Re: Separate Yet Equal

[Nomenclature]

Re: Separate Yet Equal

I've heard so many gay people say that they won't accept domestic partnerships, or civil unions because that would acknowledging that they're "separate, yet equal". Gay people act like this is a huge insult. . .

. . .But isn't that exactly what gay people are, or are trying to be: Separate from straight people in a few major ways, yet completely equal human beings when freedom and rights are concerned? Isn't the "Gay Pride" movement entirely about accepting that we're different, yet fighting for equal rights?




/late night pondering

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Re: Separate Yet Equal

Why do we shield children from homosexuality?

it topic title another thread

some cultures just no figure much

sure da few dozen on internet dig out anythin ta streatch minute inta day

 

[Nomenclature]

Re: Separate Yet Equal

Problem is this separateness in this situation would stem from inequality.

Inequality doesn't have to equal inferiority.


Yes, we ARE different from straight people, and our romantic lives aren't equal to the way theirs naturally are. we ARE a small subset of the population, and I believe that we have our biological reasons for existing. . .we ARE separate, yet we deserve the same rights as every other American citizen.

Personally, i'm for equal rights THEN worrying about whatever you want to call it. And I think gays are mistaken when they won't accept that for now.

So what you're saying, is that it's better to have to sit in the back of the bus for now, because we can at least GET ON the bus?

Iit's sad that this is such a huge issue for heteros

I think it's a huge issue because both sides have turned it into an impasse: They're both stubbornly demanding something they other side will never agree on, and would rather piss each other off ad nauseum, and debate semantics rather than make any actual progress. The biggest problem is that, like I mentioned before, a majority of gays are absolutely no willing to compromise, and will not accept anything other than "Marriage, the same thing that straight people have."

 

[gsdx]

Re: Separate Yet Equal

Inequality doesn't have to equal inferiority.

No, but it usually does for those standing on the other side of the glass. To them, we're inferior because of our inequality. It puts them higher up on the food chain.

 

[Nomenclature]

Re: Separate Yet Equal

And we're not that different from straight people. Honestly, I believe most gay people and most gay couples want to lead what they see to be "normal" lives which would be modeled after the hetero model.

We can't biologically reproduce, and we never marry just to have children. or due to family/societal pressure the way many straight people do; we only choose to seriously commit to each other out of love, and because we both WANT to.

No, but it usually does for those standing on the other side of the glass. To them, we're inferior because of our inequality. It puts them higher up on the food chain.

But they're still edible.


omnomnomnom

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: Separate Yet Equal

I've heard so many gay people say that they won't accept domestic partnerships, or civil unions because that would acknowledging that they're "separate, yet equal". Gay people act like this is a huge insult. . .

. . .But isn't that exactly what gay people are, or are trying to be: Separate from straight people in a few major ways, yet completely equal human beings when freedom and rights are concerned? Isn't the "Gay Pride" movement entirely about accepting that we're different, yet fighting for equal rights?

It's opposed because that is conflating two things, "separate" in terms of characteristics and "separate" in terms of rights.

Left handed people are "separate" from right handed people in the sense that they are different in that one aspect. However their rights are not separate or lesser.

Gay people are separate in the characteristic that they are gay, but that doesn't mean they should be treated separately by the state just because of that characteristic.

Domestic partnership is an invention of a new class of union that offers a nebulous class of benefits compared to marriage. In some states like California it has been a historically strong class. In other states such as Washington and New Jersey, it has been far from equal in terms of treatment.

 

[Seasoned]

Re: Separate Yet Equal

That "biological procreating" argument doesn't hold up. If that were the case post menopausal women wouldn't be allowed to marry. I think we can all understand the historical necessity for marriage revolved around being able to determine who was responsible for providing for women and children. We've progressed beyond that concept. Perhaps we should start talking about "civil marriage."

 

[bankside]

Re: Separate Yet Equal

Heterosexuals are not required to divorce when a woman goes through menopause or when a man has a vasectomy. Let me know when that happens.

And if you saw the twinkle in my (heterosexual) grandparents' eyes when they looked at each other, and then looked at me and my guy, you'd realize it is exactly the same in every way.

By the way, I refused to have anything to do with Gay Pride for years just for the very reason you talk about...I didn't want to be separate. I would have proudly marched as an out gay man in a "sexual orientation pride parade" where the straights, bis, and gays could all march together, but I had no interest in a gay pride parade for the simple reason that it wasn't inclusive.

I still largely agree with that decision, and I think a lot of heterosexual people would lead much richer lives if they came out as heterosexual and had a parade about it. Yes, you read that right. We have an advantage in being forced to question our sexuality and think about it and when given the opportunity to finally embrace it consciously, instead of just being gay by default, instead of just having a relationship without considering the consequences. The process gay people go through when they come out can teach them a lot of positive things about their own sexuality and the sexuality of others. Straight people are often deprived of that opportunity for reflection and self-examination, and often, it shows. So bring on the Straight Pride Parade, and the Straight-Gay Alliance instead of the Gay-Straight Alliance, and we'll help them integrate into society.

Now I can accept gay pride, even if I don't often participate, just as I can accept that an art gallery is allowed to show picasso without being obliged to also show rembrandt. My favourite gallery would probably show both side by side, but I accept that it doesn't have to.

And by analogy, it is okay for a parade to focus on just one part of the population, even if I think it would be a better parade if it focussed less on gayness and more on liberation and the freedom of being oneself.. Eventually it will.

But an art gallery is not marriage. Marriage needs to be equal in order to be worthwhile.

And yet again I'll say it, why does it work in Canada? We've been doing this for years now.

 

[MercuryJones]

Re: Separate Yet Equal

. . .But isn't that exactly what gay people are, or are trying to be: Separate from straight people in a few major ways, yet completely equal human beings when freedom and rights are concerned? Isn't the "Gay Pride" movement entirely about accepting that we're different, yet fighting for equal rights?

I'm not trying to be separate.

But even if I were, there's no legitimate reason to be anything but equal before the law. And "separate but equal" is never really equal.

 

[MercuryJones]

Re: Separate Yet Equal

I think it's a huge issue because both sides have turned it into an impasse: They're both stubbornly demanding something they other side will never agree on...

"Never" is a big word. Every year more heterosexuals agree that we should have equal rights, so I don't think "never" applies here.

And equality is our constitutional right. Not a second-class substitute for equality (though the gay-haters don't want us to have that either).

 

[TickTockMan]

Re: Separate Yet Equal

I say- get what you can now- and keep trying to expand it later

It will take longer that way.

The argument is already being used that we have equal political power so we are not a weaken class. In fact I believe it one of the main arguments for the “Yes on 8” people.


Getting little by little could hurt us in the long and short run. Going for "the win" now bypasses all of that.

 

[CowboyBob]

Re: Separate Yet Equal

If marriage was only for procreation purposes then infertile couples can't marry, post menopausal women, etc like others have mentioned. That argument is over.

IMOHO, the reason gays don't have the right to complete marriage is because there are those who still view homosexuality as a disorder, a perversion, a "choice".

"You're a homosexual because of some traumatic event in your childhood." "You're gay because your father was distant."

When I was in the hospital for an operation a doctor asked me after I told him I was gay asked .... "Is this something you can't control? Aren't you strong enough to overcome the urges? A pretty woman would change you so go and find one." I replied it's not a matter of controlling urges, it's who you are. He mumbled he didn't want to talk about it anymore.

That spoke volumes and this was in 1996. They still think that. That's why we can't marry.

 

[Nomenclature]

Re: Separate Yet Equal

I
When I was in the hospital for an operation a doctor asked me after I told him I was gay asked .... "Is this something you can't control? Aren't you strong enough to overcome the urges? A pretty woman would change you so go and find one." I replied it's not a matter of controlling urges, it's who you are. He mumbled he didn't want to talk about it anymore..

If I were you, I would have asked him

"Well, would an attractive man be able to change you if you found one?"

 

[gsdx]

Re: Separate Yet Equal

I say- get what you can now- and keep trying to expand it later

Would Rosa Parks have been satisfied with sitting in the second-from-the-last seat on the bus for 10 years before being allowed to sit in the third-from-the-last seat for another 10 years?

No. It's either anywhere on the bus you like or it's merely a compromise. Either you're equal with everyone else or you're a second-class citizens without all the rights enjoyed by everyone else.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Re: Separate Yet Equal

If marriage was only for procreation purposes then infertile couples can't marry, post menopausal women, etc like others have mentioned. That argument is over.

IMOHO, the reason gays don't have the right to complete marriage is because there are those who still view homosexuality as a disorder, a perversion, a "choice".

"You're a homosexual because of some traumatic event in your childhood." "You're gay because your father was distant."

When I was in the hospital for an operation a doctor asked me after I told him I was gay asked .... "Is this something you can't control? Aren't you strong enough to overcome the urges? A pretty woman would change you so go and find one." I replied it's not a matter of controlling urges, it's who you are. He mumbled he didn't want to talk about it anymore.

That spoke volumes and this was in 1996. They still think that. That's why we can't marry.

go read it ans interestins bit

but whiles ofs a many strainins straight worlds-cultures crashin ans past few centurys me save ma comments fa da big wide world what no cans even manage oil leaks

nice has porn sites ons ans off da internet cheer folks up!

 

[MercuryJones]

Re: Separate Yet Equal

Would Rosa Parks have been satisfied with sitting in the second-from-the-last seat on the bus for 10 years before being allowed to sit in the third-from-the-last seat for another 10 years?

Well, actually, yes. The buses were segregated and in use as such a long time.

Civil unions similarly are not equal. But while we're working on equality, there are states where civil unions are available. I live in one, and though I know they are not equal, I also know there are protections for my family, and I'm making use of them.

It's a multi-pronged effort. Always fight for equality, but where civil unions can be made to happen do it, and then keep fighting for equality.