love is a part of me and I can never make that go away. If someone said that it was wrong, all I could do is throw my hands in the air and tell them that I couldn't help it. For someone to accept me, they need to accept all of me or its just a cop out.

Who said the answers for sexuality are found in christianity? I surely didn't. I did say acceptance, and I'm not sure what you mean by the analogy you gave or your statement about accepting "all of you".

You may not have the choice. You are what you are and you cannot escape that. Finding someone attractive of the same sex doesn't make you "gay" but it demonstrates something that you and a "gay" person have in common. IT IS a step in their direction if you will. Hell, you could even check guys out together...

I thought there was no "gay". See, there has to be a definition or the conclusion is that there are no differences, and the truth is simply that there is many differences, and those differences are what make us beautiful. Dont be so quick to take our differences away, true acceptance or tolerance isn't the doing away with differences, but knowing, understanding, and enjoyig our differences.

7sm

 

[Feisty Mouse]

That is the 'thing' that is the struggle for Democratic citizens. We have the right and freedom to be individuals but must balance that with how we treat other 'different' individuals - even when we don't agree/condone/approve of their practices or 'lifestyle.'

People, as citizens, seem to loose sight of a common goal or mission and therefore are not working toward that, letting the 'differences' become assets because someone else might come at a problem in a way that you don't and therefore solve it better, but see citizenship as something that gives them permission to complain and vent cart blanc.

I see it in the students at school and from talking to veteran teachers and reflecting on the 'old Corps' vs the new.

Though not completely so, there was more cooperative and 'mission' focused work and people did their part. That has changed over time from a group to a group of individuals that are willing to let the mission/task go uncompleted because of differences and what they individually aren't 'getting' to their satistfaction. I am sick of hearing the phrase "I'm not comfortable with that." from students as an excuse not to participate instead of a starting point for ways to modify/adjust the activity or even find a different perspective/reassurance so that they will at least try. I am NOT talking about something that is life threatening or abusive here, just regular things like answering a question in class, reading out loud, moving from one seat to another to avoid distractions in class.....you know basics.

I have even had 7th graders say "Can't you just tell us the answer?" to which I reply "No, that isn't learning."

People are expecting that if they just sit there and stare long enough, someone else will do the thinking, acting, deciding for them...

THAT scares me more than anything else right now.

Testify, brother.

I teach at the college level. These are supposed to be bright students, ready - or at least not adverse to - to learn the material I will present. Some of the classes I've taught have been higher-level electives. And you would not believe (well, maybe you would) some of the offhand comments about how it's so hard - because I don't post the lecture notes (the overheads for the class) online ahead of class. Or because my tests are not always all multiple choice. Etc Etc.

Of course, I'm fixating on a few people, and most of the students I've had have been just fine, indifferent, or great.

But there is this weird emphasis on personal feeling - and how I'm suppossed to respect that, no matter what - I've noticed. Like students coming to me after an exam and saying, "I feel my grade doesn't reflect how much work I've put into the class. I feel that it is unfair." And then they look at me. We can go over the test together, we can talk about what they got wrong, but at a certain point - what? Your grade is not about how you feel about yourself - it's about measuring your performance.

WHEW! Sorry, unexpected rant came out there!

Anyways, back to the main topic - I find the semantics of these arguments very intriguing. I think for the most part, everyone here is in basic agreement about gay rights (or whatever you want to call it) functioning in society/politics today. The differences seem to lie in the perspectives, the feelings about how much others should accept/tolerate/?? people with a different "lifestyle" as their own.