The shameful gay marriage ban.

[heystacy]

Hmm. It must have been a local channel decision (in fact, the more I think about it, the more likely that was, as it's syndicated, and I think scheduling of syndicated shows are entirely up to the local station and not a network), because in the northeast, I don't remember the show being pushed to the dead zone until after Rhea took over.

Local stations have plenty of control. They don't mind filling the airwaves with scandalous soap operas, but I think Rosie was too much for us in SC. LOL

It'll be a long while before SC will even accept civil unions. I know marriage will be out of the question. It's a long road. We can't even deal with a woman, who happens to be gay, doing a variety show.

[west3man]

Did you all miss this or has my stock dropped too much?

Sorry, but I believe you've got that backwards. Marriage's meaning was clear BEFORE this became an issue. It's not that people are attempting to change it, now. They are legally defining a word that already had a common definition.

The problem is that I wanted to link to the definition of marriage and look what I found:

source: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

So what the heck?

#1 supports my point. #2 supports yours. Anyone have quick access to a dictionary that was printed... maybe 5-10 years, ago (still not quite far enough back, but *shrugs*). Did Merriam-Webster change the definition of marriage because of the current societal evolution? Anyone know?

[Rallura]

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1933

Marriage
1) The state, status, or mutual relation of husband and wife;wedlock.
2)The act of marrying, or rite used in marrying, a wedding.
3) Any intimate or close union.

[west3man]

Thanks.

I'll copy/paste this on the other thread, if you don't mind.

[Rallura]

Thanks.

I'll copy/paste this on the other thread, if you don't mind.
Be my guest. That's the oldest one I have at work, I might have an older one at home, I will look.

[PatrickG]

American Heritage (2000)

n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.


Princeton University's WordNet Dictionary:

n 1: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union" [syn: matrimony, union, spousal relationship, wedlock] 2: two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love" [syn: married couple, man and wife] 3: the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel" [syn: wedding, marriage ceremony] 4: a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"

1 Timothy, Chapter 4

1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

[Boldido]

Because they want equal rights, not similar rights.

[/B]

I'm also one of the people who thinks that the real issue is being lost in semantics.

You and I have never posted Ian, so let me start by telling you that I am straight, republican and ashamed of my party for the passage of the amendments in the 11 states.

That being said, however, I don't think that equal necessarily means the same. If the federal government were to legalize civil unions, and worded the statute in such a way as to guarantee homosexual couples the exact same rights as heterosexual "married" couples, I don't see the harm or the discrimination.

People say over and over again that a homosexual marraiges would be just like heterosexual marraiges, but that is clearly untrue. They are different. I'm not saying that they are worse or less, they aren't, but they are different.

When two heterosexuals get married, it is usually with an understanding that the couple will be able to have children together. Many times they cannot, but that is usually not known at the beginning. When a homosexual couple gets together, it is with the understanding that no force on heaven and earth can allow them to have children
"together" . This is a clear cut difference. Again, I'm not saying that one is better than the other, but I'm also not going to pretend this difference doesn't exist.

Instead of adopting the traditional heterosexual notion and word, "marraige" and changing it to adopt to a homosexual couple, why doesn't the homosexual community come up with something that is unique as they are?

If my kids earn a dollar and I pay one twenty nickles and the other ten dimes, what I have given to them is clearly not the same, but it is equal.

[Gail Simone]

The other problem with that is that it perpetuates the myth that the religious machine is right in more than political leaning. It allows them to continue to believe that their discrimination is moral, instead of showing them that they're wrong.

Melissa, that is an extraordinary and astute point.

Please stick around. :)

Gail

[Crowley]

Melissa, that is an extraordinary and astute point.

Please stick around. :)

Gail
I brung her over... she's one of my favorite people.

[Corrina]

That being said, however, I don't think that equal necessarily means the same. If the federal government were to legalize civil unions, and worded the statute in such a way as to guarantee homosexual couples the exact same rights as heterosexual "married" couples, I don't see the harm or the discrimination.


I can almost agree with this.

Except for one thing.

I absolutely hate the idea of my own marriage being changed from a marriage to a 'civil union.' It doesn't mean the same thing to me emotionally and I'd fight tooth and nail to keep the name.

Words are not only semantics. Words have power. In particular, the word 'marriage' has a great emotional power to the vast majority of people. And if I'm so incredibly opposed to someone turning my marriage into a civil union, then I can completely understand homosexual couples as dismissing a civil union as lesser or not equal. Logically, it makes some sense to go for civil unions instead of marriage. There's less opposition.

Emotionally?
Civil unions are settling for something lesser.

Words have enormous power.

So powerful that four score and seven years after the founding of the USA, people were finally compelled to put 'all men are created equal' into practice. So powerful that a printed pamphlet called "Common Sense" carrying the immortal words 'these are the times that try men's souls' was partially responsible for turning support towards the Patriots.

And the word 'marriage' has power and meaning. Gay and lesbian couples want that power and meaning to apply to their own unions and to deny them that, in my opinion, is cutting them off from that power and meaning and telling them their love and committment is lesser.

And that is a terrible thing.

[Crowley]

good points, Corrina.

Civil Union sounds like calm roommates...

[Ian Boothby]

That being said, however, I don't think that equal necessarily means the same. If the federal government were to legalize civil unions, and worded the statute in such a way as to guarantee homosexual couples the exact same rights as heterosexual "married" couples, I don't see the harm or the discrimination.

That there needs to be a distinction gives power to a bigoted notion. You service that prejudice and make it stronger. Again back of the bus and the front get you there at the same time. The "black only" and "white only" fountains get their water from the same source. Both of those are cases where realistically there's no reason to change things. No one is getting hurt or getting less water or to their destination later. But you need to change them because they're wrong.

The only excuse for not changing them is because you're waiting for the ignorant to see things your way. Their retarded (and I use this as the actual meaning of the word) way of thinking shouldn't hold back others from enjoying equal rights.

People say over and over again that a homosexual marraiges would be just like heterosexual marraiges, but that is clearly untrue. They are different. I'm not saying that they are worse or less, they aren't, but they are different.

When two heterosexuals get married, it is usually with an understanding that the couple will be able to have children together. Many times they cannot, but that is usually not known at the beginning. When a homosexual couple gets together, it is with the understanding that no force on heaven and earth can allow them to have children

You say that marriage for gays is different. The reason you cite is the ability to have children. People over child bearing age get married, sterile people get married, people who have no desire to have children get married. These aren't rare and unusal circumstances. Add to that that gays can adopt children and lesbian women can bear children through a variety of medical methods and your argument falls apart. No force on heaven and earth can allow them to have children? Nonsense. They might not have them through traditional means, but my parents adopted me and if you tell me they're not as legit as any other parents we'll be stepping outside for a while.

Instead of adopting the traditional heterosexual notion and word, "marraige" and changing it to adopt to a homosexual couple, why doesn't the homosexual community come up with something that is unique as they are?

Because when you come up with a different name for the same thing in order to cowtow to prejudice you weaken society and hurt individuals.


If my kids earn a dollar and I pay one twenty nickles and the other ten dimes, what I have given to them is clearly not the same, but it is equal.

And then you tell one of them they can go to the 7-11 and get a candy bar but the other one that they have to go to a different store a few blocks down because they're not allowed in that one. What's the difference? They still get a chocolate bar.
Similar rights are a mockery of equal rights.

[Tom]

Let's just do away with all the nomenclature. From now on, when a man and a woman join in matrimony, we'll call it the "Pre-Babymaking Ceremony." The groom will now be called "Johnny Appleseed" and "bride" will be replaced with "Baby Factory." When two men want to join together, we'll call it "Anal-rama" and both participants will now be legally referred to as "Fuckbuddies One and Two." When two women join together we'll call it "HOTT!" and the women will refer to each other as "Mary-Kate" and "Ashley."

[EdContradictory]

Let's just do away with all the nomenclature. From now on, when a man and a woman join in matrimony, we'll call it the "Pre-Babymaking Ceremony." The groom will now be called "Johnny Appleseed" and "bride" will be replaced with "Baby Factory." When two men want to join together, we'll call it "Anal-rama" and both participants will now be legally referred to as "Fuckbuddies One and Two." When two women join together we'll call it "HOTT!" and the women will refer to each other as "Mary-Kate" and "Ashley."

Then everyone will just argue over who gets to be Fuckbuddy One.

[Tom]

Okay, then we'll just call ourselves "Top" and "Bottom."

[Boldido]

That there needs to be a distinction gives power to a bigoted notion. You service that prejudice and make it stronger. Again back of the bus and the front get you there at the same time. The "black only" and "white only" fountains get their water from the same source. Both of those are cases where realistically there's no reason to change things. No one is getting hurt or getting less water or to their destination later. But you need to change them because they're wrong.

The only excuse for not changing them is because you're waiting for the ignorant to see things your way. Their retarded (and I use this as the actual meaning of the word) way of thinking shouldn't hold back others from enjoying equal rights.

I can certainly see where you are coming from, but I disagree that the back of the bus, black only/white only fountains is an acceptable analogy. One of the major factors was that separate but equal wasn't. The black schools were not getting the same funding, did not offer the same benefits. Had they, the civil rights movement may not have come until years later. The main reason I reject this analogy, however is because what Jim Crow did had a qualifiable difference. Blacks could not use a specific school or specific restaurant or specific hospital. This had very tangible results. The same doesn't apply in the case of gay marraige v. civil unions. By granting the same rights but using a different word, homosexuals are not precluded from visiting a particular hospital or forced to receive less in probate settlements, etc. Rights and responsibilities are intangibles. There is no back of the bus, there is no front of the bus when it comes to rights. If the rights granted are the same, then it truly is just a matter of semantics.


And then you tell one of them they can go to the 7-11 and get a candy bar but the other one that they have to go to a different store a few blocks down because they're not allowed in that one. What's the difference? They still get a chocolate bar.
Similar rights are a mockery of equal rights.

No, they can go to the same 7-11 and select from the same racks and buy from the same clerk, just one has 10 dimes and another has 20 nickles. I am not suggesting anyone should settle for less rights or different rights, just a different name.

[Boldido]

You say that marriage for gays is different. The reason you cite is the ability to have children. People over child bearing age get married, sterile people get married, people who have no desire to have children get married. These aren't rare and unusal circumstances. Add to that that gays can adopt children and lesbian women can bear children through a variety of medical methods and your argument falls apart. No force on heaven and earth can allow them to have children? Nonsense. They might not have them through traditional means, but my parents adopted me and if you tell me they're not as legit as any other parents we'll be stepping outside for a while.

Heterosexual couples that get married and cannot have children are the exception, not the rule. In the case of people who have no desire to have children and still get married, often they change their minds. My wording was precise, I noticed you changed it to suit your purposes. No matter how you try to word it, when speaking in general terms, and that is how laws are written and those are to problems they seek to solve. Generally speaking, when a man marries a woman, they can have children "together". What I said before was true, regardless of whether you wish to call it nonsense, poppycock or balderdash, no force on heaven and earth can allow a homosexual couple to have children "together". The fact that every homosexual couple would need a donation from person outside the couple, whether it be donated semen or a donated child, to have children makes them different in a significant way.

Because when you come up with a different name for the same thing in order to cowtow to prejudice you weaken society and hurt individuals.

No, you weaken society when you try to force it to change too quickly and grow too fast and you hurt individuals when you deny them what they want and need because you don't like what its called. I want my best friend to have insurance and to be able to visit his boyfriend regardless of what his boyfriend's family thinks and for Tom to be have the right to help Desi to stay in the country. If they have to be called "fuckbuddies" so be it, as long as they are called "fuckbuddies" in Philadelphia rather than Toronto, Canada.

[K'Nort]

That raises a question. If gay marriage was legal, would adoption rights immediately be part of that? I'd think not. That would still be a separate fight, although it might get easier at that point.

[Ian Boothby]

Heterosexual couples that get married and cannot have children are the exception, not the rule. In the case of people who have no desire to have children and still get married, often they change their minds.

The sterlile people and elderly change their minds huh? Hey tubes! Untie yourselves now! Menopause reverse now!

You know what people change their minds on more? Being married.

Okay even given that it's more common for married folks to want children, so what? It's not mentioned in the vows and not an obligation placed on them by court. So what's your point?

No, you weaken society when you try to force it to change too quickly and grow too fast and you hurt individuals when you deny them what they want and need because you don't like what its called. I want my best friend to have insurance and to be able to visit his boyfriend regardless of what his boyfriend's family thinks and for Tom to be have the right to help Desi to stay in the country. If they have to be called "fuckbuddies" so be it, as long as they are called "fuckbuddies" in Philadelphia rather than Toronto, Canada.


Names matter. Why is society weakened when folks have equal rights? Explain the effect.

[Boldido]

Names matter. Why is society weakened when folks have equal rights? Explain the effect.

If you would like to ask this question without loading it, I would be happy to answer it Ian. What I said was that society is weakened when you force it to change too quickly. If you would like to base your question on this statement, I would genuinely like to continue this discussion.

[Boldido]

The sterlile people and elderly change their minds huh? Hey tubes! Untie yourselves now! Menopause reverse now!

You know what people change their minds on more? Being married.

Okay even given that it's more common for married folks to want children, so what? It's not mentioned in the vows and not an obligation placed on them by court. So what's your point?

My point is that you are demanding that a relationship with significant tangible differences from another be treated exactly the same as the other. They aren't the same. No amount of arguing or pontificating will make them the same, they aren't, they are different. They are both beautiful and wonderful and deserve equal protection under the law. People are more and more cognizant of this notion and agree with it more and more. People will respond if you say you are equal, but not if you say you are the same. You need the support of the heterosexual community to achieve your goals, whether you like it or not. If heterosexuals want to reserve the word marraige to a relationship between a man and a woman, but afford a homosexual union the same rights, but under a different name, it seems self-damaging to deny your community the benefits most want them to have over a word.

[west3man]

If you would like to ask this question without loading it, I would be happy to answer it Ian. What I said was that society is weakened when you force it to change too quickly. If you would like to base your question on this statement, I would genuinely like to continue this discussion.


:evilangry Is SOMEbody f***in' with mah BITCH?! :evilsmile

[Boldido]

:evilangry Is SOMEbody f***in' with mah BITCH?! :evilsmile

Put the shiv away honey. I couldn't bear it if the man put you back in the hole again.

[west3man]

Actually, Boldido, I don't understand what makes procreation a substantive factor in defining or naming the two institutions differently.

Procreation takes place with or without marriage. There may be a link between the two, but it's not an "if this, then that" situation.
---------------------
Just a question cuz I'm curious. I care little about the names. Separate institutions might have certain positives. The same may be true of a single institution. Either scenario has negatives. So, the bottom line, for me is: Get these couples what we can now, make it any necessary improvements, later.

[That JonoGuy]

Let's just do away with all the nomenclature. From now on, when a man and a woman join in matrimony, we'll call it the "Pre-Babymaking Ceremony." The groom will now be called "Johnny Appleseed" and "bride" will be replaced with "Baby Factory." When two men want to join together, we'll call it "Anal-rama" and both participants will now be legally referred to as "Fuckbuddies One and Two." When two women join together we'll call it "HOTT!" and the women will refer to each other as "Mary-Kate" and "Ashley."

Wow! That's just too funny. It made me laugh and I really needed it to lighten my mood.

Was just reading the local paper and saw they some church group is holding a gathering to help gain support for an amendment to ban gay marriage.

It makes me so upset. I feel like I need to go and have a protest rally or something abotside of the meeting. Grr! I really hate this world.

[Tom]

Actually, Boldido, I don't understand what makes procreation a substantive factor in defining or naming the two institutions differently.

Procreation takes place with or without marriage. There may be a link between the two, but it's not an "if this, then that" situation.

Nail on the head.

I'll take a "civil union" to keep my man and I together, but it'll be a bitter pill to swallow.

The irony is, gays will eventually get civil unions and within a decade everyone will refer to it as marriage anyway.

[heystacy]

Nail on the head.

I'll take a "civil union" to keep my man and I together, but it'll be a pitter pill to swallow.

The irony is, gays will eventually get civil unions and within a decade everyone will refer to it as marriage anyway.

Except for the truly ignorant. Bastards. LOL Best of luck Tom.

[Ian Boothby]

If you would like to ask this question without loading it, I would be happy to answer it Ian. What I said was that society is weakened when you force it to change too quickly. If you would like to base your question on this statement, I would genuinely like to continue this discussion.

Okay, please give me an example of society changing too quickly and getting weaker for it.

How was my question loaded?

[Ian Boothby]

My point is that you are demanding that a relationship with significant tangible differences from another be treated exactly the same as the other. They aren't the same. No amount of arguing or pontificating will make them the same, they aren't, they are different.

I disagree. Aside from biological reproduction the differences of a gay or straight marriage are non existant. But prove me wrong. Can you see any other way they are?

And again reproduction is not a legally essential part of marriage.

[K'Nort]

Since it ties the thread with the board, I wanted to mention that one of today's comics starts a story arc dealing with gay marriage. Will spoiler space it just in case.

-- Ex Machina

[Melissa]

Melissa, that is an extraordinary and astute point.

Please stick around. :)

Gail
Thanks :o (Gail Simone talked to me)

Love your work, by the way...


I'm also one of the people who thinks that the real issue is being lost in semantics.

You and I have never posted Ian, so let me start by telling you that I am straight, republican and ashamed of my party for the passage of the amendments in the 11 states.

That being said, however, I don't think that equal necessarily means the same. If the federal government were to legalize civil unions, and worded the statute in such a way as to guarantee homosexual couples the exact same rights as heterosexual "married" couples, I don't see the harm or the discrimination.

People say over and over again that a homosexual marraiges would be just like heterosexual marraiges, but that is clearly untrue. They are different. I'm not saying that they are worse or less, they aren't, but they are different.

When two heterosexuals get married, it is usually with an understanding that the couple will be able to have children together. Many times they cannot, but that is usually not known at the beginning. When a homosexual couple gets together, it is with the understanding that no force on heaven and earth can allow them to have children
"together" . This is a clear cut difference. Again, I'm not saying that one is better than the other, but I'm also not going to pretend this difference doesn't exist.

Instead of adopting the traditional heterosexual notion and word, "marraige" and changing it to adopt to a homosexual couple, why doesn't the homosexual community come up with something that is unique as they are?

If my kids earn a dollar and I pay one twenty nickles and the other ten dimes, what I have given to them is clearly not the same, but it is equal.
I think that people get married first and foremost because they've found 'the one' and want to share that love, spending the rest of their lives together - growing old together sitting on the porch watching sunsets.

I think this is what people imagine in their minds when they think about getting married, not about breeding.

Breeding is quite independent of marriage. It happens very frequently outside of it, and there are also a great many marriages where it's not part of it - not only because they can't but because some people never want to breed. Sure, it's a very worthwhile part of most marriages (and indeed most long-term hetero relationships) and I don;t say this to devalue it. But it's not part of the definition of marriage. When you look up the word in the dictionary it won't tell you about kids.

I would like to get married not just because of tax breaks, or the right to adopt, or health care, or any of those other very sensible reasons offered by many folks. I want to use the same word my parents use to describe their great love and union to describe mine. I want to say that this wonderful person I love isn't my girlfriend, or my partner, or my housemate, or my civil union buddy, or any other pissweak euphemism. I want to say she's my wife because we love each other and have decided to spend our lives together in a way that is just as honest, open and worthy as the way my parents are.

[Cam63]

Wow! That's just too funny. It made me laugh and I really needed it to lighten my mood.

Was just reading the local paper and saw they some church group is holding a gathering to help gain support for an amendment to ban gay marriage.

It makes me so upset. I feel like I need to go and have a protest rally or something abotside of the meeting. Grr! I really hate this world.

Shit like that gets me going too, mate. Some dickhead or a group of 'em have to always stick their nose into something that shouldn't concern 'em.

[Cam63]

I wish Tom and his mate all the best in the future, too :)

[Tom]

Thanks guys!

[Cam63]

Thanks guys!

No worries :)

[Crowley]

I wish Tom and his mate all the best in the future, too :)
i second that.

[Spike-X]

Let's just do away with all the nomenclature. From now on, when a man and a woman join in matrimony, we'll call it the "Pre-Babymaking Ceremony." The groom will now be called "Johnny Appleseed" and "bride" will be replaced with "Baby Factory." When two men want to join together, we'll call it "Anal-rama" and both participants will now be legally referred to as "Fuckbuddies One and Two." When two women join together we'll call it "HOTT!" and the women will refer to each other as "Mary-Kate" and "Ashley."
Welcome back, Big Guy!

[Samurai]

I'm with Boldido on this one, even though I think Tom's point about "most people in 10 years will just call it marriage" is true. But the problem is, how do you get there the easiest and best way? Do you keep insisting for 100% of what you want and not 1 damn ounce less until you get it or die trying, or do you try to work out a compromise, and once both sides have managed to live with that for a while, you move the line forward? I feel the latter is likely to be more successful...

As for "Seperate but equal so as not to offend some people", a perfect existing example is men's and women's bathrooms and locker rooms/showers. What real reason is there to have seperate rooms besides the fact that some people may be offended? Does the fact that they are seperate, and one is called the "Men's Room" and the other the "Lady's Room" mean that they are necessarily unequal? No. They are different in minor ways, due to physiology, but that doesn't mean they are "unequal".

[the4thpip]

Lines at ladies rooms are longer.

[Boldido]

The irony is, gays will eventually get civil unions and within a decade everyone will refer to it as marriage anyway.

I couldn't agree more, and within that decade, the people who need to catch up with the more progressive members of society will be able to do so, while still affording homosexual couples the rights that they need
"NOW" .

I would anticipate that people who took advantage of a "civil union" would still have a "wedding" and call each other "husband" and "wife" and use all of the traditional nomenclature that surrounded a traditional heterosexual union. They already are. We are merely arguing about what the government calls it, and that makes precious little sense to me. I can see the argument and personally don't care if its called marraige or civil unions, but I see both sides as being amazingly pigheaded and stupid in this fight. What's important is the rights, not the name.

The only argument for marraige instead of civil unions that I would buy has nothing to do with the harps and heartstrings stuff that people have mentioned, but rather the difficulty in implementing a "civil union" that was equal to "marraige". By pushing for "marraige", the homosexual community doesn't have to go throught the difficulty of creating something new. By creating a new legally recognized relationship category, I can see how it would be difficult to ensure that it is truly equal in every way. I also support those who argue that "marraige" is afforded full faith and credit, while there is no guarantee that "civil unions" would. If you are going to try and change the minds of those on the other side, these are the arguments that need to be set out, not this knee jerk, "people who oppose gay marraige are prejudiced bigots" crap. That will just result in more amendments in more states and possibly, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and if that ever happens, then we are all truly f***ed.

[Ian Boothby]

As for "Seperate but equal so as not to offend some people", a perfect existing example is men's and women's bathrooms and locker rooms/showers. What real reason is there to have seperate rooms besides the fact that some people may be offended? Does the fact that they are seperate, and one is called the "Men's Room" and the other the "Lady's Room" mean that they are necessarily unequal? No. They are different in minor ways, due to physiology, but that doesn't mean they are "unequal".

They're both called bathrooms and unless men have a long history of preventing women from peeing I don't see the comparison.

Also ironically men and women use the same washrooms quite often in gay clubs.

[Ian Boothby]

I couldn't agree more, and within that decade, the people who need to catch up with the more progressive members of society will be able to do so, while still affording homosexual couples the rights that they need
"NOW" .

I can see the argument and personally don't care if its called marraige or civil unions, but I see both sides as being amazingly pigheaded and stupid in this fight. What's important is the rights, not the name.

.

No the name matters too. And yes they need the rights "NOW". Equality delayed is equality denied.

[the4thpip]

Also ironically men and women use the same washrooms quite often in gay clubs.
The Ladies' room at "Score" in Miami Beach has urinals.
:confused:

[Boldido]

No the name matters too.

On this we will have to agree to disagree. It just saddens me to think that so many will be hurt because of a name. What's in a name? Would a rose by any other name...

[Deathstroke]

And Massachusetts is "celebrating" one year since gay marriage became legal in the state.

Congrats to all those celebrating their first wedding anniversary.

[the4thpip]

And Massachusetts is "celebrating" one year since gay marriage became legal in the state.

Congrats to all those celebrating their first wedding anniversary.
What I've been meaning to ask (if there's anybody from Mass. there):

Did the sky fall?
Did countless straight men, boyfriends and fiancés leave their women to marry their poker buddies?
Does the state feel less decent?

[atoningunifex]

On this we will have to agree to disagree. It just saddens me to think that so many will be hurt because of a name. What's in a name? Would a rose by any other name...


"Honey, I bought you a dozen PrickyWeeds!"

The name does matter. But it also doesn't.

See, here's how I see it:

We uppity homos want to get married. We want the whole shebang- the wedding, the societal approval, the gift registry, the legal benefits, the whole kit-n-kaboodle. We've been making noise for a good 35 years now, getting all you breeder types used to the idea of us. We've been through the name-calling, the wrath of god, the endless talk shows. We've dealt with AIDS. We've tried to make our behavior acceptable to you people. We've worked at it. And it's been a good 35 years.

So maybe we're greedy. Maybe we're foolish. Maybe, just maybe, we'd like a teensy little bit more from you people. We wanna get married. And I think, somehow, that arguments on gay marriage have shown some interesting prejudices. And some word playing on both sides.

Here's what marriage means to me: Marriage is two people who love another and want to build a life together. It's a higher level of commitment. It's a cementing of couplehood. It's having a wedding and inviting all your friends and having them get drunk and silly and take goofy pictures. It's forcing family members who don't really like you to buy you expensive shit. And after the ceremony it's about building a life together. It's buying that house and maybe starting a family. It's being even more a part of the community. It's work and hardship and bad times and fighting, but always with that commitment there between you. It's saying "I'm going to try. I'm going to fight for this person. I'm going to hopefully spend my life being annoyed every time he scrapes the plate with that damn fork." And it's about people understanding. It's about community. It's a recognition of a relationship, and more than recognition. It's that support of the relationship. The talks about how marriage works. The working together to get all the kiddies to soccer practice. It's about making a place in the world.

The government makes things easier for married couples in certain regards because it's a good thing for communities and people. When the man you've been married to dies you don't want to have to wonder if his family is going to sue you to get the house that you've spent your lives together in. If your wife is in the hospital and needs surgery you don't have to figure out who is awake to call to get permission for. You don't have to worry that your kids will be taken away from you because some religious idiot reads Fred Phelps' website and starts reporting you to Child Services.

Civil Unions can certainly take care of the legal implications. In that sense, the word doesn't matter. A Civil Union will address all the legal concerns.

But it won't ever be a marriage. Ever. it will always be something different and apart. And no matter how much your relationship completely mirrors a marriage, it will never BE a marriage. And you'll know it. And your freinds will know it. And it might never, ever, ever be an issue. But that knowledge will always be there. So the word does matter as well.

It's not about the legal rights. it's not about dictionary definitions. It's not about biblical interpretation. It's about acceptance. It's about being acknowledged as human beings. And that's why we want the word as well. So we ask for the word and we work for the word and eventually we're going to fight for the word. Because society won't change on it's own. Society isn't going to make things better for us on its own. Everything we've gotten in the last 35 years we've had to fight tooth and claw for.

Now I'm 34, never had a boyfriend, have a horrible dating record, am really bad at things like finding a relationship. Odds are this will never be an issue in MY life. But that doesn't stop me hoping for it. it doesn't stop me wanting it. I'm not going to stop trying my damndest to force heterosexuals to understand that we are just people.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. There are, in fact, many flowers that smell better than roses. But when it's anniversary time people still send roses.

[Ian Boothby]

"Honey, I bought you a dozen PrickyWeeds!"

.

That made me laugh very hard.

[Ian Boothby]

On this we will have to agree to disagree. It just saddens me to think that so many will be hurt because of a name. What's in a name? Would a rose by any other name...

Call a black person a negro and see if names matter. Tell them it's a traditional name and that they really shouldn't mind since it means the same thing and they should be patient because the bigots should come around some day.

[west3man]

Call a black person a negro and see if names matter. Tell them it's a traditional name and that they really shouldn't mind since it means the same thing and they should be patient because the bigots should come around some day.

I agree that names matter sometimes. Still, I'd like to mention that, as a Black man, if I heard a non-Black person refer to us as "negroes," my attitude would be pretty much what you described, above - as long as the person did it out of ignorance or at least a lack of malice.

[Yoda]

What I've been meaning to ask (if there's anybody from Mass. there):

Did the sky fall?
Did countless straight men, boyfriends and fiancés leave their women to marry their poker buddies?
Does the state feel less decent?

Well I just woke up, but the sky's still there. Cat's and Dog's to the best of my knowledge have not started living together, nor has there been any fire & brimstone raining down from the sky.

So far the only out of the ordinary happenings in Massachusetts have been the Red Sox beating the Yankees after losing the first three games of a seven game series and going on to sweep the Cardnils winning the World Series. Which in some circles is considered either the forth or fifth sign of the impending apocalypse. The Big Dig was apparently going well, but thankfully the gods righted that, and the tunnels are leaking now.

Seriously though, there were an 8000 civil marriages preformed in Massachusetts last year, 3000 of which were same sex. I don't know which percentage of those are people from out of state though, so some of those might still be invalid. However, I'm pretty sure Rhode Island and Conn. and Vermont will recognize a gay marriage preformed in Mass.

Here's a link to a Globe article on it:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/11/18/fewer_gay_couples_seek_marriage_licenses/

I think we also have had the first gay divorce, but i'm not sure on that one.

Some study also came out putting Massachusetts as the Smartest State in the country, as well as the most competitive! So suck on that NY!

[Ian Boothby]

We have gay marriage in Canada but we also embraced Metric and that scared the hell out of the U.S. too.

[Samurai]

"Honey, I bought you a dozen PrickyWeeds!"

The name does matter. But it also doesn't.

See, here's how I see it:

We uppity homos want to get married. We want the whole shebang- the wedding, the societal approval, the gift registry, the legal benefits, the whole kit-n-kaboodle. We've been making noise for a good 35 years now, getting all you breeder types used to the idea of us. We've been through the name-calling, the wrath of god, the endless talk shows. We've dealt with AIDS. We've tried to make our behavior acceptable to you people. We've worked at it. And it's been a good 35 years.

So maybe we're greedy. Maybe we're foolish. Maybe, just maybe, we'd like a teensy little bit more from you people. We wanna get married. And I think, somehow, that arguments on gay marriage have shown some interesting prejudices. And some word playing on both sides.

Here's what marriage means to me: Marriage is two people who love another and want to build a life together. It's a higher level of commitment. It's a cementing of couplehood. It's having a wedding and inviting all your friends and having them get drunk and silly and take goofy pictures. It's forcing family members who don't really like you to buy you expensive shit. And after the ceremony it's about building a life together. It's buying that house and maybe starting a family. It's being even more a part of the community. It's work and hardship and bad times and fighting, but always with that commitment there between you. It's saying "I'm going to try. I'm going to fight for this person. I'm going to hopefully spend my life being annoyed every time he scrapes the plate with that damn fork." And it's about people understanding. It's about community. It's a recognition of a relationship, and more than recognition. It's that support of the relationship. The talks about how marriage works. The working together to get all the kiddies to soccer practice. It's about making a place in the world.

The government makes things easier for married couples in certain regards because it's a good thing for communities and people. When the man you've been married to dies you don't want to have to wonder if his family is going to sue you to get the house that you've spent your lives together in. If your wife is in the hospital and needs surgery you don't have to figure out who is awake to call to get permission for. You don't have to worry that your kids will be taken away from you because some religious idiot reads Fred Phelps' website and starts reporting you to Child Services.

Civil Unions can certainly take care of the legal implications. In that sense, the word doesn't matter. A Civil Union will address all the legal concerns.

But it won't ever be a marriage. Ever. it will always be something different and apart. And no matter how much your relationship completely mirrors a marriage, it will never BE a marriage. And you'll know it. And your freinds will know it. And it might never, ever, ever be an issue. But that knowledge will always be there. So the word does matter as well.

It's not about the legal rights. it's not about dictionary definitions. It's not about biblical interpretation. It's about acceptance. It's about being acknowledged as human beings. And that's why we want the word as well. So we ask for the word and we work for the word and eventually we're going to fight for the word. Because society won't change on it's own. Society isn't going to make things better for us on its own. Everything we've gotten in the last 35 years we've had to fight tooth and claw for.

Now I'm 34, never had a boyfriend, have a horrible dating record, am really bad at things like finding a relationship. Odds are this will never be an issue in MY life. But that doesn't stop me hoping for it. it doesn't stop me wanting it. I'm not going to stop trying my damndest to force heterosexuals to understand that we are just people.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. There are, in fact, many flowers that smell better than roses. But when it's anniversary time people still send roses.
The thing is, forcing through gay marriage by going to an activist judge, or a sympathetic mayor, or other end runaround WON'T get you acceptance. If anything it'll create anger and resentment, and that will result in the kind of backlash we saw in 11 states. Do you really think that flashing a Massachusetts marriage lisence and a ring in the face of an opponent of gay marriage will magically result in them saying "Well, gosh darn, I guess you're married now, so I'll not merely tolerate yah anymore, I flat out accept and endorse your union!" Ummm, no. In fact, you've got it exactly reversed... if you want to someday get gay marriage, you've got to first gain acceptance. One of the better ways to do that IMO is to take civil unions now, give them time to sink into the national consciousness and gain acceptance, and then in 10-20 years, once people are used to the idea, have it merged with Marriage.

You may say "that's not fair" or "they should love and accept us right now", but that just ain't reality. If you want to make real progress instead of showy acts of martyrdom (like San Francisco) and taking 2 steps back for every 1 foot forward, you need to take baby steps. First sodomy was declared legal, now move on to civil unions, and someday it'll be full marriage. But keep trying to jump right to the end and pretty soon most every state will have laws banning not just gay marriage, but civil unions too...

[Ian Boothby]

I agree that names matter sometimes. Still, I'd like to mention that, as a Black man, if I heard a non-Black person refer to us as "negroes," my attitude would be pretty much what you described, above - as long as the person did it out of ignorance or at least a lack of malice.

What if they did it out of prejudice (which is a form of ignorance) and told you to get over it because it wasn't a big deal?

[Ian Boothby]

The thing is, forcing through gay marriage by going to an activist judge, or a sympathetic mayor, or other end runaround WON'T get you acceptance. If anything it'll create anger and resentment, and that will result in the kind of backlash we saw in 11 states. Do you really think that flashing a Massachusetts marriage lisence and a ring in the face of an opponent of gay marriage will magically result in them saying "Well, gosh darn, I guess you're married now, so I'll not merely tolerate yah anymore, I flat out accept and endorse your union!" Ummm, no. In fact, you've got it exactly reversed... if you want to someday get gay marriage, you've got to first gain acceptance. One of the better ways to do that IMO is to take civil unions now, give them time to sink into the national consciousness and gain acceptance, and then in 10-20 years, once people are used to the idea, have it merged with Marriage.
..


If you have the choice between a human right and tolerance from the masses chose the human right. People might always be bigots, the point isn't to change their minds. The point is their ignorance and prejudice shouldn't take away your full rights as a citizen. If they're mad, fuck 'em, you still have the vote, you still can go to the school of your choice and still can get married.
More than likely the hate will fade as people become used to the situation but human rights aren't a popularity contest, everyone doesn't have to like 'em.

[west3man]

What if they did it out of prejudice (which is a form of ignorance) and told you to get over it because it wasn't a big deal?

I'm not sure what form of prejudice would result in calling me a "negro" as opposed to "nigger," but I'll try to answer the question, anyway.

Hmm... The best answer I could give is it would depend on the reasons the person gave. Honestly, intentions matter a great deal, to me. Something that's clearly a mistake or a misunderstanding is easier to swallow. I just have to be convinced that's what it was. Delivery and history can be indicators. I dunno. It's hard to wrap my brain all the way around this because I don't find "negro" offensive by default.

[west3man]

The thing is, forcing through gay marriage by going to an activist judge, or a sympathetic mayor, or other end runaround WON'T get you acceptance. If anything it'll create anger and resentment, and that will result in the kind of backlash we saw in 11 states. Do you really think that flashing a Massachusetts marriage lisence and a ring in the face of an opponent of gay marriage will magically result in them saying "Well, gosh darn, I guess you're married now, so I'll not merely tolerate yah anymore, I flat out accept and endorse your union!" Ummm, no. In fact, you've got it exactly reversed... if you want to someday get gay marriage, you've got to first gain acceptance. One of the better ways to do that IMO is to take civil unions now, give them time to sink into the national consciousness and gain acceptance, and then in 10-20 years, once people are used to the idea, have it merged with Marriage.

You may say "that's not fair" or "they should love and accept us right now", but that just ain't reality. If you want to make real progress instead of showy acts of martyrdom (like San Francisco) and taking 2 steps back for every 1 foot forward, you need to take baby steps. First sodomy was declared legal, now move on to civil unions, and someday it'll be full marriage. But keep trying to jump right to the end and pretty soon most every state will have laws banning not just gay marriage, but civil unions too...

I dunno. I don't think ALL aspects of the quest for legalizing gay marriage parallel the Civil Rights Movement(s), but SOME do. Replace "gay marriage" with "civil rights (for Blacks, etc.)" in the above quote and I think the number of people who disagree with you would rightly swell.

I think what you're talking about is strategy, which is valid consideration, but I don't think this struggle is JUST about acceptance. I could be wrong. I'd guess acceptance is a strong desire, but that equal rights is the priority.

Think of it like suing a stranger who's wronged you. You're not going to gain that person's acceptance or friendship by suing, but what's okay. The higher priority is getting what you believe is owed to you.

If I were being oppressed, disenfranchised, etc. in the 60's and an "activist judge" or a "sympathetic mayor" were willing to take steps to help my cause, I'd take it. Even if it won't immediately "get [me] acceptance."

[atoningunifex]

The thing is, forcing through gay marriage by going to an activist judge, or a sympathetic mayor, or other end runaround WON'T get you acceptance. If anything it'll create anger and resentment, and that will result in the kind of backlash we saw in 11 states. Do you really think that flashing a Massachusetts marriage lisence and a ring in the face of an opponent of gay marriage will magically result in them saying "Well, gosh darn, I guess you're married now, so I'll not merely tolerate yah anymore, I flat out accept and endorse your union!" Ummm, no. In fact, you've got it exactly reversed... if you want to someday get gay marriage, you've got to first gain acceptance. One of the better ways to do that IMO is to take civil unions now, give them time to sink into the national consciousness and gain acceptance, and then in 10-20 years, once people are used to the idea, have it merged with Marriage.

You may say "that's not fair" or "they should love and accept us right now", but that just ain't reality. If you want to make real progress instead of showy acts of martyrdom (like San Francisco) and taking 2 steps back for every 1 foot forward, you need to take baby steps. First sodomy was declared legal, now move on to civil unions, and someday it'll be full marriage. But keep trying to jump right to the end and pretty soon most every state will have laws banning not just gay marriage, but civil unions too...

I don't expect Heterosexuals, in general, to do anything but be completely unable to think beyond the end of their own noses. I don't for a single minute think that getting gay marriage will suddenly make people tolerate us. I do think, however, that it's a major step and something important to fight for. Because it may not make you lot like us, but if we can do it, if we can manage to get you lot thinking about something besides yourselves, then we will have made major progress.

The political reality is that my life is dictated by people who cannot seem to understand that just because I don't crave pussy I'm not some other form of life. That's reality. You say take baby steps and eventually you'll let me have what you have. In 20 years or so. Or maybe 50. "you know what? We'll get back to you. We've got more importatnt things to think about. And hey, it's not like we're stopping you from being a pervert ar anything."

Yes, this gay marriage thing was horribly ill-timed. And Karl Rove pounced on it and made it the focal point of the election in many places. And, yeah, we got spanked. But news flash- the same people that spanked us for wanting to get married are gonna spank us for wanting to get unionized. So do we fight for the civil unions? Do we ask for secondary status/ or do we fight for gay marriage again? For myself, and again, I don't have an enormous personal stake in this, I say we should fight for the marriage. Because the political likelihood is that we're not going to get either in anything but the most liberal of states.

[west3man]

The political reality is that my life is dictated by people who cannot seem to understand that just because I don't crave pussy ...

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA... You DON'T? C'mon, now. This is a joke, right? I mean, I thought this was a phase you all were collectively going through.

I mean, GEEZ, that'll ... that'll... Hell, that'll reduce the competition!

. . .


Carry on.

(Looks like we've stumbled upon the best marketing strategy for the cause. Quick. Print up some fliers!)

[Buzz Maverik]

We have gay marriage in Canada but we also embraced Metric and that scared the hell out of the U.S. too.

Dude, I just want you to know...you were winning this argument until the metric thing.

[jimmything2681]

Sam, you're absolutely right. Just look at the way Vermonters freaked out when an "activist" judge declared civil unions legal. And those riots in Boston? The "liberal media" presented them as "Red Sox Victory Riots", but we all know that they were really about holding queers down.

[Tom]

I don't expect Heterosexuals, in general, to do anything but be completely unable to think beyond the end of their own noses. I don't for a single minute think that getting gay marriage will suddenly make people tolerate us. I do think, however, that it's a major step and something important to fight for. Because it may not make you lot like us, but if we can do it, if we can manage to get you lot thinking about something besides yourselves, then we will have made major progress.

The political reality is that my life is dictated by people who cannot seem to understand that just because I don't crave pussy I'm not some other form of life. That's reality. You say take baby steps and eventually you'll let me have what you have. In 20 years or so. Or maybe 50. "you know what? We'll get back to you. We've got more importatnt things to think about. And hey, it's not like we're stopping you from being a pervert ar anything."

Yes, this gay marriage thing was horribly ill-timed. And Karl Rove pounced on it and made it the focal point of the election in many places. And, yeah, we got spanked. But news flash- the same people that spanked us for wanting to get married are gonna spank us for wanting to get unionized. So do we fight for the civil unions? Do we ask for secondary status/ or do we fight for gay marriage again? For myself, and again, I don't have an enormous personal stake in this, I say we should fight for the marriage. Because the political likelihood is that we're not going to get either in anything but the most liberal of states.
That was beautiful. *snf*

One thing that needs to be pointed out is that for over a decade before the Massachussetts decision, gays pushed for civil unions. You know what it got us? Vermont and the Defense of Marriage Act. So this whole "you gays went about this all wrong" idea is just flatout wrong. We couldn't get civil unions so we appealed to the courts. The court in Massachussetts decided that there was no constitutional reason to deny gays marriage and now everyone keeps saying "You should have stuck with the civil unions."

[EdContradictory]

The thing is, forcing through gay marriage by going to an activist judge, or a sympathetic mayor, or other end runaround WON'T get you acceptance.

Activist Judge- ak*tev*ist juj (n.) 1. Any judge who rules in a way that conservatives do not like. 2. An attempt to create a slur by the political right to denigrate a point of view they do not agree with (see also: Liberal).

[heystacy]

Thanks guys!

You're welcome. :)

[For the Good of X]

Wow. What a thread.

Yet through it all...I keep wondering...why do people care so much about this issue? I of course understand why gays feel strongly - we have a lot at stake. But for straight folks, particularly those opposing gays/gay marriage (and we must seperate the two - are you against gay marriage or are you against gay people?)- why do you care so much? Don't you have kids to raise and mortgages to pay? Jobs? Hobbies? Comics to collect? Movies to see? Etc.

I don't devote a lot of thought/time to gay marriage as an issue/topic for discussion. I have things to do. As does everyone else. Not that dialogue isn't important, but the level of intensity surrounding most dialogue/activity in regard to this issue astounds me. People don't argue this much about taxes and taxes affect ALL of us a WHOLE lot more than gay marriage....

[west3man]

Wow. What a thread.

Yet through it all...I keep wondering...why do people care so much about this issue? I of course understand why gays feel strongly - we have a lot at stake. But for straight folks, particularly those opposing gays/gay marriage (and we must seperate the two - are you against gay marriage or are you against gay people?)- why do you care so much? Don't you have kids to raise and mortgages to pay? Jobs? Hobbies? Comics to collect? Movies to see? Etc.

I don't devote a lot of thought/time to gay marriage as an issue/topic for discussion. I have things to do. As does everyone else. Not that dialogue isn't important, but the level of intensity surrounding most dialogue/activity in regard to this issue astounds me. People don't argue this much about taxes and taxes affect ALL of us a WHOLE lot more than gay marriage....

I've GOTTA ask, then... Do you think it's not a big deal?

[JeffreyWKramer]

On this we will have to agree to disagree. It just saddens me to think that so many will be hurt because of a name. What's in a name? Would a rose by any other name...

Because it's not just a name. Marriage has existing legal status that civil unions probably will not have unless the relevant legislation specifically addresses this in a very direct and global fashion. So, then you will have other fights. Some states will pass laws limiting adoption and foster care and such specifically to married folk to try to keep gays from adopting, etc.

If the anti-gay marriage folk were all reasonable and actually cared about equality it would be an issue, but they are *not* all reasonable, and the people behind these evil initiatives obviously do not want gays to have equal status - which is why most of the initiatives specifically OUTLAWED CIVIL UNIONS AS WELL AS MARRIAGE FOR GAY FOLK, which some people seem to be forgetting. Those people - the Phelpses, the Reeds, the Bauers, the conservative bishops - will keep fighting this *every step of the way.* That is why many people do not want to give on this point - they worry that if they do, they will next have to give on other points, rather than actually getting equality.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I agree that names matter sometimes. Still, I'd like to mention that, as a Black man, if I heard a non-Black person refer to us as "negroes," my attitude would be pretty much what you described, above - as long as the person did it out of ignorance or at least a lack of malice.


The problem is, the whole thing of insisting gays get civil unions while straights get marriage is full of undercurrents of malice, and prejudice. It means, more or less "only our relationship is good enough to deserve this word - yours isn't."

That is what it comes down to. Again, the US has had civil marriage forever and *no* religious order in this country said boo about it until the concept started being applied to gays. This isn't a matter of religion protecting what belongs to them - because it *doesn't* belong exclusively to them, and never really has, throughout history, and certainly not in the history ofthe US. People can pretty it up as much as they want in order to pretend it isn't about prejudice, but this is *still* a matter of some people wanting to keep gays from having what they enjoy... and it is *not* good to give in to that mindset, because it simply encourages it to continue.

[west3man]

The problem is, the whole thing of insisting gays get civil unions while straights get marriage is full of undercurrents of malice, and prejudice. It means, more or less "only our relationship is good enough to deserve this word - yours isn't."

I don't disagree. I was just addressing the "negro" point.

That is what it comes down to. Again, the US has had civil marriage forever and *no* religious order in this country said boo about it until the concept started being applied to gays. This isn't a matter of religion protecting what belongs to them - because it *doesn't* belong exclusively to them, and never really has, throughout history, and certainly not in the history ofthe US. People can pretty it up as much as they want in order to pretend it isn't about prejudice, but this is *still* a matter of some people wanting to keep gays from having what they enjoy... and it is *not* good to give in to that mindset, because it simply encourages it to continue.

As long as we're talking about "some people," I don't disagree with this, either.

[heystacy]

What if they did it out of prejudice (which is a form of ignorance) and told you to get over it because it wasn't a big deal?


That would be a huge deal. No one should ever be called out of their name. If you tell people that's not how you address me, then they best pay attention, or stand aside. That's as polite as I can put it. Odds are I wouldn't be that nice about it in person.

[west3man]

That would be a huge deal. No one should ever be called out of their name. If you tell people that's not how you address me, then they best pay attention, or stand aside. That's as polite as I can put it. Odds are I wouldn't be that nice about it in person.

Y'think? I know this is moving further off-topic, but Spanish-speaking people (or their descendants) have plenty of terms that some love and others loathe. It's not just a simple matter of geographic origin, in some cases. So, the rest of us just have to do the best we can. If we finally find a term that is generic, yet specific enough and THEN are told by one person that it's not acceptable... "Get over it" wouldn't be the WORST response (although it'd be best to think it instead of saying it).

Like I said, circumstance and intent matter, imo.

[heystacy]

Y'think? I know this is moving further off-topic, but Spanish-speaking people (or their descendants) have plenty of terms that some love and others loathe. It's not just a simple matter of geographic origin, in some cases. So, the rest of us just have to do the best we can. If we finally find a term that is generic, yet specific enough and THEN are told by one person that it's not acceptable... "Get over it" wouldn't be the WORST response (although it'd be best to think it instead of saying it).

Like I said, circumstance and intent matter, imo.

I hear what you're saying. My thoughts were along the lines if someone called you a name you did loathe, and you corrected them, they should adjust their words proper.

You are also right about circumstance and intent. It does weigh huge in the conversation.

[Boldido]

"Honey, I bought you a dozen PrickyWeeds!"

The name does matter. But it also doesn't.

See, here's how I see it:

We uppity homos want to get married. We want the whole shebang- the wedding, the societal approval, the gift registry, the legal benefits, the whole kit-n-kaboodle. We've been making noise for a good 35 years now, getting all you breeder types used to the idea of us. We've been through the name-calling, the wrath of god, the endless talk shows. We've dealt with AIDS. We've tried to make our behavior acceptable to you people. We've worked at it. And it's been a good 35 years.

While I realize that this is an emotional issue and certainly more than just an intellectual exercise for many on this board, myself included, I have to start by saying that the lack of civility and open hostility to those who are supportive of your ultimate goals is disappointing. I am not just referring to you atoningunifex, but also Ian and Tom. This snide and snarky attitude toward everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% in either goals or merely the method of achieving them is one of the things that has made the cause of gay marraige take such a huge step backward this year. The demonizing of the voters who overwhelmingly voted for these amendments, will only delay the ultimate goal further. I challenge you to find one post of mine in this thread that warrants the type of rudeness or discourtesy that seems to flow from you all so naturally.

So maybe we're greedy. Maybe we're foolish. Maybe, just maybe, we'd like a teensy little bit more from you people. We wanna get married. And I think, somehow, that arguments on gay marriage have shown some interesting prejudices. And some word playing on both sides.

Here's what marriage means to me: Marriage is two people who love another and want to build a life together. It's a higher level of commitment. It's a cementing of couplehood. It's having a wedding and inviting all your friends and having them get drunk and silly and take goofy pictures. It's forcing family members who don't really like you to buy you expensive shit. And after the ceremony it's about building a life together. It's buying that house and maybe starting a family. It's being even more a part of the community. It's work and hardship and bad times and fighting, but always with that commitment there between you. It's saying "I'm going to try. I'm going to fight for this person. I'm going to hopefully spend my life being annoyed every time he scrapes the plate with that damn fork." And it's about people understanding. It's about community. It's a recognition of a relationship, and more than recognition. It's that support of the relationship. The talks about how marriage works. The working together to get all the kiddies to soccer practice. It's about making a place in the world.

Nothing in the above statement is precluded by what I or Samuai have suggested.

The government makes things easier for married couples in certain regards because it's a good thing for communities and people. When the man you've been married to dies you don't want to have to wonder if his family is going to sue you to get the house that you've spent your lives together in. If your wife is in the hospital and needs surgery you don't have to figure out who is awake to call to get permission for. You don't have to worry that your kids will be taken away from you because some religious idiot reads Fred Phelps' website and starts reporting you to Child Services.

Civil Unions can certainly take care of the legal implications. In that sense, the word doesn't matter. A Civil Union will address all the legal concerns.

But it won't ever be a marriage. Ever. it will always be something different and apart. And no matter how much your relationship completely mirrors a marriage, it will never BE a marriage. And you'll know it. And your freinds will know it. And it might never, ever, ever be an issue. But that knowledge will always be there. So the word does matter as well.
I disagree. It will be a marraige once the I dos are said. Husband and wife are not legal terms, spouse is. You would consider it a marraige, your friends would consider it a marraige and your family would consider it a marraige. It is rare these days that we care what the government calls something if it flies in the face of what we believe it to be.

It's not about the legal rights. it's not about dictionary definitions. It's not about biblical interpretation. It's about acceptance. It's about being acknowledged as human beings. And that's why we want the word as well. So we ask for the word and we work for the word and eventually we're going to fight for the word. Because society won't change on it's own. Society isn't going to make things better for us on its own. Everything we've gotten in the last 35 years we've had to fight tooth and claw for.

You don't gain acceptance by telling someone that they are a hateful, ignorant bigot if they don't accept you. Gays haven't gotten the acceptance they currently have by having people run into businesses screaming "Were here, were queer, get used to it." You have gotten acceptance by being out and by having people with no experience with the gay community realize that homosexuals aren't the guys the christian conservative love to show movies of in the gay pride parade wearing nothing but a leather g-string and a boa making lewd gestures, but rather their doctor or their lawyer or the guy next door who lets you borrow his hedge clippers. You gain acceptance when people realize that their best friend from high school was gay and they love him just as much. You are right, society won't make things better on their own, but you won't get society to change by being rude and condiscending either.

Now I'm 34, never had a boyfriend, have a horrible dating record, am really bad at things like finding a relationship. Odds are this will never be an issue in MY life. But that doesn't stop me hoping for it. it doesn't stop me wanting it. I'm not going to stop trying my damndest to force heterosexuals to understand that we are just people.

Instead of trying to force them understand, why don't you help them to understand?

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. even if it was called a prickly weed.

[Tom]

While I realize that this is an emotional issue and certainly more than just an intellectual exercise for many on this board, myself included, I have to start by saying that the lack of civility and open hostility to those who are supportive of your ultimate goals is disappointing. I am not just referring to you atoningunifex, but also Ian and Tom. Say what? Considering I was told to just find another boyfriend to replace the one I've had for the last eight years, my attitude has been remarkably restrained in my opinion.

You've said something like this to me before, Roger and I call bullshit. I lay awake at night considering contingency plans if my boyfriend gets deported. I look at all the things we bought to build our life together (because we got not so much as a serving spoon from family and friends) and mentally calculate how much we can sell them for and how quickly we can get the money so I can leave the country of my birth and live in a country that neither one of us want to live in. Pardon me for not having the "correct" attitude.

I can take people expressing their opinions on this matter, no matter what the opinions are. I vehemently reject and deny being told how I should express myself on this.

Put another way (and you'll pardon me for the Lifetime movie moment): if I don't joke about it, I'll spend all my time crying over it.

[Ian Boothby]

Dude, I just want you to know...you were winning this argument until the metric thing.


All you have to do is be able to divide by 10, c'mon people!

[JeffreyWKramer]

Put another way (and you'll pardon me for the Lifetime movie moment): if I don't joke about it, I'll spend all my time crying over it.

Damn you, Tom... Now I have this image of them doing a Lifetime movie about the trials you and Desi are going through ... but since it's Lifetime, you'll have to be portrayed by Valerie Bertinelli or that actress who played the mom on "Family Ties."

Beyond that, though... I agree. This is a very real problem for very real people, and as I've said before, this idea that everyone should sit patiently and politely in the back of the bus until they are invited up front is bullshit.

As I've also said before, I think both the calm, reasoned approach and the "in your face" approach have merit, and that the combination is likely to be more effective than either in isolation. Close analysis of the Civil Rights movement supports this analysis - Dr. King and the Freedom March won out, but I remain convinced fewer would have paid them any attention if they didn't know that failing to do so would lead them to having to deal more with Malcolm X and the more militant elements of the black rights movement.

[PatrickG]

Dividing by 12 (and occasionally other numbers) is so much more cryptic. I like it.

It's like being a Mason without the initiation rites.

[Ian Boothby]

"
Instead of trying to force them understand, why don't you help them to understand?
]

Because they don't want to understand. I don't want to hold their hands and gently lead them towards tollerance. I want to stop them from standing in the way of others.

[Ian Boothby]

Dividing by 12 (and occasionally other numbers) is so much more cryptic. I like it.

It's like being a Mason without the initiation rites.

The Little Twelve Toes Schoolhouse Rock was just creepy and when it got into numbers that would exist only if you had 12 fingers like dek el and doh it blew my mind.

10 is easy. Join us!

[Yoda]

The Little Twelve Toes Schoolhouse Rock was just creepy and when it got into numbers that would exist only if you had 12 fingers like dek el and doh it blew my mind.

10 is easy. Join us!

Never!

"4th & Centimeters" will never be spoken by and NFL commentator as long as I live.

[titanfan]

First off, I do think it's important to realize that (in some cases) people are generally homophobic. If someone is homophobic, I do think the best way to get through to them is with patience and understanding--if someone had a fear of heights, you wouldn't yell and berate or demonize them. You'd try to help them through it.

That said, when a group of people is actively telling you that they don't/won't support the relationship with the person you have chosen to spend the rest of your life with--how do you not take that personally? You're right, it may not be the most strategically smart decision for those of us who are trying to change the world--but it's also a very human one, and an honest one. Understanding works both ways.

[Ian Boothby]

So with a racist would you tollerate their hate until they come around too? Seems more like enabling. Tollerating intollerance doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

[Boldido]

So with a racist would you tollerate their hate until they come around too? Seems more like enabling. Tollerating intollerance doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

First, I wouldn't automatically equate ignorance and fear with hate. Automatically, you jump to the same tired "the other side are a bunch of hate filled bigots" position.

If someone was a racist I would first try and find out if they ever actually met or knew any black (assuming from your post that you meant racist against blacks, if not please fill in whatever race you wish to be the subject of this hypothetical derision) people. I would relate stories of black friends of mine and what my experiences with them have been. I would try to get them to see the other side, that is if I was actually trying to effectuate change.

If I was merely looking to make myself feel better and superior and blow of steam then I would yell and scream and call them back woods, toothless, sister fucking, inbred, moonshine drinking, pick-up driving, cracker, hillbilly, bigot, racist, mother-raping, assholes. I wouldn't expect them to change their minds from this particular type of persuasive technique, however.

[titanfan]

So with a racist would you tollerate their hate until they come around too? Seems more like enabling. Tollerating intollerance doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

No. There's a difference between homophobia and bigotry.

[west3man]

If I was merely looking to make myself feel better and superior and blow of steam then I would yell and scream and call them back woods, toothless, sister fucking, inbred, moonshine drinking, pick-up driving, cracker, hillbilly, bigot, racist, mother-raping, assholes. I wouldn't expect them to change their minds from this particular type of persuasive technique, however.

And THIS, I think, is THE point (at least of this sub-topic).

What is the goal?
The goal is to make laws that will allow gay couples the opportunities and status that heterosexual couples enjoy.

How will this happen?
A. Those who currently support gay marriage will take action which brings us closer and closer to the goal...
AND/OR
B. Those who were neutral or against gay marriage will become supporters who will take action which brings us closer and closer to the goal...

...until the goal is behind us.

What has already happened?
Those who currently support gay marriage have taken action to bring us closer and closer to the goal. The goal remains in front of us - perhaps further away than before.

What can we learn from this?
Often over-used, but... They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over, again, but expecting a different result.

If the current supporters of gay marriage have been unsuccessful in achieving the goal, perhaps it's time to try to increase the number of supporters - particularly since a lack of pro-gay marriage voters is what resulted in the recent set-backs.

How do we do this?
There may be multiple answers to this question, but for now, how about what we WON'T do this...? Lumping everyone who's not on your side in one big bucket of hateful, ignorant, bigotry. In fact, it'll probably have the opposite of the desired effect.




If all we're doing here is venting, but not looking, hoping, or working for anything constructive to result from these conversations (and we don't care that we may drive people further FROM the cause), then continue mischaracterizing this very large group of people who outnumber those of us who want gay marriage legalized.

I agree that there's very little wiggle-room for those who are against civil unions AND marriage for gay couples. STILL, we are all different people with different experiences. The moment we decide to permanently stop thinking of each other that way, that's the moment we embody exactly what we criticize.

[venuscameback]

I'm astonished that people who share the same views as those who despise homosexuality and homosexuals as ill, perverse and tainted simply because of the gender of the person they have a relationship with - or desire a relationship with - have the nerve to criticise some who support gay marriage for demonising the anti-gay marriage proponents.

It seems to me that so many of the speakers against gay marriage fill their speeches and rallying cries with poisonous, demonising invective that consistently refuses to look at homosexuals as people, living breathing individuals and instant dismisses them all as corrupt sinners not worthy of the same rights by law.

I'm a Christian and am continually baffled by those who use the Bible and Christianity as an excuse to promote their intolerance, prejudice and vile bigotry - it's the complete opposite of the essence of Christs' teachings.

I'm also a Priest and I know my beliefs are out of step with many in my Church; but when people say Christianity opposes gay rights, I say not in my name.

When I was first asked about this issue and first gave it consideration, my instinct was to support civil partnership but to feel unsure about legalising gay marriage. This was in a lengthy and interesting discussion with Atoning Unifex, by e-mail. I asked him to explain to me why "marriage" was such an important word for him and those who share his beliefs, and for various reasons he declined to get into that.

but on reading his eloquent expression of why that word is so important I'm convinced of the truth and merits of his argument and would now support legalising gay marriage full stop.

I believe religion is a very personal thing, and not something that should be segued into law. I admire the USA for the fact that it's Constitution (theoretically) prohibits the mixing of Church and State, as I understand it because the Founding Fathers were concerned that no one faith should gain over and authority over people of different - or no - faith.

While I reserve the right to live my life however I wish and according to whatever moral, ethical, spiritual or religious beliefs I feel are right for me, I don't see how I have any right to insist someone else should live by those beliefs. and where no-one is harmed by the practice of another, I don't see any need for laws to restrict those practices.

when two adults of sound mind consensually agree to something, and that something either ocurs in private or has no demonstrable direct effect on any other person that that person does not themselves choose (for we are all responsible for our own emotional responses), then what place has the law to say such a practice is wrong, or illegal?

One more reason for the separation of Church and State, of faith and law ... I believe that God will judge me (and that only God can judge me). When we write laws based upon our faith, and which penalise people for actions that conflict with our faith, then we are the judges, and we are acting in God's place.

We need laws for our communities to function with a minimum of strain; but let those laws come from logic and reason, not solely from religious belief. Laws can and should protect victims, and penalise those who make others their victims; but where there is no victim, where there is only informed consent, what place has the law to judge on that? How dare 'we' tell others what they may and may not consensually do in private, how they may or may not live their lives? How dare we!

If you believe such things are wrong, I respect your right to make your voice heard, to attempt to persuade and inform and educate; but to insist that someone else lives by your standards and to insist that the law reflects and enforces only your views is cruel, authoritarian, unloving and thoroughly, irredeemably unChristian.

Some of the language on both sides of the debate gets strident and rude. and that's understandable when so much is at stake for those whose rights are at risk of being removed, restricted, or their lack of rights reinforced.

If some other faith came to the ascendant and Christianity was widely viewed as abhorrent, backwards and corrupt - and let's face it, some critics of Christianity do think that - how would you Christians feel if the society you live in attempted - and succeeded - in passing laws that criminilised the very notion of being a Christian, or of practicing Christinaity? Or laws that said because you are a Christian, you lack the right to adopt, inheritance rights, a shared pension, and so on? If you imagine you would be up in arms about that - and I hope you would - then I ask you to reconsider how you think others should be treated.

DLW

[west3man]

I'm astonished that people who share the same views as those who despise homosexuality and homosexuals as ill, perverse and tainted simply because of the gender of the person they have a relationship with - or desire a relationship with - have the nerve to criticise some who support gay marriage for demonising the anti-gay marriage proponents.

[snip]

DLW

I haven't made it all the way through your post, yet. I plan to, though. However, you've kinda confused me from the start. I don't know what part of this thread you're responding to, but I think the people who've most recently spoken out against the WAY opponents of gay marriage has been (mis?)characterized do NOT "share the same views as those who despise homosexuality and homisexuals..."

I'm sure if *I* were running for President of the United States, I'd be accused of being a flip-flopper just like one of the former candidates. For me, the distinctions and nuances make a difference. I believe a person can be FOR this part and AGAINST that one and that doesn't make the person evil or saintly. It just makes them discerning.

Being unwilling to recognize that fact does little to help any productive or constructive cause.

[howyadoin]

No. There's a difference between homophobia and bigotry.Just out of curiosity, what is it?

[Boldido]

First off, I do think it's important to realize that (in some cases) people are generally homophobic. If someone is homophobic, I do think the best way to get through to them is with patience and understanding--if someone had a fear of heights, you wouldn't yell and berate or demonize them. You'd try to help them through it.

That said, when a group of people is actively telling you that they don't/won't support the relationship with the person you have chosen to spend the rest of your life with--how do you not take that personally? You're right, it may not be the most strategically smart decision for those of us who are trying to change the world--but it's also a very human one, and an honest one. Understanding works both ways.

Absolutely, and I'm sorry if I haven't been clear in my posts that I understand it isn't merely and intllectual exercise for many on this board and that I expect people to take it personally. It isn't for me either. My best friend next to my wife was deeply hurt and many people close to him were deeply hurt by the passage of the amendment in Ohio.

My place in this debate is a weird one. I'm a conservative and I want to see gay marraige. I want others in my party to want gay marraige. I want to see gays be free to enter into a union with one another and enjoy the same rights my wife and I do. I want my best friend to be able to meet and fall in love with and marry someone who will treat him the way he deserves. Further, I have seen how he is with my children and I know that he would be a wonderful father. I want him to be able to adopt children if he wishes. In short, as everyone has said, I want him to be treated the same as everyone else. I also want that to happen sooner, rather than later. I don't want to see him denied medical insurance because people would rather blow of steam and castigate the "stupid red state" rather than actually start an intelligent dialogue.

The most intelligent argument in favor of Gay marraige on this thread is the lack of full faith and credit argument, not just from other states, but other countries as well. I got this argument from Tom over on the comm board and it was later reiterated here by Jeffrey. This is a rational and compelling argument for why civil unions aren't enough, but this is rarely put forward. Instead, the anger and the bile and the resentment are what get put forth. I hope it makes people feel better, because it does little to help the cause.

Believe it or not, there are many people in this country who don't know any gay people. They have been taught their whole lives by others and by the stereotypes in the media how to think about them and what to believe. Their lack of positive experiences is not their fault and doesn't make them bad, it just makes them inexperienced. By shouting them down and calling them rednecks and hate filled and coming at them negatively, most of them will not engage you and will shut up, until they get into the voting booth. I work in a very rural area and try to influence people's opinions about homosexuals every chance I get. The vast majority aren't Fred Phelps. I wish some people in these forums would show people who live in the more rural areas the same tolerance they wish to receive from them and seem more capable of showing to people who live in foreign countries but not to those who live in their own backyard.

[Ian Boothby]

No. There's a difference between homophobia and bigotry.


Homophobia is a form of bigotry. Please explain what you mean.

[howyadoin]

Believe it or not, there are many people in this country who don't know any gay people.I bet there's nowhere near as many as you think. Chances are much better that they know some gay people, but aren't aware that they're gay.

Because, of course, of the atmosphere of fear and shame that some people try to perpetuate.

[Ian Boothby]

First, I wouldn't automatically equate ignorance and fear with hate. Automatically, you jump to the same tired "the other side are a bunch of hate filled bigots" position.

If I was merely looking to make myself feel better and superior and blow of steam then I would yell and scream and call them back woods, toothless, sister fucking, inbred, moonshine drinking, pick-up driving, cracker, hillbilly, bigot, racist, mother-raping, assholes. I wouldn't expect them to change their minds from this particular type of persuasive technique, however.

I don't think bigots need to be hate filled. It's just ignorance. While ignorance can lead to hate it doesn't always have to. And like I said before, I don't care about leading them towards the light of reason. Just get out of the road, you're blocking the way.

[west3man]

I don't think bigots need to be hate filled. It's just ignorance. While ignorance can lead to hate it doesn't always have to. And like I said before, I don't care about leading them towards the light of reason. Just get out of the road, you're blocking the way.

You have to convince them that they're WRONG to be in that road or you have to bring others to your cause.

I'd say you could USE the light of reason and any other tool you can GET.


I also feel JWK's point about extremes enabling the moderate but that begs the question about the end justifying the means. Sometimes, I guess, but is this one of those times?

[Boldido]

I'm astonished that people who share the same views as those who despise homosexuality and homosexuals as ill, perverse and tainted simply because of the gender of the person they have a relationship with - or desire a relationship with - have the nerve to criticise some who support gay marriage for demonising the anti-gay marriage proponents.
DLW

You very own post proves our point. You indicate that you were orginally opposed to gay marraige but came around after engaging in thoughtful intelligent PMs from atoningflex. Am I safe to assume that he laid out intelligent, thoughtful reasons for supporting gay marraige? From his other posts, I'm sure he did. Am I also safe in assuming that he got you to change your position by appealing to your reason and your intellect as opposed to insulting you and demonizing you?

Why should you be different from most other people?

[Melissa]

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA... You DON'T? C'mon, now. This is a joke, right? I mean, I thought this was a phase you all were collectively going through.

I mean, GEEZ, that'll ... that'll... Hell, that'll reduce the competition!

. . .


Carry on.

(Looks like we've stumbled upon the best marketing strategy for the cause. Quick. Print up some fliers!)

Ahhh... that's only half the story. Every one of us increases the competition (and you're also forgetting the competition of straight women for pretty men)


Look, this argument can go around and around (which is very disappointing, given the honest and eloquent expressions of why we want marriage) but it all basically comes down to a simple mathematical question:

If you don't want to keep us down, then you'll stop actively denying us the same rights as you have, else you want to keep us down.

[Ian Boothby]

You have to convince them that they're WRONG to be in that road or you have to bring others to your cause.

I'd say you could USE the light of reason and any other tool you can GET.



How much more reason do people need? The light is there, people choose not to look at it. Gay folks are more out in the open than ever before. People see and know gays folks (if not in their lives then on TV). But they still vote against gay marriage. You can't reason with them if they won't listen and as the last vote showed, they won't.

So I can either side with the folks being denied rights or the bigots (and that's the ONLY reason to oppose gay rights).

You seem to think people will come together which is a nice concept. The last vote showed that's a LONG way off and to ask people to be denied their rights while the dumb in the country come around? No.

[Boldido]

I bet there's nowhere near as many as you think. Chances are much better that they know some gay people, but aren't aware that they're gay.

Because, of course, of the atmosphere of fear and shame that some people try to perpetuate.

Damn nit picker, rassin, frassin... There are many in the rural south who don't know any openly gay people.

[Boldido]

How much more reason do people need? The light is there, people choose not to look at it. Gay folks are more out in the open than ever before. People see and know gays folks (if not in their lives then on TV). But they still vote against gay marriage. You can't reason with them if they won't listen and as the last vote showed, they won't.

So I can either side with the folks being denied rights or the bigots (and that's the ONLY reason to oppose gay rights).

You seem to think people will come together which is a nice concept. The last vote showed that's a LONG way off and to ask people to be denied their rights while the dumb in the country come around? No.

Its this kind of supercilious, self-important moralizing that gives Karl Rove a hard on. You are definitely part of the problem Ian and the sad thing is you don't even know it.

[PatrickG]

What does it say that I live in the rural south and that it's been five years since I've gone more than a day or two without seeing at least *one* and that I generally see AT LEAST three or four a day without even trying...?

Are most people blind to it?

Because I know a ton of out people, all things considered. They're my teachers, co-workers and friends.

Heck, I've even known a few gay guys who ride Harleys and like hunting and fishing and wearing camo.

It boggles my mind how you can avoid associating with out homosexuals anywhere unless you're just in total denial.

[titanfan]

I'd say that a bigot is the extremely obstinate and generally hate-filled. They are unwilling to even listen to the other side because they are so convinced (often irrationally) that their view is correct. It's the ultimate in intolerance.

A homophobe simply has a fear or an aversion of gay people. It's something that makes them uncomfortable, but their not necessarily unwilling to listen. I don't want to stereotype, but I've found that they are usually people who grew up in conservative communitities who have never been exposed to anyone gay before.

Sometimes after outing yourself you don't know right away--but as another posted said--fear doesn't necessarily equal hate. Neither does ignorance--while being ignorant of something isn't a good thing, a non-bigoted person is willing to educate himself.

I grew up in what might be called an "evangelical christian" community. While there are some horrible, hate-filled people masquerading as "christian" there, there are some truly beautiful people there as well. In that sense, it's hard for me be able to demonize the enemy when I can relate to some of them.

[Boldido]

Say what? Considering I was told to just find another boyfriend to replace the one I've had for the last eight years, my attitude has been remarkably restrained in my opinion.

You've said something like this to me before, Roger and I call bullshit. I lay awake at night considering contingency plans if my boyfriend gets deported. I look at all the things we bought to build our life together (because we got not so much as a serving spoon from family and friends) and mentally calculate how much we can sell them for and how quickly we can get the money so I can leave the country of my birth and live in a country that neither one of us want to live in. Pardon me for not having the "correct" attitude.

I can take people expressing their opinions on this matter, no matter what the opinions are. I vehemently reject and deny being told how I should express myself on this.

Put another way (and you'll pardon me for the Lifetime movie moment): if I don't joke about it, I'll spend all my time crying over it.


You are right Tom and I apologize for including you. I took your joke as a dig and I shouldn't have.

[titanfan]

Just get out of the road, you're blocking the way.

But how do you get them out of the way? (legally, that is)

[west3man]

How much more reason do people need? The light is there, people choose not to look at it. Gay folks are more out in the open than ever before. People see and know gays folks (if not in their lives then on TV). But they still vote against gay marriage. You can't reason with them if they won't listen and as the last vote showed, they won't.

So I can either side with the folks being denied rights or the bigots (and that's the ONLY reason to oppose gay rights).

You seem to think people will come together which is a nice concept. The last vote showed that's a LONG way off and to ask people to be denied their rights while the dumb in the country come around? No.

You seem to think that the only way to side WITH the pro-gay marriage side is by villifying those who don't support it. I think there's an alternative.

[That JonoGuy]

You very own post proves our point. You indicate that you were orginally opposed to gay marraige but came around after engaging in thoughtful intelligent PMs from atoningflex. Am I safe to assume that he laid out intelligent, thoughtful reasons for supporting gay marraige? From his other posts, I'm sure he did. Am I also safe in assuming that he got you to change your position by appealing to your reason and your intellect as opposed to insulting you and demonizing you?

Why should you be different from most other people?

Although, you should take into consideration that he also was open to discussion about it. Many people aren't open to even listening to the other side of the argument.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I also feel JWK's point about extremes enabling the moderate but that begs the question about the end justifying the means. Sometimes, I guess, but is this one of those times?

It's the carrot and the stick... good cop, bad cop.

The concept works. I'm more convinced of it every day.

And btw, I state again, in the case of gay rights, it isn't just the "reach out and foster understanding in a nonconfrontational manner" crowd who has done all the work, or been responsible for all the successes. The militants - the in-your-face, "we're here and gay, so deal with it" crowd has done a lot to force people to recognize that gays are there and were not going to back down.

It takes the soft-speakers *and* the big stick.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Why should you be different from most other people?

Umm... because venuscameback is obviously a lot more reasonable than a lot of other people?

[Boldido]

Umm... because venuscameback is obviously a lot more reasonable than a lot of other people?

But in his original position, venuscameback was originally for civil unions but not gay marraige. Surveys have shown that the majority of america are open to civil unions but no gay marraige. I they are open to this concept, it show an existing openness. Venuscameback was convinced by intelligent reasonable debate, not bullying or insults. (I assume. If atoningflex bullied and insulted you into changing your view, please correct me venuscameback.)

I'm not as quick to write of the majority of america as many others here seem to be.

[Boldido]

It's the carrot and the stick... good cop, bad cop.

The concept works. I'm more convinced of it every day.

And btw, I state again, in the case of gay rights, it isn't just the "reach out and foster understanding in a nonconfrontational manner" crowd who has done all the work, or been responsible for all the successes. The militants - the in-your-face, "we're here and gay, so deal with it" crowd has done a lot to force people to recognize that gays are there and were not going to back down.

It takes the soft-speakers *and* the big stick.

I have to say that I am persuaded by your good cop, bad cop argument Jeffrey, especially when it came to MLK vs. Malcolm X.

I'm not thoroughly convinced that it would work in this context.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I have to say that I am persuaded by your good cop, bad cop argument Jeffrey, especially when it came to MLK vs. Malcolm X.

I'm not thoroughly convinced that it would work in this context.

Why not? How is the problem fundamentally different?

In answering, please try to take into account how gay rights got as far as it has to this point... because that didn't happen only with the good cops. From the start, the drag queens and the leather boys and the in-your-face pride-march guys have been part of the picture. In fact, the whole thing started with confrontation - with the earliest rallies and protests and marches, when some people finally got tired of being pushed around, mistreated and subjected to victimization as a matter of course.

[west3man]

Why not? How is the problem fundamentally different?

In answering, please try to take into account how gay rights got as far as it has to this point... because that didn't happen only with the good cops. From the start, the drag queens and the leather boys and the in-your-face pride-march guys have been part of the picture. In fact, the whole thing started with confrontation - with the earliest rallies and protests and marches, when some people finally got tired of being pushed around, mistreated and subjected to victimization as a matter of course.

I don't know that it* won't WORK ultimately. I mean, the mission may be accomplished, DESPITE unfortunate approaches.

What I'm really questioning is choosing a position, any position, whether extreme or moderate, based on anything other than the authenticity of the elements of that position.

Calling people who don't support "Black issues" racists while others call them pragmatists or whatever isn't right, if it's not absolutely accurate. The fact that those issues or struggles may result in victory doesn't mean the methods were right. If it's not right, then it's wrong.

Not supporting MY issue when I WANT you to doesn't mean I automatically know WHY you're doing it - particularly if I've never met you.








* "it" being the combination of extreme positions on this side of the gay marriage isue.