thinkers before the 1970s, when people of different sexual orientation were struggling to be heard? Do you now support different orientation because its fashionable?
Don't hurt me, it is just a "I wonder" question. Thank you
2007-09-08 04:05:08 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Before the Stonewall Inn riots in New York City in June 1969, not only were straight people not generally accepting of homosexuality, but gay folks themselves were often full of self-loathing. The recent Larry Craig incident shows that this remains an issue for many people who are attracted to members of their own gender.
Homophobia has been so built into the culture that it has taken almost 40 years for society to examine the nonsense that it has believed about homosexuality. We owe a heap of gratitude to the brave souls who have come out of the closet and enabled people to see real human beings instead of the stereotype. But it has taken time for people to get to know their neighbors, friends and relatives who are gay. Once they do, they're less likely to want to oppress them. Most polls indicate that younger people (who have grown up knowing gay people) are quite accepting of homosexuality
Nonetheless, in those religious areas where social lives are dependent on conservative churches, there are many people whose only contact with homosexuality is through the media. As long as this separation remains a factor, there will remain people who are in favor of ostracizing, jailing, or even killing homosexuals.
^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^
2007-09-08 04:15:36 · answer #1 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As I remember it...it wasn't even spoken in polite conversation, not for or against. It was just understood by some and not by others...it just was not discussed. It wasn't until that NYC Revolution (I can't remember what they called it) when the cops raided a gay hangout just once too often and they have been fighting for their rights ever since and obviously succeeded. It will continue until people are all equal under the law. The biggest drawback is religion... but the world wars have always been about bloody beliefs and religion.
2007-09-08 04:55:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd go back to the 50's when none were heard. I believe that the morality of the Bible made a difference. Even then the people that weren't "religious" respected other's beliefs. People weren't worried about being politically correct, just correct.
2007-09-08 06:06:32 · answer #3 · answered by RB 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In the '70s I was submerged in sex, drugs and rock'n roll while throwing rocks at cops as part of an effort to end a war and change the world.
Nothing much changed as a result of anything I did.
I don't give any thought to anyone's sexual orientation one way or the other, except to the extent of a nagging notion about people defining what they are by what they do with their genitals.
2007-09-08 04:11:30 · answer #4 · answered by Jack P 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
At the time, different sexual orientations weren't well-understood by psychology or society in general. After all this information came out about homosexuality, I think most caring people objectively analyzed it and decided homosexuality wasn't wrong.
People who had previously worked on getting blacks registered to vote in the 1960s, like my mom, did support homosexual rights when information about it was brought to their attention.
It's all a matter of education.
2007-09-08 04:10:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
I think that before the seventies, people just didn't talk much about sexual orientation. We can't really hold against someone their lack of support for something that they were only peripherally aware of, at best.
2007-09-08 04:08:54 · answer #6 · answered by Patrick C 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
"Politically mind-blowing" is a masking term for "do not offend me". yet in reality, if i'm indignant by ability of what you say, it extremely is through fact i prefer to be indignant by ability of what you say. laptop is the masking term that helps the indignant to have greater rights than the non-laptop speaker. If a individual makes use of a non-laptop term, then s/he detrimental aspects somebody being indignant. the unlucky element in this us of a (u . s . a .) is now the guy who spoke in a non-laptop way is by some ability the accountable occasion, while in reality the indignant chosen to be that way interior the 1st place. laptop is what the voluntarily indignant cover in the back of while they mask their ability to sweep issues off in a non-confrontational way.
2016-10-18 07:59:31 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I always have. But in the 70's I was about 8-10. Didn't really care then.
2007-09-08 04:08:46 · answer #8 · answered by punch 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
in the closet.
now we exist in a world of reverse discrimination.
How so?
Now, it must be accepted that those of different sexual orientation are no different than anyone else. Yet, the reverse discrimination kicks in where those who do not believe that they are normal are in fact discriminated against as bigots.
If this is not reverse bigotry, I do not know what is.
Why, I wonder, are those who do not believe gays are normal have to cow tow to the mass media's embarrassment of them, and thus be silenced, while the gays can freely promote their beliefs, is quite discriminatory indeed.
In the US, we have freedom of speech being suppressed by this ridiculous double standard.
Why should they be allowed to promote their views without a legitimate rebuttal?
While I would never dream of restricting the alternate sexual person's rights to do what they want, I would expect these racists to respect my rights ti believe that what they are doing is wrong.
2007-09-08 04:08:39 · answer #9 · answered by Tim 47 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I do not support it, You will not see me at any Gay rally, however, they have the choice to do as they choose to do, I'm not the Judge, God is, so I do not condone to killing just because I do not agree
2007-09-08 04:10:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋