Liberal Colleges/"Explore your sexuality"

College Life
21

<p>I wouldn’t say that gays are most discriminated, but they do seem to steal all the spotlight.</p>

<p>It doesn’t take two brains to figure out that those against gay marriage probably have something against gay people. Otherwise, who gives a crap? Let people do what they want. Like Tom said, it’s a stupid piece of paper. Why bend over backwards to let this issue continue by keep rallying against gay marriage?</p>

<p>The only reason this continues to be a problem is because the US is obsessed with anti discrimination and equal rights. And even so, discrimination just doesn’t seem to go away; it might never go away (good thing I’m not Muslim). I think legalizing gay marriage is just a little false assurance to certain people that the US has finally evolved into an equal society. On the other hand, homophobes continue to make a big deal out of this. Someday, gay marriage will be legal throughout the country, and rights for latinos will be the new gay marriage.</p>

22

<p>

They’re all fine. Columbia and Chicago have long been gay-friendly. LGB enrollment at Duke is booming, and it’s working on expanding its gender-neutral housing options. WUStL, Emory, Rice, and Vandy have slightly smaller gay populations but are still pretty gay-friendly and would be great options for any top student (I’d recommend them in roughly that order). </p>

<p>Swarthmore may be a little less appealing than some of the others due to its size. One of my friends is a Swat alum and says that one of the few things he prefers about grad school (at a large public) is the greater number of gay people. While Philly and other colleges are accessible by train, it’s not quite the same.</p>

<p>

To list a few issues:
[ul][<em>]Most states don’t allow gay couples to adopt.
[</em>]Only one-third of states allow gay marriage or civil unions.
[<em>]Fewer than half of all states have discrimination laws that prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation for employment, housing, etc.
[</em>]Gay teens make up at most 10% of the teenage population but comprise 33% of teenage suicides and 30-40% of homeless teens.
[li]Gay teens have a high school drop-out rate three times higher than heterosexual students. [/ul][/li]Yes, in some areas, gay people have it pretty good. In others, not so much.</p>

<p>

That doesn’t mean they’re vastly outnumbered, and they’re certainly far from being helplessly victimized. Prop 8 passed in supposedly liberal California, and nationwide only a slight majority of Americans (53% according to Gallup) support gay marriage. Homophobic remarks are par for the course in many parts of the country.</p>

23

<p>Oh Tom and James, where do I begin…?</p>

<p>“The entire media, ruling class, and educational establishment bends over backwards to push the gay acceptance agenda, will you dispute this?”</p>

<p>If by “gay agenda” you mean that we seek the equal rights guaranteed to us by the constitution, we wish to live in happiness as everyone else, we wish to have our long term relationships recognized by the state, we wish we or our kids will not be bullied or beaten or commit suicide as a result of such, we wish an end to the lies and misconceptions told about us on a daily basis, then no, the entire media, ruling class, and educational system is not bending over backwards to help. All I have to do is turn on FOX news, and I’ll see yet another state government praised for denying us the equal rights and protection as heterosexuals.</p>

<p>“Just because voters decide not to confer the completely phony institution of “gay marriage” on people hardly means they’re turning the hoses on you and looking the other way on lynchings.”</p>

<p>Firstly, time after time, the supreme court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, and the constitution guarantees that “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And secondly, you say that they aren’t “turning the hoses on us” or “looking the other way on lynchings.” That is hilarious. Everyday, LGBT people are either physically or verbally abused, some to the point of suicide, while every so often, you’ll hear about somebody killed for being gay.</p>

<p>“A gay person in this country has every right a non-gay person has. “Gay marriage” is a total red herring, it’s all about a silly piece of paper from the government.”</p>

<p>Yeah, it’s just a silly piece of paper, along with the 1400 or so legal rights that come along with that paper. In addition to those rights, many states do not prevent discrimination based on sexuality, or allow gay couples to adopt.</p>

<p>"And if we’re counting sexual orientations as minority groups now, I think you’ll find that pedophiles are the most discriminated-against ‘minority.’ "</p>

<p>Sigh… homosexuality involves mutually loving relationships between two consenting adults of the same gender. Pedophilia does not involve consent, and is therefore wrong in the same way that rape is wrong. It’s simply a way to slander the LGBT population by comparing them with pedophiles.</p>

<p>“Anyone who even respectfully makes a case against gay marriage is labelled a xenophobe, bigot, redneck, you name it.”</p>

<p>I have yet to see a logical, reasonable case laid out to explain why a group of people should be denied the same rights as others. If you would like to present one, I’d be more than happy to read it and respectfully discuss it with you.</p>

24

<p>@RyanMK,</p>

<p>I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying pedophiles are the most discriminated against minority (if we’re having some sort of odd contest here, that is). You conflate child molesters with pedophiles who are simply that, pedophiles. In the same way that you don’t rape every woman you find attractive, not every pedophile instantly acts on his or her desires.</p>

<p>Frankly, I find it kind of disgusting how the United States has turned pedophilia into an enormous witch hunt. Pedophilia has been turned into a quite literal thought crime, and child pornography has turned into the most abused political tool of the past fifty years. You can be jailed for longer for possessing CP than for abusing an actual child, and politicians throw around the child pornography argument as a way of shaming their opponents into agreement (the most recent example: PCIPA, a revamped version of SOPA that carries a clear implication that voting against it would be supporting child pornography).</p>

<p>THAT BEING SAID, I do agree that gays still have a long ways to go towards equal rights in the U.S., especially in rural and southern areas. If you’ve never lived in one of these communities, you can’t really understand what trials people can still undergo based on their sexual orientation even in the modern day.</p>

25

<p>@Kudryavka</p>

<p>Yes, you are right - I did lump the two together, as society generally does, and I’m guessing that Tom was doing in this case. However, I do realize there is a difference between the two. Is it regrettable that they are stigmatized for something beyond their control? Yes. However the lack of consent does necessitate the laws against them acting on it.</p>

26

<p>

</p>

<p>Not this again…
No one is preventing you from living in happiness except yourself.
Equal rights does not mean any arbitrary arrangement is called marriage.
If equal rights means that any civil union is now called a marriage, then marriage can mean anything. It has no meaning anymore. I can marry a fish now. If that’s what it takes for me to be haaaaappy…</p>

27

<p>@JamesMadison: This is an issue because the “stupid” piece of paper provides many rights, obligations, responsibilities, and benefits that are only granted to those who happen to possess different pairs of sex chromosomes. Is it necessarily fair that those of the same gender be deprived of these important and, essentially, constitutional rights if they choose to marry? </p>

<p>And LOL at comparing Humans to fish. That is the weakest analogy I’ve ever read. </p>

<p>Marriage only has “sanctity” if you believe in the Judeo-Christian god. So don’t cry about how gays are ruining the “sanctity” of marriage. That is such B.S.</p>

<p>Marriage, in accordance with the federal government, provides much more than a simple “piece of paper”, and that is why it is such a big deal. Additionally, church and state are meant to be separate (as your argument suggests you’re highly religious). This includes the parameters of marriage. You may argue that the United States was founded on religious principle. However, the original CONSTITUTION of the United States that was ratified in 1789 had only ONE reference to religion [Article 6, specifically]. </p>

<p>Everything that has supported gay marriage is entirely recent. It has no basis in biblical or quranic scripture. As such, you need to adjust your argument accordingly, because religion is not a logical reason for your stance. Sorry. It just isn’t. </p>

<p>It’s shameful that people against gay marriage do not realize this.</p>

<p>You’re clearly one illogical fellow, and I hope it galls you to know that. :)</p>

28

<p>“No one is preventing you from living in happiness except yourself.”</p>

<p>Oh that’s right! Anyone who’s being beaten or harassed or prevented from having equal rights should just remember that those things don’t prevent you from being happy. As long as you think happy thoughts, you should be ecstatic while somebody is shooting you in the head… (/sarcasm)</p>

<p>“Equal rights does not mean any arbitrary arrangement is called marriage.”</p>

<p>You’re right. It does, however, mean that if you’re allow one pair of unrelated consenting adults to get married, then you can’t deny that same right to any pair of consenting unrelated adults.</p>

<p>“I can marry a fish now.”</p>

<p>Are you serious? Same sex couples are human and able to give consent, neither of which applies to a fish. You go ahead and claim that there’s no discrimination against the LGBT population, and then you go ahead and compare me to an animal? Do you sincerely fail to understand how referring to a class of people as less than human is discriminatory? And just so you know, you are using the same arguments to support your case as people used in attempt to prevent interracial marriages.</p>

29

<p>Well… I agree with what is being said, but can we get back to my question about which of my choices would be best before this thread is shut down. Also, when I go to the schools on trips, is there anything I can do to get a better feeling about this?</p>

30

<p>[How</a> To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot](<a href=“http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/how-gay-rights-is-nothing-like-legalizing-beastali]How”>How To Explain Gay Rights To An Idiot)</p>

<p>was trying to find that while you posted runallday4,</p>

<p>Any of those schools should be pretty gay friendly, not sure how gay friendly the surrounding areas of Vandy, Duke, Rice, and WUSTL are. For example, Chicago has a prominent gay district/neighborhood affectionately known as Boystown (<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boystown,_Chicago[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boystown,_Chicago&lt;/a&gt;), and NYC is NYC.</p>

<p>If you feel comfortable, you can ask on a tour/overnight visit. Otherwise, I would probably try to find the QA or any other gay friendly group’s web page and try to see how up to date it looks, does it list how many activities they do each year, etc.</p>

31

<p>

</p>

<p>I didn’t use the word sanctity, so I have no idea what you’re quoting. I didn’t reference religion in my post. But this is exactly what I mean: whenever someone claims that any arbitrary civil union is not a marriage, the opposition starts throwing temper tantrums.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What can gay marriage provide that a civil contract can not?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m an atheist.</p>

32

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, I’m not saying that gays should be shot in the head.</p>

<p>But, I really highly doubt that legalizing gay marriage will somehow put an end to these hypothetical acts of violence. </p>

<p>(And yes, gay people DO get harassed. So do straight people). </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Why do you get to decide what equal rights means? How is preventing related adults from marrying part of equal rights? Is that really equality?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I didn’t claim there is NO discrimination against the LGBT population. You just made that up. </p>

<p>Comparing the marriage with that of a fish does not mean I think gay people are fishes. I thought that was obvious. It sure is fun playing the victim though, isn’t it? </p>

<p>I just hope when you’re a little older one day, you realize that society is not actively plotting against your happiness.</p>

33

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh, my bad. You used the word “meaning”. Forgive me for giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you possessed a higher level of vocabulary, grammar, and syntax. </p>

<p>The rest of your argument is, essentially, ad hominem. You’ve yet to provide legitimate reasons to the contrary. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Mainly the freedom to choose how the go about with the ceremony. Again, why <em>shouldn’t</em> gays have the ability to marry in a church if they really want to? </p>

<p>Please provide a <em>legitimate</em> and logical reason, not the “well marriage has no meaning anymore” reason. Again, that’s just not logical. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Your argument suggests otherwise. Seriously, re-read what you’ve posted. Not doing so makes you look uneducated. You’re grasping at straws here, as you did in your first response.</p>

34

<p>"But, I really highly doubt that legalizing gay marriage will somehow put an end to these hypothetical acts of violence. </p>

<p>(And yes, gay people DO get harassed. So do straight people)."</p>

<p>I’m not saying it would. The only reason I brought that up is because you said nobody was keeping us from being happy. Also, I have not heard of one single example in which a straight person was harassed solely for being straight.</p>

<p>“Why do you get to decide what equal rights means? How is preventing related adults from marrying part of equal rights? Is that really equality?”</p>

<p>I don’t get to decide what equality is - society already has. If you give rights to one group of people, you can’t withhold them from another group. Also, the ban on marriage between relatives is to prevent the spread of genetic disorders - not a worry in the case of same sex marriage.</p>

<p>“Comparing the marriage with that of a fish does not mean I think gay people are fishes. I thought that was obvious. It sure is fun playing the victim though, isn’t it?”</p>

<p>Well, obviously you don’t think that we are fishes - merely that our relationships hold no more meaning than a relationship with an animal. You surely have to see how that dehumanizes us.</p>

<p>“What can gay marriage provide that a civil contract can not?”</p>

<p>Portability, Federal Benefits, Taxes and Public Benefits for the Family, Filling out Forms, Separate and Unequal - Second Class Status, Ending a Civil Union, and Terminology. I’m willing to go into any of the above if you disagree that it is a problem.</p>

<p>“I just hope when you’re a little older one day, you realize that society is not actively plotting against your happiness.”</p>

<p>I just hope you’re not old enough to realize that life isn’t perfect for all those who aren’t a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male.</p>

35

<p>

</p>

<p>In addition to that, a civil union doesn’t give your partner citizen ship in the US. There are plenty of examples of one partner being deported, practically terminating their relationship. I see no way at all to justify that.</p>

36

<p>

</p>

<p>No. “Sanctity” is trying to add a religious angle to the argument. “The state or quality of being holy”. Your entire post was trying to pick apart a religious argument that was never made. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, if you are trying to change the status quo, what is your reason that they SHOULD have a right to get married? You just say “equality”. Then on that basis, why can’t I marry my father? I’m not saying, of course, that is a good idea or healthy to marry your father. But if equal rights are so important, then why can’t ANY union between consenting adults be recognized as a marriage? </p>

<p>If I am currently married, why can’t I marry a third person? What if we really love each other. And we just want equal rights! Why is it that you can provide that right to two people, but deny it to three? Is that equality? </p>

<p>What if I have a non-romantic relationship with a 15 year old. We are just friends, but we want to get married for happiness, equality, blah blah. Is it really equality if the law prohibits a 90 year old and a 15 year old from marrying? </p>

<p>Based on your arguments, marriage should be given for every group of people, for equality. But it seems, you just want it for a certain group of people. Not everyone.</p>

37

<p>

</p>

<p>I think that gay people should be allowed to get married, but churches shouldn’t be forced to marry couples they don’t want to marry. They’re private organizations.</p>

38

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think anyone should be harassed, I"m not denying that its a problem. But I imagine if a gay person chooses to present themselves in an extremely flamboyant way and and make their sexuality a public issue, then they are increasing the chances of being harassed. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>it was an exaggeration, for the sake of argument. I don’t have any problems with gay people, yet I maintain that if gay marriage is legalized, it is illogical to deny ANY two consenting adults the right to be married. </p>

<p>All the arguments used to legalize gay marriage can be used to legalize a married person marrying a third individual simultaneously.</p>

39

<p>

That relationship by itself is already illegal… Gay relationships are legal, just they are being limited as less than other relationships for some unknown reason.

That relationship by itself is illegal, in 3 years it’s fine though… The 15 year old isn’t seen as being able to give consent.</p>

<p>

This argument is what is called a “slippery slope”. It is a logical fallacy…</p>

<p>

Yes, they are more likely to be harassed, but they shouldn’t be, it’s just bigots that would harass them. Are you saying that because they act different this is okay? I really don’t even get the point of this.</p>

<p>

argumentum ad ignorantium… And there are many reasons that they should be able to get married… such as so they can have many of the rights that only a marriage allows.</p>

<p>Summary:
-You have no clear reasons to deny marriage equality except that it would lead to polygamy and incest. (Slippery slope fallacy)
-You said that there are no reasons they should get married (argumentum ad ignorantiam). Also we have actually listed many.</p>

<p>Please do some research on logical fallacies, as most if not all of your arguments have been flawed.</p>

40

<p>“I don’t think anyone should be harassed, I"m not denying that its a problem. But I imagine if a gay person chooses to present themselves in an extremely flamboyant way and and make their sexuality a public issue, then they are increasing the chances of being harassed.”</p>

<p>This is an INCREDIBLY problematic line of thought. It’s the same logic that accuses a rape victim of “asking for it” by wearing revealing clothing. Please, don’t try to pin blame on the victim like this. There is no reason whatsoever that being open about your sexuality should ever justify any sort of violence. Ever. There is absolutely no reason to ever blame the victim in a case like that.</p>