quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

I wonder, if Obama were gay, whether the reasons that some refuse to countenance his presidency would be more easily confessed?

For it seems to me that in this debate, its the same bunch who object to a non-white running for president who object to the notion of equal treatment for LGBT people - and their approach to both issues is seen to be the same - never to call a spade an instrument for digging and never to refer to what they see as an objectionable sexuality directly.

Instead they dance around the point, conjuring nonsensical arguments that any rational consideration of the legal and constitutional position can easily dismiss.

If only they felt as able to express themselves fully without reservation, we might see at a glance the nature of their bigoted view of life and dismiss them without any further consideration of their confabulated arguments.

And to top it all off, these seem to be the same bunch of people who react so vociferously against a state such as Iran - one in which it would appear the perfect society of which they dream is a reality.

The same sort of perfect society in which one might legally erect signs that said "Deutsche - wehrt Euch, kauf nicht bei Juden!"

I seem to recall a time when it was said that we objected to such viewpoints and the policies that followed on from them to the extent that we sent thousands into battle to destroy them. Apparently, we failed to take the same robust action at home and continue to do so.

If those predisposed to religiosity win out in this struggle then it will not be the end of their efforts to build their perfect society; one in which signs will again hang from hotel doors to make it known who is a human being and who is not.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: auroraborealis

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

I wonder, if Obama were gay, whether the reasons that some refuse to countenance his presidency would be more easily confessed?

For it seems to me that in this debate, its the same bunch who object to a non-white running for president who object to the notion of equal treatment for LGBT people - and their approach to both issues is seen to be the same - never to call a spade an instrument for digging and never to refer to what they see as an objectionable sexuality directly.

Instead they dance around the point, conjuring nonsensical arguments that any rational consideration of the legal and constitutional position can easily dismiss.

If only they felt as able to express themselves fully without reservation, we might see at a glance the nature of their bigoted view of life and dismiss them without any further consideration of their confabulated arguments.

And to top it all off, these seem to be the same bunch of people who react so vociferously against a state such as Iran - one in which it would appear the perfect society of which they dream is a reality.

The same sort of perfect society in which one might legally erect signs that said "Deutsche - wehrt Euch, kauf nicht bei Juden!"

I seem to recall a time when it was said that we objected to such viewpoints and the policies that followed on from them to the extent that we sent thousands into battle to destroy them. Apparently, we failed to take the same robust action at home and continue to do so.

If those predisposed to religiosity win out in this struggle then it will not be the end of their efforts to build their perfect society; one in which signs will again hang from hotel doors to make it known who is a human being and who is not.

E

[sm=goodpost.gif][sm=agree.gif]

Very good posting.

You are totaly on track that these same folk who are against equal rights for gays, are also in their heart of hearts against equal rights for any one. ( Other then their lilly white conterparts)

It makes me sick unto death when they say that isnt the case. No it is just less pouplar, and currently less excepted.

It is the same blind fear and hatred that led the Germans not too terribly long ago.

Those people are different, less human.. *Dangerous*, diseased, not worthy of Our God.

How many history lessons do we need to show that this type of thought needs to be wiped out so we are all equal in society?

The world did not stop the day our black brethern and sisters got their rights. Nor will it when gays get theirs.

Gwyn

quote:

ORIGINAL: faerytattoodgirl

if gay marriage bothers people so much...why doesnt marriage between 2 different racies  bother them? these multi cultural marriages have the same rights....and so should gays.

gays are just people.  although we may hit on your spouse!

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreedyTop

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus
Unfortunately, it's impossible when everyone feels they also need to be "unique" and "special".  You are asking the government to legislate equality and define fairness.  My question is.. if a civil union has the exact same rights as a marriage between het couples..why is it so important to use a term that has been exclusively for a heterosexual union?  And while we are thinking about it.. is husband and wife (which is gender specific) going to go by the wayside also in the interest of PCness?  I don't want to be so homogenized.  I'm old fashioned that way :)

why shouldn't gays be allowed to call their union a marriage? if the civil unions afford them the rights of marriage, then they should be entitled to CALL it a marriage, IMNSHO.  They should also be able to get married in a church, if they so choose, but that's another issue.

The institution of marriage was developed for hets by hets for the control of property and propagation of the species so that they knew what belongs where via bloodline.  How does this relate to the gay experience?  There is no bloodline/lineage to document.. and a simple will makes sure your belongings get where you want them after your death.  It's no longer about "morality".. just a system that was set up by a group to protect THEIR rights.  I wonder what a gay institution of partnering would be like?  What would be different for their specific needs?  If marriage is a good idea..then create your own ideal law and institution instead of trying to take away from the original.   Because that's what it feels like.

For a group here that says "to each their own" there sure is a lack of understanding how each feels about things.

I grew up in a family of 4..one of each:  One gay brother, one bi-sexual brother, one lesbian sister and little ol' het me.  I'm closest with my gay brother.  (just an FYI)  Neither bother or sister ever felt the need to be "married" because it just didn't apply.. but then they never were denied their "rights". Maybe because they actually took the initiative to explain their circumstances to those that needed to know instead of being militant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnnyCanuck

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus
I grew up in a family of 4..one of each:  One gay brother, one bi-sexual brother, one lesbian sister and little ol' het me.  I'm closest with my gay brother.  (just an FYI)  Neither bother or sister ever felt the need to be "married" because it just didn't apply.. but then they never were denied their "rights". Maybe because they actually took the initiative to explain their circumstances to those that needed to know instead of being militant.

Whatever you choose to call their relationships, they are going to call it "marriage" anyway, so what do you intend to do about it?

 
Ask them to define THEIR marriage, not using het terms, so as to define how THEIR circumstances are different as well as exdplaining to me what is lacking in a civil union that denys them the same rights?

http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html  it is quite easy to see the differance between the protections *MARRIED* couple get, and what is lacking.

quote:


You are willing to give them everything they would find in a traditional marriage, but your sensitivity demands they not actually call it "marriage"?

 

Traditional Marriage:  one man.. one woman by definition.. and they want to use THAT term???  No other word to define themselves as married but different-- Where's the Gay Pride????  Where is the creativity??? [:)]

Again the same excuse of equal but seperate. Why dont we go back to calling blacks by the old names? After all for ages they didnt have the rights to be full human beings? Why do those uppity gays have to have them too?

quote:


And you don't find that in the least bit demeaning or insulting, or even silly?

Not in the least.   Because I'm not saying they should NOT get married.. just don't confuse the term.

quote:



You will let people talk about "loving" a peanut butter sandwich, but you will not let two gay people say they are "married".

I don't know anyone who has married a peanut butter sandwich.. do you? [:D]

quote:


Perhaps the reason your brother and sister never mentioned a desire to marry was because they saw no point in discussing it with you.

I was the one they came out to to begin with.  They never saw a need to be "married." (shrug) 

Nice try at a dig though [:D] 

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressSassy66

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus

quote:

I had My last name legally changed to hers.

This was a very smart thing to do. [:)] (Good thinkin'!)  I wonder, now, for those that keep their maden name when they marry a male.. do they have the same problem that you might have run into if you hadn't had the same last name.?

Thank You,not only did it help us but it paved the way for
other couples to do the same thing.The Judge said that "We were
Pioneers in the Gay community".
Because most Judges do not like to change Precedents
after the fact I feel that Punk and I made a
difference and that...Feels pretty dang good. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus

I don't know where you found that definition.. but Merriam-Webster has this as the definition of marriage ...plus a  few others :)

How about a "loving union".. and for the hets that are married for say 5 years and decided or cannot have their own ums.. they would be required to change their identifier to a "loving union".  Thatg way those that have ums or are planning a family would b e a lot easier to find in the dating scene after the perevious marriage is over.  You see, I could give a rats ass about gayness.. really.  Where I am coming from (if you haven't figured it out yet) is trying to stop confusion down the road .. so to speak.

"You ever been married"? (meaning.. possible ums or a member of the opposite sex was involved).
but onthe same note.. if you say "No, I was in a loving union" you know the person is interested in the same sex and if you are of the opposite sex, you don't need to pursue that person.

Now for the bi's.. I have no solution.  You are just too special [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: auroraborealis
I don't want a creative term. I want the same damn thing everyone else is allowed to have. Just because I am allowed on the bus doesnt mean I have to sit in the back of it.. and give up my seat to hetrosexuals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnnyCanuck

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

So it would be okay to make interracial couples use a different word too? 

No.. because you have a visual indicator... if one is interested in knowing.

Well there's your solution.

Gays can legally marry as long as they have "faggot" tattooed across their foreheads.

Thus they too would have a "visual indicator".

Won't that make the homophobic community happy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: auroraborealis

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnnyCanuck

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight
So it would be okay to make interracial couples use a different word too? 

No.. because you have a visual indicator... if one is interested in knowing.

Well there's your solution.

Gays can legally marry as long as they have "faggot" tattooed across their foreheads.

Thus they too would have a "visual indicator".

Won't that make the homophobic community happy?

Ohh ohh can I get Dyke tatooed on my forehead? Well shit.. I am a Lipstick Lez.. that wouldn't work. Damn it we need more labels so we can make snap decisions on people who never open their mouths.. and do not outwardly show what they are. After all we can do it with blacks and hispanics.. why not the other undesireables?

I wonder what my tatoo would look like? Lipstick lez, 2 kids, Cherokee.

Wouldnt that simplify it for people who do not lesbians or Indians to shun me? Otherwise they might not know to shun me untill they *gasp* have gotten to know me. What a waste of their time!

*rolls her eyes*

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

The normal brain as determined by nature needs a man to desire a woman...just so the species can reproduce. There is a mistake that short-circuits this development in gays. I did not say it was bad...just a mistake of nature.

....not necessarily. Some research has suggested that being gay is not a mistake, or an error, but a naturally occuring piece of brain chemistry in everyone......switched on in some when the population becomes dense enough.  It is not necessary or even desirable that every member of a population must be breeders.......over-population can be the result.

Sorry that does not make sense to me... that would mean there would be a greater percentage of gays in countries like China and India… or densely populated cities like New York. I haven't read anything to back that up…have you?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: mstrj69

How many vanilla people would brand you as being different just because you are into this life and being dominant or submissive master or slave.  Truthfuly, if gays had to marry to live together, I would be happy.  For once they would have to pay the higher income tax rate that married couples have to pay.  A married couple gets one standard deduction equal to 1.5 times a single standard deduction while two single people get a full deduction each.  The tax code has favored  gays and lesbians for a long time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: faerytattoodgirl

quote:

It doesn't mean they were born wrong, just that they feel that way

i always say i wasnt born right.

but that doesnt mean i was born wrong.

confused?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissSCD

You think your state has problems?  In South Carolina, Amendment One on the ballott wants it to be legal for a 14 year old girl to have sex if it is her consent.  Now frankly a 14 year old girl does not know her body well enough to know when to have sex.  Then they don't want to use condoms.  Etc. Etc.Yes I will vote straight democrat and no on all the amendments.
 
Regards, MissSCD

quote:



That is just plain crazy! Arent ya'll the last ones to remove the law against interracial marraiges? oh, no it was Alabama... http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-04-12-interracial-marriage_n.htm 
It was only 40 years ago — on June 12, 1967 — that the U.S. Supreme Court knocked down a Virginia statute barring whites from marrying non-whites. The decision also overturned similar bans in 15 other states.
Since that landmark Loving v. Virginia ruling, the number of interracial marriages has soared; for example, black-white marriages increased from 65,000 in 1970 to 422,000 in 2005, according to Census Bureau figures. Factoring in all racial combinations, Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld calculates that more than 7% of America's 59 million married couples in 2005 were interracial, compared to less than 2% in 1970.
Coupled with a steady flow of immigrants from all parts of the world, the surge of interracial marriages and multiracial children is producing a 21st century America more diverse than ever, with the potential to become less stratified by race.


Some one just doesnt want to get hauled off to jail for banging their underaged cousin.

That is just sick and wrong.. let children be children. Hunt down those that wish to prey apon them.

Hell an 18 year old has no idea what the hell they are usualy doing... little alone a 14 year old.

Gwyn

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreedyTop

LOL Tsa!  Yeah, but Bear would never take me up on it (besides.. like I said.. I'm right at the edge of non-breeding status now...)

OMG!! I guess I can never get married!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

The problem with the Christian/Biblical argument on all this is that it totally misunderstands that human sexuality is about far more than simply procreation.

If the sole purpose of our sexuality were the procreation of children to the glory of God then everyone is condemned outright from the off - any desire, any lust, any enjoyment of sexuality must be a sin.

And because Biblical assessment does not differentiate between small and large sins but recognises only sin, there is no difference in nature between those who practice even the most allegedly deviant behaviours and the upright Christian couple who whilst they would never dream of such, are made sinners by virtue of their mutual enjoyment of missionary position procreative sex.

Such enjoyment makes their Christian marriage a sinful relationship before God every bit as much as they might view a gay or lesbian marriage or the marriage of two kinksters.

Thus, either all marriage is OK before God or none is.

And then we're back to the notion of let him that is without sin cast the first stone.........

E