Gay Marriage Question

[Homoaffectional]

Is that what he's doing?

Pretty much.

(I'm assuming he's a he). I'm new here but I'm already tending to skip past his long-winded posts--they throw my ADD into overdrive. ::chuckle::

Heh. He's one of those them there "Libertarian" types... they have all these interesting grandiose notions about lowering taxes and cutting government down... but when elected (as rare as it is), it never seems to work, and they finally realize that there's such a thing as reality -- or voters realize they made a huge mistake and deny them a second term.

They ought to just rename themselves the "Tax Cutting Party"... it might help them get a bigger base.

Re: this particular guy, I'm glad he sees the truth about many Republicans, but it's sad that there's so many fringe elements in this country that one must rely upon to form a coalition to oppose the fascism we're currently seeing. But I think Iraq is continuing the lesson of Vietnam and forcing Americans to open their eyes to the reality of the world and what is required of the world's participants... they will certainly not jump into wars willy-nilly from here on in, at the very least...

 

[Homoaffectional]

That's a sort of "Have you stopped beating your dog?" question.
I support equal rights -- therefore I oppose gay marriage; or more precisely, I oppose gay marriage laws, pro or con. Any law about marriage is contrary to the Constitution, because to so many marriage is a religious matter.
Taken in the larger context of equal rights and the Constitution, the fight for gay marriage laws is not a fight for equality; it is a fight to be established as part of the established special-interest power structure. If it is won, it will be a blow against equal rights and an affirmation of the religious persecution that got us to this point -- and cooperation with the religious persecution that will still be there in the law.
So, no -- I won't stay out of the way, because I don't believe in writing the wants of special interests into law; I believe in freedom.



I don't see anything to respect in someone supporting the fight of one special interest to horn in on the territory carved out by another.
Here in Oregon, when a couple of counties started giving out marriage licenses to gay couples, many gays cheered. But what were they cheering? Simply this: rebellion against the law, misuse of elected office, misappropriation of public resources, all for the sake of catering to a special interest.
But then for most people, special interests are bad... unless it's theirs.

Um, Kulindahr, FYI, the stuff you're responding to was directed at MCsNo1Fn, not you. Let me know if you want to have a conversation about the stuff I said in response to your theories.

 

[Kulindahr]

I disagree. You know you wouldn't have been able to have a chance to oppose it when the original statues involving marriage were first introduced. Now that you might have a bit more sympathy (but nowhere near enough to actually get lawmakers to make the change), you are making a cynical, opportunistic attempt to hijack the debate of fair and equal marriage rights w/ideas about your own agenda.

It won't happen. If not never, certainly not any time in the next two centuries. And you guys won't be around then. Give up and move on, I say.

So you're saying to let inequality be inequality, and special-interest power strutures continue.
I'm not hijacking anything -- I'm fighting against special-interest politics, in the interest of equality. It's called being principled, not cynical. Cynical would be pushing the gay special-interest agenda and then when people were actually getting worried about it succeeding, fighting to get real equal rights written into law as a "compromise".

The thing you're not seeing is that the writing of gay marriage into law is merely a continuance of the speical-interest power game, and an acceptance of religious persecution -- as long as it isn't aimed at gays. I believe in equal rights and religious freedom, which is why I won't "give up and move on". I will be out there, opposing gay marriage laws, and explaining what actual conformity to the Constitution would mean.

 

[Homoaffectional]

I'm not hijacking anything -- I'm fighting against special-interest politics, in the interest of equality.

Yeah... protect us from that evil 'Don't-separate-marriage-from-government' lobby.

I feel so much safer, already.

There are a lot of other causes for equality I'd love to see you take up. Pardon me for not being enthusastic about the one you picked.

I've talked to quite a few Libertarian quacks in the interest of coalition building. I just held my ears and did it. But I can tell you, some of the ideas they have are absolutely nutters.

Thanks, but no thanks. I quite readily celebrate the fact that civil marriage won't be separate from government any time soon.

I'm sorry if those poor single folks feel so discriminated against.

BTW, I support universal health care. That would cover both single & married people.

But I doubt you support that, even though it would resolve the whole 'special interest' marriage/government connection lobby issue by eliminating one form of 'inequality'.

Seems like it's got to be your way or the highway. The highway, I think.

 

[Kulindahr]

Seems like it's got to be your way or the highway. The highway, I think.

So what you're saying is that you respect people with principles -- but only if they're principles you agree with.

Sounds like... the Republicans in Congress.

 

[Homoaffectional]

So what you're saying is that you respect people with principles -- but only if they're principles you agree with.

No, what I'm saying is I respect people w/principles that can distinguish what's actually doable vs. something that's about as possible as overturning the Bush v. Gore decision that enabled someone to come to power off of fraudulent means and install Gore in for the next two years. Your energy is being wasted... too bad you don't realize it. Of course, there are worst things you could be spending your energy on, so I suppose things could be worse.

Go ahead, compare me to the Republicans. I needed a good laugh.

 

[MCsNo1Fn]

The great thing about gay marriage, is despite all the propaganda, is that each individual denomination/religion will have the choice on whether or not to marry gays in their churches/mosques/synagogues. By the same token, you won't be forced to marry another man, either. Isn't that wonderful?

If you don't support it, that's fine. Just like w/the Crist thing, maybe you could find better uses of your time than opposing the efforts of other gay people to win equality so they can do what they want? Others do feel the 'desire' to be married, just as blacks felt the need to not have to eat at separate lunch counters or drink from separate water fountains. I'm sure there were plenty of blacks around back then who *didn't* feel the need and were comfortable the way they were. And the blacks who were fighting for it probably said... listen, if you don't want to help that's fine. Could you please maybe just stay out of the way and find something else to do w/your life if you're so totally not seeing the point of the cause?

That's what I'm saying. And forgive me, but in the spirit of full disclosure, I didn't read the entirety of your last posting. If you're neutral on the issue of gay marriage, that's fine. But I won't spend my time reading everything typed by someone who actually opposes gay marriage. I can find better things to do, thanks. I actually knew someone living in MA who didn't care for marriage for himself; didn't see the need for it; but when the court decision came down, he took a bus up to Beacon Hill and protested w/the rest of those who wanted to marry their partners or find someone one day to marry and then walk down that aisle. Him? Nah, but at least he didn't try to talk other people out of fighting for it. Now there's someone I definitely respected.

Why do people compare racism to gay marriage? Gays were never segregated. Gays weren't forced to drink out of a separate water fountain. It's HARDLY the same battle AT ALL. But you DID say something that made a lot of sense and caught my attention, and that was about the religions deciding whether to recognize the marriage. But, if you didn't bother to read my entire posting, then you'll waste no more of my time, as it's rather pointless to comment to someone without reading what they had to say before inserting your "if you're don't agree with me then fuck you" attitude. And no, I won't stay out of the way. I have a right to express what I think just as much as you do.

 

[Homoaffectional]

Why do people compare racism to gay marriage? Gays were never segregated. Gays weren't forced to drink out of a separate water fountain. It's HARDLY the same battle AT ALL.

Wow, so now you're making a rule that one can only compare things that are 100% identical? Nice!

Gays have been segregated in many ways. I'm sorry something has to be exactly the same for you to see the parallels between it.

They are required to hide themselves in the military. If not they can face harsh consequences.

They *are* segregated in the marriage department; they have to deal with 'separate but equal' just as blacks did.

Gays had it worse off hundreds of years ago... they committed suicide for what they were feeling inside, they lost everything if they weren't able to completely hide every trace of who they are successfuly. Black people suffered as well, but it's as if saying 'Because [some] gay people could pass'; it's even worse, because gay people had to go through the agonizing, risky process of finding each other to find people who would understand. At least most blacks knew who else was like them to find allies in their struggle.

And what's funny is the premise behind what you say. It's as if society shouldn't be expected to evolve and that things have to be 100% as bad to see what happened in history and learn from it, and try to do better. So, apparently gays don't deserve any credit or recognition for their struggle. I'd say if that was the case, there was no point to the civil rights movement. Why bother honoring the people in a struggle if we didn't learn to try to treat each other better from it?

And right now, gays have to deal with much hostility from other minority communities. Even some members on JUB that are African American feel the need to be closeted.

P.S. If you don't feel like wasting your time on me, that will be fine on this end. I'd like to see if your position evolves at all based on what you've heard me say... otherwise don't talk to me about "Fuck you if you don't agree with me".

Really, it's sad that after all these years, the same points need to be repeated on *gay forums*, let alone in non-gay environments. I think I should just start saving FAQs and just reposting them. One gets tired of dealing w/so many people that haven't been exposed to what others have. Not sure what you've spent the last few years learning about the gay rights struggle, but at least now you know that Charlie Crist is a closet case.

 

[MCsNo1Fn]

Really, it's sad that after all these years, the same points need to be repeated on *gay forums*, let alone in non-gay environments. I think I should just start saving FAQs and just reposting them. One gets tired of dealing w/so many people that haven't been exposed to what others have. Not sure what you've spent the last few years learning about the gay rights struggle, but at least now you know that Charlie Crist is a closet case.

If the points aren't that great to begin with, there's no point in repeating them. Racism is incomparable to gay marriage in my opinion, and you don't know what I've been exposed to or what I've seen or experienced. I'd just rather play it safe than cause another Iraq, because I'm fine with the way things are. Things evolved, but thinking gay marriage is going to happen tomorrow, or something, isn't a reality. The gay community is just now getting to the point where even the biggest bigots in the South could care less that it exists, and although some people still don't feel comfortable around gays or just plain don't like them, at least when people find out you're gay, even people you don't know, they couldn't really care less, but they'll still vote against that gay marriage. Being accepted in the south where I live, or aka The Redneck Riviera, that to me is good enough for the time being. Living in the south and having people fight for something I'm not to enthused about at this point in my life and it actually being able to come about, worries me. These people are already mean, can you imagine what would happen if gay marriage was legalized and those who truly hate or dislike gayness in general are set off? It's bad enough we still have a town called Wewahitchka where rednecks still have black hangings. Is it legal? No. But nobody does anything about it.
There's no candidates for gay marriage, and there probably won't be for awhile until people can be smuggled into hundreds of important positions. Otherwise, complaining or fighting for something is almost worthless because there arent enough people that would vote YAY for gay marriage. That's sad, but its not jsut like a law can be passed as easy as baking a cupcake. Instead of fighting for gay marriage, the fight against religion should be first, because as long as politicians base laws on their beliefs, the further and further we fall from electing those who might actually vote FOR gay marriage. I don't see people getting tired of gays fighting for this "right" to be married and giving in, if anything, it just pissed them off more.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, what I'm saying is I respect people w/principles that can distinguish what's actually doable vs. something that's about as possible as overturning the Bush v. Gore decision that enabled someone to come to power off of fraudulent means and install Gore in for the next two years. Your energy is being wasted... too bad you don't realize it. Of course, there are worst things you could be spending your energy on, so I suppose things could be worse.

Go ahead, compare me to the Republicans. I needed a good laugh.

I supposed my time is being wasted trying to show sense to someone who thinks that the Supreme Court doing its job relied on "fraudulent means".

But you want me to support... well, I'll use an analogy:

A bunch of people have guns and are making everyone else do things their way. Another group of people is trying to become "equal" by getting guns, too -- and if they do, then a lot of other people still won't have guns, and will still be subject to the people who do.
You want me to support the second group of people.
Because that's what the marriage laws are -- someone with guns. George Washington wanted us to never forget that "government is force", and that's all it is. You want to be in on having some of the force on your side. I want to give everyone guns, so no one has to be subject to that force.

People with guns telling others what to do is called "tyranny". I won't support it, even if it benefits me.

 

[MCsNo1Fn]

P.S. If you don't feel like wasting your time on me, that will be fine on this end. I'd like to see if your position evolves at all based on what you've heard me say... otherwise don't talk to me about "Fuck you if you don't agree with me".

I don't mind "wasting" my time on you, until you begin to belittle me. I realize I don't have the best way with words or expressing my point across, but there's no excuse for being rude because you don't agree with me.

 

[Homoaffectional]

I'd liek to note just because someone doesn't agree with you and attacks your oppinions and rip sthem into smitherines doesn't mean they have a "fuck you attitude".

It means they can debate.

I'd also like to point out when people can't "form" their opinions, they're either garbage (the opinions) or it truly is not their opinion....It also means they can't debate. It's even worse when they arbitraraly claim that it's totally not the same thing...

Also riding the bus and drinking out of different fountains weren't the only things black people could/could not do.

They were restricted other rights as well.
Like the "right to marry"...which I do beleive was how it was worded. However I don't feel like digging through piles upon piles of burried court history about civil rights.

Quite frankly marriage is a right under the law.

Thanks, man.

I don't mind "wasting" my time on you

Don't do me any favors. Really...

 

[cAndId]

I'm not convinced you actually read my post, from this response, but....



No, my position is that we should go for equality, and not just try to become part of the current ruling power, or offend people who are convinced that marriage is "holy matrimony". I won't go through the good sense again, but to me what the proponents of "gay marriage" are after isn't equality but uniformity. The fight is no different than trying to require everyone to use just one restroom -- no male, no female, just all in one.

I do not see how you equate demanding an end to discrimination against gays to demanding females and males have the same public washrooms.

Marriage is NOT limited to heterosexuals, it wasnt 2000 years ago and should not be now. Historically men were allowed to marry men - and did so. Roman emperor Nero had 2 husbands for example. That kinda shoots down your insinuation that marriage has always been state and church defined as a union of man and woman. This isnt about calling on the government to control religion and force them to accept us or our marriages, this is about telling the government to not tell us what 'marriage' is. If we want to go to a church and get married (by a minister who supports our right to do so) then the government has no right to step in and tell us we cannot.

In canada we dont force religion to marry us, we dont force ministers to marry us if they do not want to - we get married by ministers who want to marry us.

This is a couple of quotes from religious leaders in Canada:

The Unitarian Church held a press conference backing the bill, with spokesperson Elizabeth Bowden arguing that "no couple should be excluded from marriage simply because of their sexual orientation."

Meanwhile, Rabbi Steven Garten of Temple Israel in Ottawa spoke out against a pushing predominantly Christian-based opposition to same-sex marriage on the rest of society.

"The Jewish community is not of one mind about the sanctity of marriage," said Garten. "However it is of one mind about one religion imposing limitations on the beliefs of the others."

Religion has no grounds to tell the people of a free society who they can and cannot marry.

I'm not afraid of anything; read my argument again. I was warning of the consequences of assaulting people's dearly cherished understandings of things -- an understanding, BTW, that is historically correct.
Your invoking Martin Luther King doesn't fit the situation. It would be parallel if King had called for doing away with all references to race other than white, so we'd all be referred to as white, regardless of color.

MLK was fighting against the culture of inequality in your country, he wanted his people to be viewed as equals in his country. This isnt about us wanting to be called 'straight', this is about us wanting to be called equal. Marriage is not limited to straight people, it isnt by definition a union between a man and woman, that is the opinion of the religious right. The truth is that gays have been allowed to marry each other before christianity came along.

We should be worried about ALL persons and their rights -- or we are just being another selfish special interest. And fighting for gay marriage ignores everyone but gays, leaving others with the same second-class status as they have now. Fighting for gay marriage says, "Religious persecution is okay, as long as you don't persecute us."

We should be fighting the religious persecution, not just trying to co-opt this aspect of it for our own benefit.

I challenge you to prove to me that allowing gay people to marry somehow adversely affects straight people. Gay people have been marrying in the netherlands for years... have there been reports of families being destroyed because of it? In canada families are faring just the same as they were a few years ago before we had universal equal marriage.

Who are we persecuting by asking for equal rights? Please tell me!

Why do people compare racism to gay marriage? Gays were never segregated. Gays weren't forced to drink out of a separate water fountain. It's HARDLY the same battle AT ALL.

Hardly the same battle? Check this link out and research the struggles of your gay forefathers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights

We didnt have a different water fountain because we didnt need one... we would be thrown in jail - executed by the state, or some bigots would mob us and murder us while the police turn a blind eye.

When the people were freed from the concentration camps in nazi germany, some gays actually had to go back to prison and serve thier sentences simply because they were gay.

 

[Kulindahr]

Why do people compare racism to gay marriage? Gays were never segregated. Gays weren't forced to drink out of a separate water fountain. It's HARDLY the same battle AT ALL.

Wow, so now you're making a rule that one can only compare things that are 100% identical? Nice!

Gays have been segregated in many ways. I'm sorry something has to be exactly the same for you to see the parallels between it.

They are required to hide themselves in the military. If not they can face harsh consequences.

They *are* segregated in the marriage department; they have to deal with 'separate but equal' just as blacks did.

Gays had it worse off hundreds of years ago... they committed suicide for what they were feeling inside, they lost everything if they weren't able to completely hide every trace of who they are successfuly. Black people suffered as well, but it's as if saying 'Because [some] gay people could pass'; it's even worse, because gay people had to go through the agonizing, risky process of finding each other to find people who would understand. At least most blacks knew who else was like them to find allies in their struggle.

And what's funny is the premise behind what you say. It's as if society shouldn't be expected to evolve and that things have to be 100% as bad to see what happened in history and learn from it, and try to do better. So, apparently gays don't deserve any credit or recognition for their struggle. I'd say if that was the case, there was no point to the civil rights movement. Why bother honoring the people in a struggle if we didn't learn to try to treat each other better from it?

And right now, gays have to deal with much hostility from other minority communities. Even some members on JUB that are African American feel the need to be closeted.

What's ironic to me is that after your first inane response (he said nothing of the sort), you proceed to demonstrate his point!
Then along with it you misconstrue and twist what he did say, which doesn't help things at all.

 

[Homoaffectional]

I supposed my time is being wasted trying to show sense to someone who thinks that the Supreme Court doing its job relied on "fraudulent means".

Well, you're wasting time if you deny the fact that Sandy O'Connor basically said... 'Damn, I can't retire because it looks like Gore's going to win' on election night 2000, and then about six weeks later cast the deciding vote to overturn the will of the voters of Florida... and America.

Then six *years* later, she's going to universities on speaking tours and warning about 'dictatorship'. Just a few nights ago, she's bitching and whining about the threat against judicial independence. Guess what, Sandy? It was *YOU* who enabled it. Sad that the neocons you enabled came back to bite you in the ass, ain't it? That's kind of what happens when you put party over the democratic will of the people, Sandy. Too bad you learned that lesson about three-four years too late...

What's ironic to me is that after your first inane response (he said nothing of the sort), you proceed to demonstrate his point!

And what's ironic to me is you sort of claim that the Libertarians are the party y' 'all' call home, but they probably have repudiated the need to bother w/very strange, fringe movements that you clearly support. I couldn't be bothered to check out the post butchering platform... can you refer me to the section where they probably took the 'Marriage-out-of-government' plan out? Again... let me help you out... the "Libertarian Reform Caucus"... heard of them?

 

[-live-]

See on here the only reason why people say gays should have it, is because of the money side. And i dont think anyone who marries for the money side should get married in the first place.

And if gays do get marriage then the next thign will be gay adoption and that is REALLY one fo the worst things to do. So yeah slowing down or stopping gay marriage wil only be a good thing.

 

[NickCole]

Why do people compare racism to gay marriage? Gays were never segregated. Gays weren't forced to drink out of a separate water fountain. It's HARDLY the same battle AT ALL.

The battle may be different but the war's the same one.

In Oscar Wilde's time gays were jailed for being gay. That wasn't all that long ago. Gays were murdered by Nazis because they were gay, and in fact they were the lowest of the low in the heirachy of concentration camp prisoners -- even among the other inmates.

Until not too many years ago (when I entered the work force, in fact) we could be, without legal recourse, fired for being gay. When I was 25 I could be legally thrown out of my apartment for being gay and could legally be denied a bank loan because I was gay. And, in fact, all three of those things only changed in Washington state this year! http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/257432_gayrights28.html

Bigotry gets expressed somewhat differently towards different groups because the specific fear inherent in each bigotry is different (blacks, gays, Jews, gypsies are easy examples of different kinds of bigotry being expressed different ways, but it's all bigotry and it's all segregation -- the whole point is to divide a society into us and them).

 

[Homoaffectional]

the next thign will be gay adoption and that is REALLY one fo the worst things to do.

Mods... is it maybe time to look into who the hell this person is and whether some kind of ban is in order?

This is quite an offensive statement to make.

Is this person even gay? Perhaps it's time to figure out what the hell is going on and whether or not some hetero, right-wing trolls find this forum in order to flame it.

Just in case the mods *DON'T* do anything, fer sure I'm putting this... 'person'... on ignore. "Gay adoption really one of the worst things to do"?? It would be nice if someone could click ignore on someone from one their postings the same way you can comment or send a private message, BTW...

 

[-live-]

I wouldnt understand why a mod would ban me for an opinion, im not setting out to personally attack anyone or wind anyone up, just sharing my opinion like you are. Just becasue i dont think gay adoptions right doesnt mean that im insulitng anyone. If your going to decide to say that im only being insulting then your only looking at one side of the argument.

 

[Homoaffectional]

Not sure what this weirdo had to say for 'his' re-BUTT-al, but then I put him/her/it on ignore, so...