TED Conversations

TED Conversations Admin

This conversation is closed.

Debating Equal Rights for GLBT Americans

These comments have been moved from LZ Granderson's TEDTalk, where they were going off-topic.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 23 2012: LZ does not seem to be very well informed about History. That is not unusual these days, so I'm not blaming him in particular. But if you look at the range of societies throughout recorded history, while there have been Gays forever, of course, I have not heard of ANY society in which Gays have had as much of a coherent lifestyle, and organized program, as what we have witnessed in the last couple of generations. Some Joker said Gays have evolved from the" Love that Dare Not Speak Its Name, " to the "Love That Won't Shut UIp".. In What other society has this organized minority power had the ability not only to promote itself from criminal status to a group actually protected by Law in a very short time, and all the while insisting that it is "Normal". Since Gays do not reproduce themselvesl, it certainly cannot be said to be the norm. However, this is a great sociall achievement, or I would say, a new invention . What I cannot understand is, while achieving all this, why not carry out the thought, and give this new social arrangement its own unique name ? Why settle for "marriage"? IIn the view of the majority , Gay affairs are never going to be seen as "Normal" (meaning nothing more than "what most people do") , so why create endless conflict by not observing the real situation.?
    There doesn't seem to be much dispute about the details , benefits, etc. of legalized cohabitation, so why not give up the idea of depriviing all those romantics who like the idea of "Marriage" in its classic sense? Gays shouuld be more creative than that.
    • Jun 23 2012: Surely, Shawn, you're baiting someone for a trolling match?

      Take Athenian society.... homosexuality, not unusual at all. Shame about the slavery though......How can you make such an outrageously sweeping statement!?

      "Gay affairs are never going to be seen as "Normal" ........ so why not give up the idea of depriving all those romantics who like the idea of "Marriage" in its classic sense? Gays should be more creative than that."

      You have clearly, fantastically, missed the point. The Gay Agenda states that all citizens are EQUALS.

      Science shows us that there is a broad spectrum of gender and sexuality..... so, yes, homosexuality will indeed be considered 'normal,' and is in other nations already. Catch up America... you're falling behind!
    • Jun 23 2012: I liked your comments Shawn, especially where you pointed out how quickly being gay has been not only decriminalized but actively courted as a voter/consumer block. I sincerely hope that the gay public heed LZ's call to the constitutional argument and take up the cause of all humans. Just as women, once acquiring equality, now share an equal burden in maintaining the freedoms we have long struggled for, I would hope the gay community continues to fight for the rights of other alienated groups now that they appear to have achieved official acceptance as equal and respected members of society.

      REN DELF

      Where are all the tales of the openly gay exploits of gods, demi-gods and mankind in Athenian mythology? If it was so acceptable they should be common knowledge even to those who only have a basic knowledge of the myths.

      Being gay, if you stick to the genetic argument where there is no choice, will always be considered a "fringe" lifestyle. They will always be looked at as a minority because they will always be a minority. If some celebrity mouth piece starts saying that people can now chose to be gay as part of a lifestyle choice, well, then we go back to square one right? Which raises an interesting question. If it's a matter of being born that way then aren't we really saying that under "Normal circumstances" no would ever even consider same sex relationships. At least not as a permanent lifestyle choice.

      Gays should open their eyes to the fact that they are fighting to become equal members in a society that is slowly flushing itself down the toilet. If they could see past that they could be strong contributors to helping to make things right for all of us instead of merely trying to fit in.

      We all need to start coming out of the closets of our closed minds.
      • thumb
        Jul 2 2012: I really liked the last part of your answer. I'm gay and I don't really understand the struggle of the gay community to fit into a society that need so desperately to evolve and improve. But then again, we do not born all heroes, and some pople just want to live a simple ordinary life. If gay people want to do so and fit in this aberrant society, well, go ahead then.

        About the "fringe" lifestile. You are not getting it right. I live in spain, really the vast majority of people I know -straight, families, elders, religious, everybody- don't really precieve gay people as any peculiar kind. At all. And that's not me being blind, I lived in the states, in italy, and UK, so I know what you mean about the perception of gay people. But where I live now is the proof thay it will not always be like that. Is just a matter of time.
        • thumb
          Jul 7 2012: "we're not all heroes"

          Yes! That's the thing.... most gay people I know are quite mundane folks....and that's the point of the talk... They would really like to be left alone to live their lives, pay taxes, get married, join the army, fight over who has to take out the garbage this week etc... BUT a minority of very vocal angry small people simply cannot get enough of messing with their lives....
    • Jun 23 2012: "But if you look at the range of societies throughout recorded history, while there have been Gays forever, of course, I have not heard of ANY society in which Gays have had as much of a coherent lifestyle, and organized program, as what we have witnessed in the last couple of generations."
      Alright so the reason for this is because "gays" or more accurately, homosexuals have not been around for more than a couple of generations. I know this sounds moronic, but the term - and in fact the entire concept - of homosexual did not come around until the late 19th century. Of course homosexual behavior existed, but one's sexual orientation, or more appropriately how one engaged in sex, was attached more to gender than as its own distinct group. The man in ancient Rome who was the "top" or who penetrated was considered a man and as manly as the guy who had sex with a woman. While the guy that was the "bottom" or was penetration was more of a woman than a man. The idea that sexual orientation was its own category of defining a person did not come around the beginning of the 20th century, and our present idea that homosexuals were a significant portion of the population (and not a rare disease) did not occur until WWII.

      "In What other society has this organized minority power had the ability not only to promote itself from criminal status to a group actually protected by Law in a very short time, and all the while insisting that it is 'Normal'."
      Great Britain, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Israel, Denmark, Greenland (kinda), Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Andorra, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Australia are all countries that recognize the rights of LGBT individuals in a manner equal to or greater than the United States. Civil rights for LGBT people is not a national issue, it's a global one and we can take a lot of other nations as examples of the right thing to do.

      I'm gonna have to continue my response in another comment section...
    • Jun 23 2012: "However, this is a great sociall achievement, or I would say, a new invention."
      It's not so much a new invention; granting equal rights to the LGBT community is based in legal precedent. It is based on the principles of the Constitution and previous civil rights movements that have been fought. It is not a completely "new invention" that a government should protect certain "suspect" classes. Now gay people are not currently considered a suspect class, and that is where a lot of controversy comes from, but the current laws in place that deal with LGBT people take their wording and their spirit from past policy that dealt with people of color, people with disabilities, and women. Recognizing that the state should not unduly discriminate against a person based on prejudice or the values of a portion of the population is a principle that is, essentially, the benchmark of a strong democracy.

      "IIn the view of the majority , Gay affairs are never going to be seen as "Normal" (meaning nothing more than "what most people do") , so why create endless conflict by not observing the real situation.?"
      Okay, so by "gay affairs" I'm guessing you're meaning the fact that gay people have relationships with members of the same sex, because beyond that fact there isn't anything else that separates "straight affairs" from "gay affairs." In almost every way, we are the same and act in the same "normal" way as the straight population. The real situation is that we fall in love the same way you do, we live our lives the same way you do, and we are citizens just like you. We should not be deprived of engaging in a legal institution (remember, judges can marry people without any religious affiliation), just because the person we fell in love with happens to have the same sexual organs. Left handed people, by your definition, are not "normal." But they are not discriminated against in the eyes of the state. Being "normal" is not the benchmark for equal rights.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.