Letter to the Editor - Protection of Marriage

[elian]

If marriage is so sacred why don't we sponsor an amendment to make DIVORCE illegal in the state constitution? I think there has been some miscommunication, I have gay friends and the ones who have known each other long enough to WANT to be married do the same thing that OTHER married couples do in bed - they fall asleep. What ISN'T a joke is knowing that your best friend is dying of cancer in a hospital bed because they can't afford the chemotherapy treatments - knowing that although you have loved and been faithful to that person for the last 35 years you can't be at their side because the hospital only allows immediate family to be present. Before you condemn someone learn to walk in their shoes first. I think that gay people who want the right to marry aren't interested in flaunting their sexuality at all - they just want the same basic rights that other people already take for granted.

--

I think its too long - but I did get a call asking for permission to publish - I guess we'll have to see..

[wutheringheights]

If marriage is so sacred why don't we sponsor an amendment to make DIVORCE illegal in the state constitution? I think there has been some miscommunication, I have gay friends and the ones who have known each other long enough to WANT to be married do the same thing that OTHER married couples do in bed - they fall asleep. What ISN'T a joke is knowing that your best friend is dying of cancer in a hospital bed because they can't afford the chemotherapy treatments - knowing that although you have loved and been faithful to that person for the last 35 years you can't be at their side because the hospital only allows immediate family to be present. Before you condemn someone learn to walk in their shoes first. I think that gay people who want the right to marry aren't interested in flaunting their sexuality at all - they just want the same basic rights that other people already take for granted.

--

I think its too long - but I did get a call asking for permission to publish - I guess we'll have to see..

Important points, Elian. I think you're absolutely right that the relevance of gay marriage lies in these kinds of practical issues involving administrative and bureaucratic repression. However, I think it more pertinent to try to dismantle the kinds of rules and laws that define 'immediate family' in such a discriminatory way than to try to replicate the institution of marriage in the gay community. Marriage in our culture is an economic institution that groups people into legal units and as such, I see it as repressive, whether it involves people of the same sex or a F/M couple. Indeed, I think the entire way that 'relationships' are conceived in our culture needs to be examined very critically and hopefully transcended. Of course it goes without saying that I oppose any kind of discrimination. Furthermore, one can use the issue of gay marriage as a vehicle for criticizing heterocentric and homophobic currents/ethos. However, given that marriage is contextually an institution that extends from a gender-/sexuality-polarizing cultural ethos, I think the insistence on gay marriage as an ultimate answer betrays false consciousness. These comments are a reflection of my own feelings about the institution of marriage and shouldn't be taken as a denigration of the relationships that may exist within any given person's (same sex or hetero) marriage. In any case, I totally recognize the issues you identify.

[elian]

You are of course, correct in my opinion - and I think what so called "family values" folks really do believe they are fighting to protect that institution - some of them would be perfectly happy with recognizing "civil partnerships" - but are passionate enough to fight to "the death" if it's called "Marriage". Some people get hung up on the semantics.

Personally - I don't think "marriage" is the correct terminology either - I'm not really the fairy-tale wedding kinda guy. (Now a David Bowie goth video with a fog machine, a large bed, pillows and lots of billowy gauze..well..)

Unfortunately there is only so much space in the editorial section and I am writing for the lowest common denominator.

When people are motivated by base instincts I don't think they are likely to consider the more intelligent points you've expressed in your response. It's pretty clear that most people don't like being labeled - and gender roles are a stereotypical label - however, they don't want to have to listen when they think their world view is being assaulted.

I get tired of people in this area who seem to insinuate that EVERYBODY feels one way or the other. Just because I don't drive the same car, pray the same way and think the way they do somehow I am less moral? Get to know me first - then decide.

Damn humans and their neural networks, always gotta label and classify everything.

OK well - the sun is shining and I have time off work - I'm going to go outside and ENJOY life ..


However, given that marriage is contextually an institution that extends from a gender-/sexuality-polarizing cultural ethos, I think the insistence on gay marriage as an ultimate answer betrays false consciousness.

[The Barefoot Contess]

Important points, Elian. I think you're absolutely right that the relevance of gay marriage lies in these kinds of practical issues involving administrative and bureaucratic repression. However, I think it more pertinent to try to dismantle the kinds of rules and laws that define 'immediate family' in such a discriminatory way than to try to replicate the institution of marriage in the gay community. Marriage in our culture is an economic institution that groups people into legal units and as such, I see it as repressive, whether it involves people of the same sex or a F/M couple. Indeed, I think the entire way that 'relationships' are conceived in our culture needs to be examined very critically and hopefully transcended. Of course it goes without saying that I oppose any kind of discrimination. Furthermore, one can use the issue of gay marriage as a vehicle for criticizing heterocentric and homophobic currents/ethos. However, given that marriage is contextually an institution that extends from a gender-/sexuality-polarizing cultural ethos, I think the insistence on gay marriage as an ultimate answer betrays false consciousness. These comments are a reflection of my own feelings about the institution of marriage and shouldn't be taken as a denigration of the relationships that may exist within any given person's (same sex or hetero) marriage. In any case, I totally recognize the issues you identify.

Agreed.

[shameless agitator]

Damn good post Elian. I don't think it's too long at all. I've had stuff much much longer than that accepted.

[FalconAngel]

Also in agreement, Elian.

I wonder what those same religious nuts would say if you asked them what marriage means when they take their religion out of the equation? After all, this is a secular nation, not a Christian one.

They would have no argument to support their viewpoint. Those idiots say that Gay marriage is an attack on marriage, but they don't say how "marriage" is being attacked.

Curious, that, don't you think?.

[darkeyes]

Catholic Church will b puttin u forward for sainthood fore long ifyas not careful Babes..make divorce illegal?? Jeez..they will luff u so they will... mayb not..read rest of ya lil post...yas still gonna burn like rest of us.. tee hee:bigrin:

[12voltman59]

I will grant that among those opposed to same-sex marriage--there is a core group who do on many grounds, oppose both homosexuality and same-sex marriage out of true conviction.

The problem I have with the whole deal is that there is a certain portion of those who express opposition to same-sex marriage only do so out of cold, hard cyncial political calculation---they don't really care about the issue per se but use it and similiar "hot button issues" as "wedge issues" to "fire up the base" of a certain political party to get them out to vote on such issues and for candidates of a particular political persuasion who may or may not really care about these issues but at least pay lip service to them in order to get into and hold political office.

I know that this is a highly emotional issue for so many on both sides---I really wish the argument could be seperated from those emotions--something I know is idealistic and a bit naive---to me--I wish it would get framed simply as a matter of rights--of the rights of American citizens--citizens who happen to love people of the same gender and are merely seeking access to the same rights as their fellow heterosexual citizens enjoy when it comes to the legal aspects of "marriage." For those seeking same-sex marriage--it is not about getting "special rights" as those on the right like to say--it is about equal access to rights granted to the majority of citizens and extension of those rights to all of its citizens.

To me---to grant "marriage rights" to those seeking same-sex marriage represents the highest ideals as framed in the two founding documents of this nation--the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

While I understand the dis-eaze that many of those who have a visceral reaction to the notion of gays beeing free to live as they may--to deny the rights of "gay" people falls into the realm of the things that this nation should not be proud about such as the genocide of and wiping out of the cultures of this land's native peoples, slavery and Jim Crow, the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII ----among an unfortunately long list of such failings.

[TaylorMade]

Also in agreement, Elian.

I wonder what those same religious nuts would say if you asked them what marriage means when they take their religion out of the equation? After all, this is a secular nation, not a Christian one.

They would have no argument to support their viewpoint. Those idiots say that Gay marriage is an attack on marriage, but they don't say how "marriage" is being attacked.

Curious, that, don't you think?.

Once again, not every since objection to Gay marriage is based on religon.

Many cite tradition, or further government encroachment as a reason of denial. . .or just take up the issue since it's the juiciest red meat on the table. The detractors are as diverse as the supporters.

To box it up with just one group doesn't do anyone any favors.

*Taylor*

[darkeyes]

[QUOTE=12voltman59;103212]I will grant that among those opposed to same-sex marriage--there is a core group who do on many grounds, oppose both homosexuality and same-sex marriage out of true conviction.

QUOTE]
Conviction born outa prejudice, loathin, hatred, contempt an historical intolerance riginatin substantially from the western Judeo/Christian heritage an tradition... they may not hav religious convictions but thats wer ther opposition 2 homosexuality cums from... so Taylor is both rite an rong bout er claim that its not all religious opposition... course ther r othas..but they neitha so large in numbas or influence.. now of course we hav the added spice an intolerant islamic radicalism an that sure is addin 2 the fun... an not alla them believe in a God eitha... so they 2 hav ther prejudices steeped in ther religious history..

Aint the world a luffly place at times???

[TaylorMade]

[QUOTE=12voltman59;103212]I will grant that among those opposed to same-sex marriage--there is a core group who do on many grounds, oppose both homosexuality and same-sex marriage out of true conviction.

QUOTE]
Conviction born outa prejudice, loathin, hatred, contempt an historical intolerance riginatin substantially from the western Judeo/Christian heritage an tradition... they may not hav religious convictions but thats wer ther opposition 2 homosexuality cums from... so Taylor is both rite an rong bout er claim that its not all religious opposition... course ther r othas..but they neitha so large in numbas or influence.. now of course we hav the added spice an intolerant islamic radicalism an that sure is addin 2 the fun... an not alla them believe in a God eitha... so they 2 hav ther prejudices steeped in ther religious history..

Aint the world a luffly place at times???

Conviction is not always born out of prejudice. One can disagree without hating someone. It happens every day. To assume someone hates you because they do not disagree with you or share your aims is a needless rhetorical escalation and and ends up ultimately destroying any hope for agreement or compromise on this issue, which makes no one happy.

In some cases, there is a visceral negative reaction to anything different, an instinct that predates religon. Think of the double standard regarding male-on-male sexuality that the Greeks and Romans had. . .it's something that looks to be woven our very DNA and has to be relearned.

To solely pin it on religon is a narrow view.

*Taylor*

[wutheringheights]

But, Taylor, I think Darkeyes is referring to 'religion' not simply in the institutionalized sense but in terms of broader cultural mythology as well. For instance, when one talks about 'christian' thinking or values, one is not necessarily talking exclusively about the values of those who attend Christian churches, but about acquired interpretations and thought patterns that are typical of a certain (albeit national border-crossing) cultural heritage. You are right to say that opposition to homo/bisexuality can't be attributed exclusively to patrons of organized religions (as I believe Darkeyes also acknowledges) but when a prejudice is clearly fundamentally integrated into a system of cosmic interpretation and understanding, it isn't really possible to depoliticize it. 'Reaction against anything different' can hardly be considered an unconditioned instinct. It has rather to do with what kinds of vested cultural/political interests and agendas are at stake. Organized religions themselves proceed from cultural/political milieux regardless of the extent to which different individuals attempt to personalize them.

[FerociousFeline]

I will grant that among those opposed to same-sex marriage--there is a core group who do on many grounds, oppose both homosexuality and same-sex marriage out of true conviction.

The problem I have with the whole deal is that there is a certain portion of those who express opposition to same-sex marriage only do so out of cold, hard cyncial political calculation---they don't really care about the issue per se but use it and similiar "hot button issues" as "wedge issues" to "fire up the base" of a certain political party to get them out to vote on such issues and for candidates of a particular political persuasion who may or may not really care about these issues but at least pay lip service to them in order to get into and hold political office.

I know that this is a highly emotional issue for so many on both sides---I really wish the argument could be seperated from those emotions--something I know is idealistic and a bit naive---to me--I wish it would get framed simply as a matter of rights--of the rights of American citizens--citizens who happen to love people of the same gender and are merely seeking access to the same rights as their fellow heterosexual citizens enjoy when it comes to the legal aspects of "marriage." For those seeking same-sex marriage--it is not about getting "special rights" as those on the right like to say--it is about equal access to rights granted to the majority of citizens and extension of those rights to all of its citizens.

To me---to grant "marriage rights" to those seeking same-sex marriage represents the highest ideals as framed in the two founding documents of this nation--the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

While I understand the dis-eaze that many of those who have a visceral reaction to the notion of gays beeing free to live as they may--to deny the rights of "gay" people falls into the realm of the things that this nation should not be proud about such as the genocide of and wiping out of the cultures of this land's native peoples, slavery and Jim Crow, the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII ----among an unfortunately long list of such failings.

Incredible post.

I agree 100%.

To me, this whole issue is at the heart of our evolution as human beings. We pay lip service to the ideals set forth by the constitution in terms of diversity and equal opportunity, but we don't swallow when it comes to the moment of truth. Marriage as an institution is absolutely the keystone of the "them or us" mentality. It doesn't just separate the hets and the homs, it discriminates the single from the coupled. The institution of marriage in this country ensures that the single individual regardless of their sexual orientation or behavior REMAINS less empowered, less included, more isolated and ensures that the single person is on the bottom of the social ladder. I personally am STILL trying to understand how it is that as a single adult I must pay for the upkeep, schooling, discipline, and all the other assorted expenses created by OTHER adults whose children seem to be MY financial responsibility, while those SAME adults have zero accountability when their children vandalize my car, my home, my world etc. All of this while living in a corporate structure where a married person with children will inevitably command a higher salary than the equivalent single person. Single people are forced to pay multiple times over for married families welfare. In Taxes, Tax breaks they don't get, School taxes, and many many other forms of obvious discrimination that we continue to just accept...because it's ALWAYS been that way.

If we want to see real change, make all coupled FAMILIES pay their OWN WAY, let single people enjoy the fruits of their own labor, and do not penalize them for NOT having a family or children.

So for me, the issue of gay marriage is just the tip of the iceberg.

FF

[bisexualinsocal]

[QUOTE=darkeyes;103215]

Conviction is not always born out of prejudice. One can disagree without hating someone. It happens every day. To assume someone hates you because they do not disagree with you or share your aims is a needless rhetorical escalation and and ends up ultimately destroying any hope for agreement or compromise on this issue, which makes no one happy.

In some cases, there is a visceral negative reaction to anything different, an instinct that predates religon. Think of the double standard regarding male-on-male sexuality that the Greeks and Romans had. . .it's something that looks to be woven our very DNA and has to be relearned.

To solely pin it on religon is a narrow view.

*Taylor*

Word!

[TaylorMade]

FF, what you said seems nice in theory. . .

But I would think that would hurt humanity eventually. . .By making married/ family life so expensive for EVERYONE. . .(because those gay families are already having kids and WILL have kids,too) it will drive down the birth rates and there would be no young workers to support the older ones, a problem we're starting to see the results of.

Dismissing marriage for everyone will hurt us all.

I personally think it's like any other evolutionary problem. . .adapt or die.

*Taylor*

[FerociousFeline]

What I stated was that the issue needs to be addressed. Not deleted.

The point is, until we can get to the point where we can acknowledge the ENTIRE problem we are only chasing our tails.

[allbimyself]

[QUOTE=darkeyes;103215]

Conviction is not always born out of prejudice. One can disagree without hating someone. It happens every day. To assume someone hates you because they do not disagree with you or share your aims is a needless rhetorical escalation and and ends up ultimately destroying any hope for agreement or compromise on this issue, which makes no one happy.

In some cases, there is a visceral negative reaction to anything different, an instinct that predates religon. Think of the double standard regarding male-on-male sexuality that the Greeks and Romans had. . .it's something that looks to be woven our very DNA and has to be relearned.

To solely pin it on religon is a narrow view.

*Taylor*Taylor, I hate to disagree with you but, in this case, conviction is born out of prejudice. This isn't a disagreement. It's a case of actively denying privileges to a segment of the population because they are different. That IS bigotry. Whether the bigotry stems from religious beliefs or not makes no difference. Personally, I don't care WHY someone is a bigot. The only issue religion plays in this is that it should NOT be an issue at all. This is a secular nation (despite the revisionist history the fundies would have us believe) and religious beliefs should have no bearing on a purely political matter. If one's religious beliefs cause them to take one side or other of an issue that's fine, but when they use their beliefs as refutation against any argument against their point of view, those individuals have taken themselves out of any serious debate.

[darkeyes]

[QUOTE=darkeyes;103215]

Conviction is not always born out of prejudice. One can disagree without hating someone. It happens every day. To assume someone hates you because they do not disagree with you or share your aims is a needless rhetorical escalation and and ends up ultimately destroying any hope for agreement or compromise on this issue, which makes no one happy.

In some cases, there is a visceral negative reaction to anything different, an instinct that predates religon. Think of the double standard regarding male-on-male sexuality that the Greeks and Romans had. . .it's something that looks to be woven our very DNA and has to be relearned.

To solely pin it on religon is a narrow view.

*Taylor*Agree wivya 2 sum degree Taylor...did say it didn all boil down 2 religion..but in the west our historical religious heritage is substantially 2 blame... ther r othas who hav ther own reasons outwith that but they r of less import because they r less in numba..very much less.

Do agree that we can an shud disagree as far as we can an not h8 or loathe..an in the main peeps do jus that...but ya argument falls down wen we look at centuries of persecution that non str8 peeps hav had 2 endure.. an the h8red an loathin that eminates from much of the anti gay/bi/tg lobby now... the attacks on us physically an verbally..that aint a mild friendly disagreement..thats intolerant bigotry an loathin..

[TaylorMade]

[QUOTE=TaylorMade;103216]Taylor, I hate to disagree with you but, in this case, conviction is born out of prejudice. This isn't a disagreement. It's a case of actively denying privileges to a segment of the population because they are different. That IS bigotry. Whether the bigotry stems from religious beliefs or not makes no difference. Personally, I don't care WHY someone is a bigot. The only issue religion plays in this is that it should NOT be an issue at all. This is a secular nation (despite the revisionist history the fundies would have us believe) and religious beliefs should have no bearing on a purely political matter. If one's religious beliefs cause them to take one side or other of an issue that's fine, but when they use their beliefs as refutation against any argument against their point of view, those individuals have taken themselves out of any serious debate.

Does it discriminate against the act or the person? Where do we draw the line? If we keep telling someone that "because you do not want what I seek, you hate me" . . .they WILL hate us. I really do want a rational discussion between both sides. That is what I really desire. To keep calling them bigoted stifles such actions in the cradle, and loses those in the middle that want to side with us.

That's why I'm discounting your belief that conviction=prejudice.

*Taylor*

[TaylorMade]

What I stated was that the issue needs to be addressed. Not deleted.

The point is, until we can get to the point where we can acknowledge the ENTIRE problem we are only chasing our tails.

Is marriage itself your problem or the current definition of it?

*Taylor*

[allbimyself]

If have convictions about murder or theft being wrong, what prejudice does it betray? Who does it discriminate against? Does it discriminate against the act or the person? Where do we draw the line? If we keep telling someone that "because you do not want what I seek, you hate me" . . .they WILL hate us.

That's why I'm discounting your belief that conviction=prejudice.

*Taylor*

Oh, please! You are a better person than to use such a flimsy argument. Condemning murder or theft as a crime is NOT discrimination against the murderer or the thief. Those are acts wherein there is a victim. The murdered and the one stolen from did not consent to the acts committed. Comparing that to condemning the desire for two consenting adults to make a commitment to each other is not worthy of you.

[TaylorMade]

Oh, please! You are a better person than to use such a flimsy argument. Condemning murder or theft as a crime is NOT discrimination against the murderer or the thief. Those are acts wherein there is a victim. The murdered and the one stolen from did not consent to the acts committed. Comparing that to condemning the desire for two consenting adults to make a commitment to each other is not worthy of you.

Did you not see my rethinking of the argument?

I'll repost it.

Where do we draw the line? If we keep telling someone that "because you do not want what I seek, you hate me" . . .they WILL hate us. I really do want a rational discussion between both sides. That is what I really desire. To keep calling them bigoted stifles such actions in the cradle, and loses those in the middle that want to side with us.

That's why I'm discounting your belief that conviction=prejudice.

*Taylor*

[allbimyself]

Did you not see my rethinking of the argument?

I'll repost it.

Where do we draw the line? If we keep telling someone that "because you do not want what I seek, you hate me" . . .they WILL hate us. I really do want a rational discussion between both sides. That is what I really desire. To keep calling them bigoted stifles such actions in the cradle, and loses those in the middle that want to side with us.

That's why I'm discounting your belief that conviction=prejudice.

*Taylor*
"because you do not want what I seek" does not enter into it. The correct wording would be "because you deny me what you have for yourself." Denying the rights of others for no reason other than "you are different" IS bigotry whether or not the bigoted admit it to themselves or not. Rather than tell the other side that it's OK that they are bigoted so they don't get their noses out of joint, they need to actually UNDERSTAND that their stance is bigoted. I think many of them do not. To many they feel it's ok to deny some rights of others BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT as long as they aren't lynched. There were many white people that didn't think black people should be lynched but still didn't want them voting or going to school with their children. Was that right? Were they not bigots? I think many thought they weren't because they weren't out lynching and beating. There didn't need to be apologists for them anymore than those that seek to deny rights for any group that is different.

[TaylorMade]

"because you do not want what I seek" does not enter into it. The correct wording would be "because you deny me what you have for yourself." Denying the rights of others for no reason other than "you are different" IS bigotry whether or not the bigoted admit it to themselves or not. Rather than tell the other side that it's OK that they are bigoted so they don't get their noses out of joint, they need to actually UNDERSTAND that their stance is bigoted. I think many of them do not. To many they feel it's ok to deny some rights of others BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT as long as they aren't lynched. There were many white people that didn't think black people should be lynched but still didn't want them voting or going to school with their children. Was that right? Were they not bigots? I think many thought they weren't because they weren't out lynching and beating. There didn't need to be apologists for them anymore than those that seek to deny rights for any group that is different.

You probably don't care why they do these things, but I do. I care about them just as much as I care about my own.
Yes, they need to understand, but we need to treat them the way we want to be treated.
I am not saying it is okay, but I am saying that the rhetorical bombs we have been throwing at one another for 30 years needs to be calmed down.

We are not being lynched wholesale or denied the right to vote. We are not being forced into separate drinking fountains or beating people.

We are applying the law unevenly and double backing on the Constitution. That is the problem.

Treating them like hooded thugs to be "made to understood" instead of human beings with a deep ideological divide is not going to solve anything...and even if we triumph, it will be against an unwilling and resentful population that STILL will not accept us no matter what.

I want to win, but I want to be as fair as possible.

*Taylor*

[allbimyself]

You probably don't care why they do these things, but I do. I care about them just as much as I care about my own.
Yes, they need to understand, but we need to treat them the way we want to be treated.
I am not saying it is okay, but I am saying that the rhetorical bombs we have been throwing at one another for 30 years needs to be calmed down.

We are not being lynched wholesale or denied the right to vote. We are not being forced into separate drinking fountains or beating people.

We are applying the law unevenly and double backing on the Constitution. That is the problem.

Treating them like hooded thugs to be "made to understood" instead of human beings with a deep ideological divide is not going to solve anything...and even if we triumph, it will be against an unwilling and resentful population that STILL will not accept us no matter what.

I want to win, but I want to be as fair as possible.

*Taylor*
OK. This will be the end of this discussion. When you put words in quotes to indicate I said something that I did not, it shows that you are incapable of having a legitimate discussion. I NEVER said "made to understood<sic>." I said that they "need to understand."

And I never suggested that ALL those that opposed same gender marriage were thugs. I stated that not being "thugs" (using your terminology) did NOT mean they were not bigoted.

Yes, the constitution IS what is being trampled on by ALL those who oppose same gender marriage. Yes, all that oppose same gender marriage, no matter their reasons or how militant they are about it, ARE BIGOTS. That's not rhetoric, that is fact.

[TaylorMade]

OK. This will be the end of this discussion. When you put words in quotes to indicate I said something that I did not, it shows that you are incapable of having a legitimate discussion. I NEVER said "made to understood<sic>." I said that they "need to understand."

And I never suggested that ALL those that opposed same gender marriage were thugs. I stated that not being "thugs" (using your terminology) did NOT mean they were not bigoted.

Yes, the constitution IS what is being trampled on by ALL those who oppose same gender marriage. Yes, all that oppose same gender marriage, no matter their reasons or how militant they are about it, ARE BIGOTS. That's not rhetoric, that is fact.

I am capable of having a legitimate discussion. My fingers can go a lot faster than my brain, and I'm sorry about that. . .let's start this over again.

We can agree that the constitution is being trampled in this case.

The distinction without difference is what I have a problem with. Calling EVERYONE who opposes same sex marriage bigoted w/o regard to reason or degree includes those who are for civil unions (yes that's a semantic dodge, but we need to acknowledge them none the less), by the way.

Are they bigoted?

*Taylor*

[darkeyes]

You probably don't care why they do these things, but I do. I care about them just as much as I care about my own.
Yes, they need to understand, but we need to treat them the way we want to be treated.
I am not saying it is okay, but I am saying that the rhetorical bombs we have been throwing at one another for 30 years needs to be calmed down.

We are not being lynched wholesale or denied the right to vote. We are not being forced into separate drinking fountains or beating people.

We are applying the law unevenly and double backing on the Constitution. That is the problem.

Treating them like hooded thugs to be "made to understood" instead of human beings with a deep ideological divide is not going to solve anything...and even if we triumph, it will be against an unwilling and resentful population that STILL will not accept us no matter what.

I want to win, but I want to be as fair as possible.

*Taylor*Don we all wanna b fair...we talkin bout a form of sexual fascism..ya don eva negotiate wiv nazis an fascists... ya can try till yas blue in the face but they so fulla ther "convictions" no amounta reason will change ther minds save mayb for a few who aint quite so steeped in the worst excesses of ther bigotry... but not wiv the mass of em.. In the end..wantin 2 treat them as u wish 2 b treated will getya nower.. hav tried an do try an reason wiv them wen the occasion has arisen..an so far all it has got me is a slap or 2, 1 gud beatin an loadsa abuse outa ther foul fascist gobs.. no Taylor..yas rong ere...the peeps we talkin bout ya cant reason wiv ova homo or bisexuality.. they don wanna know lessen its 2 let us know all they want is us dead...

[allbimyself]

I am capable of having a legitimate discussion. My fingers can go a lot faster than my brain, and I'm sorry about that. . .let's start this over again.

We can agree that the constitution is being trampled in this case.

The distinction without difference is what I have a problem with. Calling EVERYONE who opposes same sex marriage bigoted w/o regard to reason or degree includes those who are for civil unions (yes that's a semantic dodge, but we need to acknowledge them none the less), by the way.

Are they bigoted?

*Taylor*

No. I have no problem with civil unions.... IF all "marriages" between any two consenting adults, regardless of gender, are called "civil unions" IF they take place outside of the confines of a religious institution AND all unions that DO take place inside the confines of a church must be subject to the same rules/regulations/laws as "civil unions." IOW, there must be NO difference other than where the ceremony is performed. ALSO, if any religious institution offers same gender "marriage" then all unions performed by that religious group MUST be allowed to call their union a "marriage."

IOW, "marriage" is for religious ceremonies, "civil union" is for, well, CIVIL unions performed outside a religion. INCLUDING M/F marriages.

[TaylorMade]

Don we all wanna b fair...we talkin bout a form of sexual fascism..ya don eva negotiate wiv nazis an fascists... ya can try till yas blue in the face but they so fulla ther "convictions" no amounta reason will change ther minds save mayb for a few who aint quite so steeped in the worst excesses of ther bigotry... but not wiv the mass of em.. In the end..wantin 2 treat them as u wish 2 b treated will getya nower.. hav tried an do try an reason wiv them wen the occasion has arisen..an so far all it has got me is a slap or 2, 1 gud beatin an loadsa abuse outa ther foul fascist gobs.. no Taylor..yas rong ere...the peeps we talkin bout ya cant reason wiv ova homo or bisexuality.. they don wanna know lessen its 2 let us know all they want is us dead...

Now we're equating them with Nazis? No wonder you can't reason with them if you think of them as that?!

It HAS gotten me somewhere in my own personal life. I grew up with these people, Fran. . .they are people who knew me from childhood, classmates, friends, and random others. . .they have tempered their hostilities, and are re-getting to know me as a person.

It's not a social panacea, but if we keep calling them Facists, Bigots and Nazis, we will either become Nazis ourselves, or be treated as they would treat them.

*Taylor*

[TaylorMade]

No. I have no problem with civil unions.... IF all "marriages" between any two consenting adults, regardless of gender, are called "civil unions" IF they take place outside of the confines of a religious institution AND all unions that DO take place inside the confines of a church must be subject to the same rules/regulations/laws as "civil unions." IOW, there must be NO difference other than where the ceremony is performed. ALSO, if any religious institution offers same gender "marriage" then all unions performed by that religious group MUST be allowed to call their union a "marriage."

IOW, "marriage" is for religious ceremonies, "civil union" is for, well, CIVIL unions performed outside a religion. INCLUDING M/F marriages.

Amazing what semantics does, huh?

Many of them are simply afraid of having their beliefs violated by state edict. It is not hate, it is fear that drives them. And that is why I'm moved with pity and sympathy for them.

Both sides are deathly afraid--wounded animals that are fighting for their lives -- and nothing fights harder than that.

*Taylor*

[wutheringheights]

Amazing what semantics does, huh?

Many of them are simply afraid of having their beliefs violated by state edict. It is not hate, it is fear that drives them. And that is why I'm moved with pity and sympathy for them.

Both sides are deathly afraid--wounded animals that are fighting for their lives -- and nothing fights harder than that.

*Taylor*

But is not 'fear' a component of any kind of racism? You're talking as though the fact that there are reasons for fascism makes it somehow not-fascism.
Everyone has their 'reasons' for doing all kinds of things. I believe one can analyse those reasons and form an understanding of them without necessarily attempting to justify them or feeling timid about criticising them if we feel they warrant criticism.
And when specific groups and their followers make it clear that they are unaccepting of others for reasons of sexuality or race, etc., why do those being vilified need to check their response so as not to offend their persecutors?
Nobody here is suggesting that we combat homophobia through heterophobia or that we should respond to the persecution of homosexuals by calling for the persecution of heterosexuals. If any of us was saying that, your comments would carry more pertinence. But that's not the crux of this discussion. The point is that those prone to vilifying homosexuals and denying them their rights will see anything that is not heterosexuality as a vilification of their beliefs. And to continue the analogy with the Nazis: the Nazis saw the EXISTENCE of the Jewish race as a threat to/corruption of their pure Aryan selves. How exactly does one reason with that?
Of course there are degrees of prejudice, as has been pointed out by others above. There are those who are more open than others to changing/evolving their thinking. But I don't think anyone deserves a medal for simply acknowledging others' right to what they demand for themselves.

[darkeyes]

Now we're equating them with Nazis? No wonder you can't reason with them if you think of them as that?!

It HAS gotten me somewhere in my own personal life. I grew up with these people, Fran. . .they are people who knew me from childhood, classmates, friends, and random others. . .they have tempered their hostilities, and are re-getting to know me as a person.

It's not a social panacea, but if we keep calling them Facists, Bigots and Nazis, we will either become Nazis ourselves, or be treated as they would treat them.

*Taylor*Yes Taylor I do. Many of them at least, an especially those of the religious right in both your country and mine. In this country also of the likes of the BNP and I have no doubt you have similar clown politicians and parties.

Without accusing those sectors of society as Nazi or Fascist (although in the case of the BNP that is a difficult thing for me) on the issue of homosexuality they do espouse a fascist philosophy. Mainstream religious institutions who have a more measured approach I do not, but there is a danger which we must all be aware of. More of that in a minute. The great mass of people, most of whom are compassionate decent human beings, many of who have reservations (to put it politely) about homosexuality, these are who we must have dialogue with an either persuade or maintain their support. These we can bring on side where they, at present, are not. In the last 40 years, in the main...we have.

But the religious right and neo fascist politicians and political parties and their supporters? No I dont think so. Should they begin to make real ground with the majority population, as there are some disturbing signs they are doing in the UK, at some point the main stream churches and other religious institutions, and political bodies will shift their position to accommodate them..self preservation its called. Thats when tolerance of us by them diminishes, when acceptance ceases an real persecution begins. Because they will have already gauged the shift in opinion in mainstream society, noticed their increased susceptibility to the idealogies of the extreme right, politically and religiously, and began to move their ground accordingly. That is where the analogy with Nazism and its rise exists. If you are unable to see that, then I pity you.

We cannot ever have a dialogue with zealots, for by there very nature they are zealots..they will not listen. Our dialogue is with ordinary people and ensuring that they remain the compassionate and tolerant human beings which most are. Keep them on our side, and mainstream political and religious institutions will continue to have much compassion for us and progress can and will be maintained. Fail, and like occured in Nazi Germany we will be hunted down made to face the full force of the law, however extreme that may be. Millions of people died by thinking they could do business with the Nazis. They payed for that error of judgement with their lives. Religious and politicial institutions thought they could accomodate Hitler. Some survived some did not. All have a shame which they can never live down. Many became part of the nazi state and as culpable as the Nazi's themselves.

No Taylor. You turn the other cheek. Be like your saviour. Martyrdom doesnt suit me and I doubt you will be too fond of it either.

[elian]

I wouldn't mind if this dropped to the bottom of the stack, but just wanted to say that they DID in fact publish in local paper.

I know it won't stand up to the "religious' argument - what I am eluding to in the message is guaranteed civil partnership rights - but I'm calling it marriage for some reason..I guess that's the word everyone else uses in this area to talk about the issue. Such is the way with emotional appeals I guess.

Sorry if this caused any bad feelings - just had to say SOMETHING about it - if they passed this amendment and I said nothing at all surely I would've felt distraught - at least I managed to present a viewpoint that was heard.

Thanks

-E

[The Barefoot Contess]

But is not 'fear' a component of any kind of racism? You're talking as though the fact that there are reasons for fascism makes it somehow not-fascism.
Everyone has their 'reasons' for doing all kinds of things. I believe one can analyse those reasons and form an understanding of them without necessarily attempting to justify them or feeling timid about criticising them if we feel they warrant criticism.
And when specific groups and their followers make it clear that they are unaccepting of others for reasons of sexuality or race, etc., why do those being vilified need to check their response so as not to offend their persecutors?
Nobody here is suggesting that we combat homophobia through heterophobia or that we should respond to the persecution of homosexuals by calling for the persecution of heterosexuals. If any of us was saying that, your comments would carry more pertinence. But that's not the crux of this discussion. The point is that those prone to vilifying homosexuals and denying them their rights will see anything that is not heterosexuality as a vilification of their beliefs. And to continue the analogy with the Nazis: the Nazis saw the EXISTENCE of the Jewish race as a threat to/corruption of their pure Aryan selves. How exactly does one reason with that?
Of course there are degrees of prejudice, as has been pointed out by others above. There are those who are more open than others to changing/evolving their thinking. But I don't think anyone deserves a medal for simply acknowledging others' right to what they demand for themselves.

I find myself agreeing with you all the time :rolleyes:

[HighEnergy]

:soapbox:
I personally am STILL trying to understand how it is that as a single adult I must pay for the upkeep, schooling, discipline, and all the other assorted expenses created by OTHER adults whose children seem to be MY financial responsibility, while those SAME adults have zero accountability when their children vandalize my car, my home, my world etc. All of this while living in a corporate structure where a married person with children will inevitably command a higher salary than the equivalent single person. Single people are forced to pay multiple times over for married families welfare. In Taxes, Tax breaks they don't get, School taxes, and many many other forms of obvious discrimination that we continue to just accept...because it's ALWAYS been that way.
FF

Ferocious, I hate this argument. You are not paying extra taxes to education someone else's children. You are paying taxes to educate the next generation. When you are 60+ and are at this next generations mercy for healthcare, you'll be damn glad they are educated! Not to mention dealing with them taking care of your money at the grocery, the bank, or whatever dealings you'll have with them. And if you've not had kids of your own, you'll be more vulnerable to their care when you are old and there's no family to take care of you. :soapbox:

Sorry, used to have this argument with my sister who had no kids for years until she was in the hospital and had an idiot who barely could read taking care of her. The less you want to invest in education, the more morons you have to deal with, and you should bitch much less about it!

[Papelucho]

Today the governer of New York issued a directive to state agencies to start revising their policies so that same sex marriages in other states and countries would be recognized as legitimate in New York.

The article that I read in the New York Times said that Governer Patterson went as far as he could towards legalizing gay marriage without going through the legislature.

[The Barefoot Contess]

Today the governer of New York issued a directive to state agencies to start revising their policies so that same sex marriages in other states and countries would be recognized as legitimate in New York.

The article that I read in the New York Times said that Governer Patterson went as far as he could towards legalizing gay marriage without going through the legislature.

Another step, another step, another step... ;)

[shameless agitator]

Today the governer of New York issued a directive to state agencies to start revising their policies so that same sex marriages in other states and countries would be recognized as legitimate in New York.

The article that I read in the New York Times said that Governer Patterson went as far as he could towards legalizing gay marriage without going through the legislature.Wahoo! Patterson for VP!

[darkeyes]

Today the governer of New York issued a directive to state agencies to start revising their policies so that same sex marriages in other states and countries would be recognized as legitimate in New York.

The article that I read in the New York Times said that Governer Patterson went as far as he could towards legalizing gay marriage without going through the legislature.

All very laudible..but jus wen dus e take the next step???? Jus wen dus e intend 2 give New Yorkers the same rites as incomers??? Honest.. am not belittlin wot e's doin cos me knos sayin is so much easier than doin..but wen will it happen?

[12voltman59]

The Human Rights Campaign has an ongoing effort to get over 1 million "signatures" to show support for same-sex marrage.

Here is the link to their main page where you can click on a link that will take you to the petition page:

http://www.hrc.org/

[Papelucho]

All very laudible..but jus wen dus e take the next step???? Jus wen dus e intend 2 give New Yorkers the same rites as incomers??? Honest.. am not belittlin wot e's doin cos me knos sayin is so much easier than doin..but wen will it happen?

He took the biggest step that he could take, especially since he only became governer two months ago. It's up to legislators to make and pass a law, which will be much easier after this battle is fought. Only time will tell. Here's an article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/nyregion/30paterson.html

p.s. I spelled the governer's name wrong in an above post, it's: Paterson

[FalconAngel]

The Human Rights Campaign has an ongoing effort to get over 1 million "signatures" to show support for same-sex marrage.

Here is the link to their main page where you can click on a link that will take you to the petition page:

http://www.hrc.org/

I've already signed it.

The real issue is whether the dominion Christian version of marriage is the only version recognized by law, which, of course, would be a violation of the constitution. Separation of church and state would, in the end, deny any amendment or law brought about based on a religious bias.

The reality is that marriage is a government approved contract that the state makes money from. That is why a judge can marry people instead of a priest being the ONLY type of individual that can marry people.

Should the "defense of marriage" act come to pass, then the only people who will be allowed to marry people will be priests. The state will not let that happen because there is too much money to be made.

In the end, there will have to be some controls placed on dominion Christians, preventing them from interfering with the rest of us and our lives, because they are going to have to face the fact that this is a secular nation, not a Christian one, no matter what the historical revisionist dominion Christians want us to believe.