I do not choose to take sides on the gay vs. straight issue. What I will comment on is the matter of pride. There are so many references to pride these days, in so many contexts, we might wonder where humility went. If we are to believe Christian dogma (I don't),pride is one of the 'seven deadlies.' My belief(s), pro or con, notwithstanding, pride seems to get people into considerable difficulty. I don't think pride is necessarily a bad thing, unless it interferes with rational thinking and uncommon sense. Certain conflicts come to mind, some more recent; some more temporaly removed.
In any case, I would advise anyone to be careful about they are proud of: are you proud because it feels right, or are you proud to go along with the crowd? The crowd is a mob with scruples---this can change in a heartbeat.

Modesty
Ones' sexual habits gay or not should be a private matter, should it not? The only real problem with sexual rights that I see is that some think it right to ignore this common decency and come out of the closet publicly exposing themselves and their love acts to us all.
=
MJA

The point of gay pride is that it is the antithesis of the gay shame that gay men and lesbian are often expected to feel instead. The entire notion of pride is linked to empowerment rather than surrendering to despair.
至于性习惯是“隐私”的问题，当一个男人公开谈论他的妻子和家庭时，他是一个活跃的异性恋者这一事实是相当含蓄的。当一个男同性恋或女同性恋者试图在谈论他们的生活伴侣时做同样的事情，不可避免地会声称他们在“炫耀”他们的性习惯。

我们从许多地方听到“我们的自由正处于危险之中!”自由是什么?绝对自由可能意味着我可以射杀走在我财产前的人。或者我可以喝十杯酒，然后开车去商店再买。显然，我们必须在某个地方划清界限。
我喜欢引用小奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯的观点，停止用拳头打邻居鼻子的权利。同性婚姻不会碰到我的鼻子。就像那个站在街角说我要下地狱的人一样。我不喜欢牧师和他的工作，但我热爱自由，这意味着我喜欢别人做他们想做的事情的权利，只要他们不伤害他们的邻居。
I hate saggy pants. I hate flat billed ballcaps. I hate those rubber testicles that hang from below a license plate. I hate racist bumper stickers. I hate watching revisionist history on a news commentary program. But I also realize that these are acts that are acts of freedom.
基本上，在每一场民权运动中，都有一群人不关注自由的含义和它如何应用。他们让“道德”占上风(通常来自一本圣书)，但事后看来，“道德”是一种私人观点，与自由的支配直接矛盾。
100 years ago, were blacks allowed to marry whites? Who DARE say it should be illegal now? History repeats itself, and we are bearing witness.

Well stated, Greenlee---well stated.

首先，我有几个关于用户评论的问题。
"Modesty
Ones' sexual habits gay or not should be a private matter, should it not? The only real problem with sexual rights that I see is that some think it right to ignore this common decency and come out of the closet publicly exposing themselves and their love acts to us all.
MJA
MJA, if you wouldn't mind entertaining a couple of questions that your statement evoked from me I would be grateful.
1. What is this idea of "decency" that your are assuming the masses hold?
2. Presuming you can outline this idea of decency, what is it that makes it "common"?
3. What concrete support do you have that leads you to believe that others indeed share this idea of "common decency" that allows you to feel confident in holding your position that "common decency" is a sturdy logical reasoning for your topic idea of "modesty"?
使用“普通”这个词带来的泛化可能是如此危险，我只是觉得我需要用“普通礼仪”这个词来明确你的意图。毕竟，我不能用“常识”来为几乎任何行为辩解，无论它是十恶不赦的还是仁慈的，而不需要实际说明为什么所讨论的行为实际上属于“常识”的范畴。当然，在一场逻辑辩论中，使用“common ________”作为推理的危险是显而易见的。“普通礼仪”的坚固程度取决于支持它的构念，而您还没有展示这些构念是什么。
此外，我发现你用了“出柜”这个词很有趣。在你使用这个短语如此松散，因为它是毫无根据的暗示，公开声明一个是同性恋是一些大的在你的脸生产。Is it not the case that the act of announcing ones engagement, or throwing an engagement party or wedding shower, is an
甚至更旺盛，在你的脸上，展示一个人的爱的行为?With the only difference lying in what is
currently deemed socially acceptable?
Just some clarification to better understand where you are coming from would be much appreciated.
Personal thoughts on the issue. To borrow from the great MLK's playbook. the Declaration of Independence is a promissory note, and it is Americas duty to live up to that promise. If all men are created equal and endowed by there creator with unalienable rights (whoever that creator may be, as it is not directly stated as being God), with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so long is it does not impede negatively on others liberty to the same unalienable rights. Then there is no logical argument against gay marriage. If ones only standpoint stems from a place of religious origin, that I kindly remind all that religion is also a personal freedom
that one is allowed to practice as one sees fit, ONLY, so long as it doesn't negatively impede on others personal liberties. Therefore, Outside of blatant hypocrisy, anyone who is an active participating member of Americas society has thus agreed to this social contract and is expected to uphold it. To me, this issue is simply a logical contradiction to the very
ideology that America was founded on.

传统是一件可怕的事情。为什么仅仅因为人们已经这样做了这么长时间，他们就会感到如此深切的需要以他们的后代的方式来做事情?是因为我们害怕改变吗?这就是所有这些矛盾的、简单的传统的原因吗?打破传统似乎总能带来更伟大的成就。这是因为人类不可能一遍又一遍地做同样的事情，并期待同样的结果。我们无法控制变化，无论我们是否参与，它都会发生。把我们的脚埋在地上，拒绝移动，这对任何人都没有帮助，也拯救不了任何东西。

The program that questions everything
...except your intelligence.
Tonight's program proved this to be a joke. The political correctness at Stanford was embarrassingly overwhelming. A discussion on homosexuality and society and the only "expert" crusades for the full 50 minutes against the contrary view with only the whimpiest of softballs thrown his way. A discerning mind might want to check out a true alternative approach well represented by the "COURAGE" movement.
I hope and want to believe that not all "enlightened progressives" are so sophomoric and "herd-thinkers" as was in evidence tonight.
What a shame Stanford cannot be more provocative.

This program's discussion seems to me to have been profoundly unphilosophical and, indeed, not even to have benefited from the anthropological training of the guest. The problem, it seems to me, starts with the assumption that those opposed to a gay political agenda are in the grips of a prejudice. I happen to live in a jurisdiction that has legalized gay marriage and agree with that legislation. The society in my view should encourage monogamy, whether gay or straight. But I don't think that those who oppose it are necessarily merely prejudiced.
Part of the problem with the program begins with the assumption that the concept of ?moral panic? appropriate to describe opposition to gay marriage, or a fit platform from which to launch a philosophical discussion of any topic. Wikipedia defines "moral panic" as follows:
Moral panics have several distinct features. According to Goode and Ben-Yehuda, moral panic consists of the following characteristics:
? Concern - There must be awareness that the behaviour of the group or category in question is likely to have a negative impact on society.
? Hostility - Hostility towards the group in question increases, and they become "folk devils". A clear division forms between "them" and "us".
? Consensus - Though concern does not have to be nationwide, there must be widespread acceptance that the group in question poses a very real threat to society. It is important at this stage that the "moral entrepreneurs" are vocal and the "folk devils" appear weak and disorganised.
? Disproportionality - The action taken is disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the accused group.
? Volatility - Moral panics are highly volatile and tend to disappear as quickly as they appeared due to a wane in public interest or news reports changing to another topic. [1]
Of course, "disproportionality" is in the eye of the beholder. Should it matter whether, as the hosts pointed out during the session, those to whom the category is applied wouldn't agree that their concerns are disproportionate? Categorizing their attitude as a moral panic is a way of saying that we need not engage with the reasons behind their concerns because they are, a priori, irrationally. Nor, if the cited definition is appropriate, can we ever know, during the ?panic,? whether an attitude is a moral panic. The volatility of a moral panic is part of the definition, so we can only know whether there has been a moral panic after it disappears.
Apart from these general points, it is unclear to what extent the nature of the hostility to gay marriage meets the cited definition of a moral panic. On an empirical level, do those who oppose gay marriage treat gays as "folk devils"? Such an attitude by straights toward gays seems to have been prevalent when the law criminalized sodomy. Whether it is true of those who oppose gay marriage but would, for example, favor civil unions seems to be another question. The debate about marriage v. civil unions (if civil unions could be defined to include the same bundle of legal benefits as marriages) can implicate philosophical questions about essentialism in the use of words. For those who see marriage as instituted by God, the question of whether marriage should be accorded to a new set of couples is not only about whether those couples should have certain legal privileges, it is about whether the word can properly be applied to them. Religiously, they may see the word itself as defined by God. Sociologically, the word in their view may underlie a vision of the resolution of the often problematic relationship between the sexes and applying the word to other situations would undermine that vision of marriage as an ideal resolution of the relationship between people of different sexes. Historically, they may see the extension of the concept of marriage as a further step in the desacralization of what is to them a sacred institution. To those of us who see the institution as already secular, this isn't a problem; but our view only reinforces their fear. In an oddly parallel way, the opposition of gay activists to the compromise of civil unions is based in part on a recognition of the magic, or at least honorific, quality of marriage as an institution at a time when, in view of the decline in marriage as the basis for households, that magic is declining.
第二个令人不安的平行现象是“恐同”一词的应用在不支持同性恋的立场作为哲学谈话?中国伊朗亚洲杯比赛直播年代的客人。对待别人呢?作为一种心理异常的态度，就像恐惧症一样，是另一种避免把他们称为人的方式。它犯了和那些把同性恋当作心理异常的异性恋者一样的错误。当然，这种类比不应过分:使用同样的说辞对同性恋群体造成了更糟糕的后果。没有人试图绑架所谓的恐同者，并通过心理压力使他们皈依，就像对待同性恋者那样。但如果我们关心哲学探究，我们应该避免这种模式。一个人类学家会不会像哲学谈话?中国伊朗亚洲杯比赛直播S guest应该感兴趣的是，为什么同性恋倡导者应该使用精神病学的比喻作为政治修辞，在这种修辞被如此破坏性地用于同性恋之后这么快。

Perhaps this is a simplistic statement, but how could this even be a valid discussion without a single woman on the panel? The only mention of women I heard centered around how women wouldn't have a problem with being gay because women are so much more attractive. Not once did I ever hear the straight woman's view of any aspect of homosexuality. Pretty shameful. It also points to a valid fear that many women have of the Gay community that it will be used as a tool to further the patriarchal culture. Whether those fears are valid is a much more potent discussion than whether gays should be able to marry.

Exactly! I agree that male homophobia comes from typical cultural norms of what masculinity is supposed to be. Many heterosexual men I know who are homophobic do talk about being "eyed" or possibly raped as the reason for their prejudice. It boils down to the fact that they're afraid being treated the same way they treat women.
I think all homophobia comes from discomfort with our own sexuality and a lack of an honest view about how we treat one another in general.

Legally, the U.S. is a secular state, and secular states will sooner or later recognize homosexual marriage. This does not concern me that much. Of course, at some point the state may try to force religious institutions to recognize or even perform such marriages - that would concern me. We'll see. From a legal perspective, homosexuals should have the same rights as anyone else in this country - no less, and no more.
To discuss whether homosexual marriage is right or wrong, or for that matter whether homosexuality is itself right or wrong (which is the real issue), one must have a standard of right or wrong to begin with. We've been down this road many times on this blog in other discussions - if the only standard is human society, or human opinions, or even human philosophy, ultimately there is no standard...because there is no particular reason for me to accept anyone else's reasoning, feelings, or philosophy as superior to mine.
I find homosexual conduct personally repugnant - not because I'm somehow afraid of my own sexuality (that whole pseudo-psychological argument is absurd), or afraid of homosexuals (not at all, I've had friends in that community), but simply because it repels me viscerally. On a moral level, I find it wrong because God declares it to be so...the Creator has the right to set the rules of His creation, I think. Others may accept that or not, as they see fit, but that is what I believe.
然而，我认为自然也足够清楚地说明了这一点——从自然结构上看，我们身体的各个部分是如何组合在一起的，这是非常明显的。事实上，从性行为本身来看，它有两个自然的目的——愉悦和生育。只有一种形式的性活动能同时满足这两个目的——因此它要么是唯一的自然形式，要么是最自然的。这会让其他人变得不自然，或者不自然。
顺便说一下，哈罗德，你提到了一个有趣的旁注，你说“像传统、宗教和其他人类反常现象这样的事情，对进化进程是反直觉的，而且会产生反效果。”你为什么认为进化有进步?我认为它的定义是没有目的、没有头脑、没有指导的——那么它怎么可能有“进步”呢?因为进步意味着朝着一个目标前进，而这个目标反过来又需要智力来决定这个目标。
In fact, if I were to pursue that side issue a bit further - if evolution really is driven by the chance occurance of traits that provide a reproductive advantage (which is after all the heart of the theory), why did not evolution eliminate homosexuality millenia ago? It would be hard to come up with a trait more contrary to reproductive advantage.