The Problem With Gays?

Of all the billions of stars in our galaxy, and likely billions of planets with sustainable life similar to our own, what could be more important than where inhabitants of this planet put their pee-pee from time to time?

Collectively, we really are a rather egotistical and stupid lot, aren't we?

I'd like to think that the Newsvine community is rational enough that someone will be willing to actually discuss the issue instead of spouting hysterical denunciations and dire warnings.

Ruh Row! Get ready for the self-righteous, Leviticus spouting bible thumping!!! This is another page of another chapter in the railing against the "gay lifestyle" (what ever the @!$%# that is). Let the religious rantings begin!!

Thanks to the divisiveness of archaic religious creed, we seem to think that ideas like gay marriage, abortion, and the teaching of unscientific theories like Intelligent Design are monumental questions.

All at the expense of more important issues.

Collectively, we really are a rather egotistical and stupid lot, aren't we?

For all of the potential of our big brains, we fall short as a species in regard to humanistic teaching and understanding.

SJ,

I was in Seattle two summers ago for the Gay Softball World Series. You live in a wonderful city filled with wonderfully friendly people. However the rain the first few days really sucked, but we we continually assured that it never rains in August ;)

Rac

Here are the opening paragraphs from an article that articulates the "gay lifestyle"

On most mornings, my better half wakes up around 5:30, throws on some sweats and heads to the gym before work.
About a half hour later, I wake up my 13-year-old son, go downstairs to the kitchen to make his breakfast and pack his lunch. Once he's out the door, I brew some coffee and get to work.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the "gay lifestyle" -- run for your heterosexual lives.

link to full article - http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/06/granderson.gay.lifestyle/index.html?hpt=Sbin

Robert: "pee-pee?" You DO have a way with words. Okay Seattle, here goes: Gays are no more a threat to the world than Sarah Palin is to a presidency. Only insecure, low self-esteem, small minded macho men fear gay men and ALL men LOVE lesbians. As Robert so poetically put it, we really don't care who your favorite receiver is. It is hard enough just trying to find someone to connect with on a soulful level who you can love and who loves you back. If two people find each other and love each other, who cares if their chromosomes match. To each his own. Why the conservative right and evangelicals have their panties in a bunch is beyond me. Maybe they are all closet queens and not quite ready to come to terms yet. Only a truly self-confident male is not intimidated by gay men, myself included. In past professions I encountered many gay men and found them to be gracious, intelligent, deep and loyal. How many guy friends do you know like that?? Anyway, fear not the men who love men and women who love women. We are all JUST PEOPLE under the skin with the same wants and needs. DIVERSITY: It keeps things interesting!

Only a truly self-confident male is not intimidated by gay men, myself included.

Yeah. The good thing is that it leaves less competition for us straight guys except for...

*looks to the gay shopping buddy stereotype*

Oh crap. (end sarcasm)

Personally I don't think it is anyone else's business if a person is gay or not gay. I am glad the young people don't feel it is important, most of them anyway. Those that have not been indoctrinated in hate, that is.

( peterb10 ), In order to reassure you, "We are normal". It is society that perceives us as abnormal or indifferent and a non-conforming life style because they do not understand anything that they can not explain or except. It is hatred for Us that is abnormal. But they except hatred so readily for Us because it is easy to do for them. ( they understand hatred ).

I'll throw religion in here,for a minute or two because,that is (as it seems to me) to be where it is coming from mostly. But the bottom line is,we are all humans. Religion was created by Man and gone out of control by introduction of hatred because life styles did not conform too that religion. Sad but true,look at your History. I'm not going to dwell on religion here in this seed,too many Vine-rs have already done that in the past. ( it gets tiresome,to say the least)

I've lived in a male oriented world for 47 years of my life,until I realized who I was naturally,and except who I was,and stopped living in denial and changed my gender. (long story),Peter. Of in which I will not go into here. But I learned a lot about men and woman and how they treat each other,when something is different to them or how they live there life. More often I have encountered people who think, If your not like "me" I don't want you attitude,(around me). And the hatred begins to surface,why...because they just don't understand and don't want too either. Being from both sides of the fence, and seeing how people treat each other,(male & female),gives me a better perspective of how people think toward each other. I love who I am and what I am,because that is the way I was born. That is all that matters to me.

By-the-way, Canada is beautiful !! I made it all the way to Manitoba and back, on a road trip in a Volkswagen bus for a vacation trip. I will remember it for the rest of my life !

Stay Safe.

Well Said ScienceGuy!

Humans have this odd need to feel superior,the only way to accomplish fullfilling this need is to see someone else as inferior.That choice is made by seeking out those who are differant in some way and not part of the norm.

It all really comes down to the folly of pride and a lot of people on a self-righteous ego trip.

People should be allowed to love and marry whoever they wish.

This should not be in the political arena period.Who the hell do politicians think they are when they feel they have the right to decide who can and can't marry?They drag their extremist Christian dogma into the legislative process and the end result is always discrimination against one group or the other.

One more word of warning SJ, when dealing with trolls it is very easy to fall into the trap of being trollish oneself. Sadly, sometimes that is the only way to deal with them.

Humans have this odd need to feel superior, the only way to accomplish fullfilling this need is to see someone else as inferior.

This is usually an indication of a low sense of self worth.

This is usually an indication of a low sense of self worth.

Precisely,when a human has everything around them pointing at their lack of worth they will instinctually grab their club and go find the biggest dinosaur they can find and beat it down so that they can go back to the hut and proclaim their heroism for feeding a starving tribe.

This is all in line with what we now see coming from the right and Tea Baggers(not sure where they fit into anything)They seek out those who are different or opposed to their beliefs and it is these folks that they pour out their hypocricy and deception upon.

The problem with gays is that they won't no back into the closet where they belong! {sarcasm}

Sadly I have seen that exact argument.

( 3sheets), I don't want to go back into the closet ! To many old close in their ! It's musty !

I need New Close... Did I hear ? Shopping !!!

Homosexuals seem to be inastiable about putting themselves in the public eye...

I don't think that comes from a desire to be in public but rather the result of being noticed when they are being discriminated against and/or speak up about it, most notably with the issue of gay marriage.

You my friend have a narrow mind-set, I doubt that you have any idea how much damage you have conveyed in the eyes of many. It is a very important subject to bring up, and I for one, applaud the seeder. If you don't like the posting, why respond to it.

We can rephrase this as:

"The problem with ____(insert black, Asian, women, youth, retired seniors, Hispanics, Lefties, Tea partiers, Muslims, Christians, atheists...etc) is that they seem to be insatiable about putting themselves in the public eye...and quite frankly it is a boring subject of little interest to most of us."

This works with any group one is not affiliated with and yet which seems to be chafing along the comfortable niche of which the speaker is a member. The statement can be adjusted for intensity. Insert a clause with some random act of violence or a scandal and it seems like the group mentioned is reasonably respresentative of the problem being discussed. In short, this kind of thinking is what being openly gay is up against.

Heterosexuals seem to be insatiable about putting themselves in the public eye...and quite frankly it is a boring subject of little interest to most of us. If you only knew how little most people think about it you would be quite disappointed I fear.....You just need attention so desperately...and to announce yourself to your community and you think this is the place to do it.

You have really not brought a great subject to anyones attention to discuss....so now we know you are straight...so what?

zanyzazu, can you see how stupid that sounds?

zanyzazu, maybe if people wouldnt discriminate, act with violence toward, and give gay couples the same rights that heterosexuals have then there wouldnt be any gay issues coming up.
The reason you think gays have to be in the spot light is because they are fighting for the same civil rights that you enjoy.
Once gay people are treated like anyone else you will probably not hear anything from them.
You might see parades and stuff but come on, straight people have parades all the time too.
I just find it is such a stupid thing for people to make a big deal about gays. There are so many other issues that actually affect us all where taht energy could be directed at
And I am straight by the way.

Zanyzazu's post reminds me of a car I saw this morning. It had a big rainbow decal all the way across the back of it. My thought was "Seriously? Why exactly do you advertise your sexual orientation? I don't give a rats azz who you're with!". That would be like me getting big bumper sticker that says "I love men". Other than to pick up guys, why on earth would I do that? Odd. Maybe there is some higher meaning to it that I'm just not aware of. I'm sure I'm not the only one who wonders. If so, please enlighten me.

But yeah, even without any big badges, there would still be an issue, and there would still be plenty of articles. That will be true as long as there are no equal rights.

Homosexuals seem to be inastiable about putting themselves in the public eye...and quite frankly it is a boring subject of little interest to most of us.

Zanyzazu,

I have seen this statement from you before on another gay discussion and I will ask you again the question that was asked of you in that discussion but failed to respond to.

If the subject of homosexuality is boring and of little interest to you, why do you bother going to the discussion let alone posting within the discussion?

Are you of the archetype of people mentioned by bigbugy in post #4.3 to which I provide my observation of this type in post #4.5?

it certainly appears that Zanyzazu has so much concern about the topic he/she sought it out and came along to post --

Would have been nice to have a substantive post but nope just the usual blah, blah blah

You might see parades and stuff but come on, straight people have parades all the time too.

Not saying it doesn't exist, but when/where are the 'heterosexual parades'? That's right, they don't exist.

Don't toss things like mardi gras, christmas, thanksgiving, etc out there because they aren't parades celebrating a sexuality, or for a certain sexuality or another.

The Kawasaki Fertility Parade seems to fit the mold. Most modern holidays can trace their origins back to some sort of fertility rite, so in a way many parades are in fact heterosexual-parades.

Don't toss things like mardi gras, christmas, thanksgiving, etc out there because they aren't parades celebrating a sexuality, or for a certain sexuality or another

Who made you god to set the rules about what can be included as proof of heterosexual parades? What a @!$%#ing joke!! I will put up Mardi Gras in the US and Brazil as the KING of heterosexual bacchanalia celebrating tits and ass and cock. You don't get to eliminate the very definition of heterosexual extremism just because it does damage to your bull@!$%# claim. They not only celebrate it, they oil up and roll around in it!!!

The interesting thing about Mardi Gras is that it doesn't discriminate whether it is homosexual or heterosexual displays - equal oportunity voyerism.

Now let's talk about Spring Break should we. Girl's Gone Wild etc? Sheesh - you living in the stone age bucko?

The Kawasaki Fertility Parade seems to fit the mold.

Sorry, I was thinking more along the lines of in America, as I'm not familiar with all of the festivals and parades that happen around the world.

Most modern holidays can trace their origins back to some sort of fertility rite, so in a way many parades are in fact heterosexual-parades.

I've never seen a 'straight pride parade', nor heard of one. Do you know of any homosexuals who refuse to participate in Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, Halloween, etc because they can trace meanings of each back to pagan holidays? I haven't ever met any, not to mention that no matter what the meaning originally was, the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade has nothing to do with sexual orientation...

Not saying it doesn't exist, but when/where are the 'heterosexual parades'?

Mardi Gras, on most if not all continents in the month of February. New Orleans would probably be the closest. Saying this does not express sexuality means that you have never attended a Mardi Gras party and parade. Carnivale in Brazil is even more overtly sexual.

Plenty of straight people participate in gay pride parades, does that invalidate it as an event seeded in homosexual origins? Likewise Easter is a fertility celebration in honor of the fertility goddess Eostre despite Christian's hijacking the holiday and despite homosexuals participating as well.

Mardi Gras, on most if not all continents in the month of February. New Orleans would probably be the closest. Saying this does not express sexuality means that you have never attended a Mardi Gras party and parade. Carnivale in Brazil is even more overtly sexual.

That doesn't make a lot of sense unless you're saying that because it is sexual the Mardi Gras parade is hetero. Does that mean gays aren't "sexual" or don't enjoy it? RAC seems confused on the Mardi Gras thing in 6.12 in saying it is a hetero parade and then saying it doesn't discriminate either way "equal opportunity voyeurism".

At any rate, I've still not seen anyone come up with a "hetero pride" parade. The "fertility" celebration is not exclusively hetero - being gay doesn't make one sterile. I can see equal rights demonstrations but yeah you don't have to advertise which way you swing. If you're not sleeping in my bed, I don't really care.

Justme, have you been to Mardi Gras?

Men and women dressed scantily hanging on each other. Women gleefully showing their breasts to men who promise cheep baubles in return. A very sexually charged week long party attended predominantly by heterosexuals.

Saying this is not a heterosexual parade and party is the same as saying gay pride is not a gay parade and party because a minority of the crowd is heterosexual.

Yeah I've been down there and if you really think there's nothing but hetero activity going on you weren't looking around too much lol. Maybe busy handing out baubles? ;) hehehe! (jk)

And yeah Mardi Gras is not the "Hetero Pride" parade. That was not and still isn't the whole reason why the parade was created. The sexual orientation of those attending is irrelevant. Now if you decide to create a parade to celebrate gay pride, then that is what it will be. Again, sexual orientation of those present/participating is irrelevant. Just like I can join a Peruvian dance group. I will still be a white chick, and the dances performed will still be Peruvian.

I will put up Mardi Gras in the US and Brazil as the KING of heterosexual bacchanalia celebrating tits and ass and cock.

Really?

The interesting thing about Mardi Gras is that it doesn't discriminate whether it is homosexual or heterosexual displays - equal oportunity voyerism.

Counter productive much?

You completely missed my point. There is no such thing as a Straight Pride Parade. Saying that straight people have parades just the same as a Gay Pride parade isn't the case. YOU may associate Mardi Gras with heterosexuals, but it isn't an either or type thing... BOTH homosexuals and heterosexuals are involved in 99% of the parades and festivals, whereas a Gay Pride parade may have both, but it is geared towards and focused towards homosexuals. There isn't a parade that is focused towards heterosexuals.

Not that I'm @!$%#ing about it, just simply pointing out that there aren't any 'straight pride parades' as someone had said above.

FYI, I live and am FROM Louisiana, so I'd be willing to bet I'm more familiar with Mardi Gras, and what goes on during the festivities than anyone else here (unless more are from LA.) I don't even bother with New Orleans, because it is too crowded. Try visiting Mamou, Eunice, or more of the smaller areas to actually get a good picture of what goes on.

Just about everyone here is completely missing my point. There are pride parades and such all over the nation (and likely world) for homosexuals. I'm not saying that heterosexuals aren't involved, but they are FOR homosexual sexuality etc. There are NO heterosexual pride parades, whether you'd like to think that a MUTUALLY devious time can be credited as such because there are MORE heterosexuals there (even if the meaning isn't for EITHER heterosexuals or homosexuals.)

It's also a bit like asking why we can have a St. Patricks's Day parade to honor Irish heritage when there's no European Union parade in honor of all of Europe. The minority often make a point to come to the forefront every once in a while.

Heterosexuality is on display every day, let the gays have the occasional parade.

Heterosexuality is on display every day, let the gays have the occasional parade.

You miss my point. I don't care who has parades, am not against homosexual marriage, or anything like that... I was simply stating that there aren't any heterosexual parades (as Pirate C was stating, by saying:)

You might see parades and stuff but come on, straight people have parades all the time too.

I think the main thing is people don't get why it is necessary to make a point of advertising in public who you have sex with. Who cares??? That's my reaction. Why do you (general "you" - not personally) feel a need to broadcast it? I would feel like a moron and would be likely to be looked at like one if I were to put a bumper sticker on my car that says "I like sex with men". Or walked around with a tee-shirt saying the same. To make a parade out of it? LOL yeah right. Like I said before, I could understand equal rights marches and such but the parades I don't get.

I'm not confused about anything. What asked for was "heterosexual parades." There was no mention of "exclusively heterosexual parades." The implication was clear though. Heterosexual people don't need to flaunt their sexuality publicly. Bull@!$%#. We've shown it to be the case with Mardi Gras.

I tell you what. Tell heteros that can't exercise their rights as citizens of the US by entering into a marriage contract and I will sure bet you real money, you'll see hetero pride parades coming out the wazoo! Deal?

We're only saying there is no "Hetero Pride" parade. It's not about who gets to be in it - it's about the theme or reason for throwing the parade. And again, if you think Mardi Gras is all hetero, you weren't looking around too much. It is very sexual. Sexuality is by no means exclusive to heteros.

And yeah, I would agree heteros don't have to flaunt it in public. I'd prefer they get a room along with some self-respect.

I tell you what. Tell heteros that can't exercise their rights as citizens of the US by entering into a marriage contract and I will sure bet you real money, you'll see hetero pride parades coming out the wazoo! Deal?

Dunno. My money would be on equal rights marches. They make such a strong statement.

RAC 0129

You are either confused or aren't bothering to read.

Mardi Gras is not for heterosexual pride, and it is not for homosexual pride. It isn't a celebration of EITHER sexual deviation. Either preference can attend and enjoy the festivities, no one said 'find a parade that only heterosexuals can attend'. Hence why I said don't include Mardi Gras and such, because they aren't Straight Pride Parades.

Gay Pride parades are ABOUT GAY PRIDE. There are NO parades that are ABOUT STRAIGHT PRIDE. Hence why I said straight people don't have parades, because none of the parades are ABOUT STRAIGHT PRIDE.

I think the main thing is people don't get why it is necessary to make a point of advertising in public who you have sex with. Who cares???

Precisely. The only reason I would need to know who someone sleeps with (gender wise) is when I was single and going to flirt with a woman. If she swings towards the female persuasion herself, I wouldn't waste my time (and no, I'm not into lesbians, contrary to popular belief not all guys are into seeing two females together...) Other than that, I really don't care how you do your swing.

No zanith - I get it - I just don't agree with you moving the goal posts from the original statement. WTF difference does it make if your flaunting your sexuality in an exclusive or non-exclusive @!$%#ing parade. Geez - pick some @!$%#ing nits why don't you.

You don't get it. Like I said - let's turn the tables. Starting right now only gays can enjoy the full rights and privileges of this country. They are the only ones who can marry - heteros can't. Heteros will be denied marriage rights on the basis of their sexuality. THAT IS THE @!$%#ING POINT!!! What part of that don't you understand? If they were not being discriminating on who they swing with they probably wouldn't be having @!$%#ing parades celbratin who they are swinging with! Get it?

Don't want to see the parades - great! Stop discriminating! Deal?

zanith,

You obviously have not been to a Gay Pride event because there are plenty of heterosexuals that attend as well, albeit in the minority. PFLAG, non-gay local officials, and various other non- groups can also be seen attending these events.

Trying to make a point, whatever that point is, by saying there is no "Striaght Pride" parades is along the same lines as saying there is no "White History Month" parades because of the existence of "Black History Month" parades.

What is your point? If it was articulated maybe it could better be debated or agreed with.

zanilth,

When you already have rights there is really no need to march for awareness. Heterosexuals don't need a parade beause their relationships are already granted protection under the law. Heterosexuals are already not fired for being heterosexual, not barred from taking their partners to school dances, public functions and workplace gatherings. Heterosexuals already don't have to be concerned they will be attacked, beaten, raped, or killed simply because someone finds out they are heterosexual. When society is willing to accept homosexuals as equal members, with no remark or notice, when the threat and inequality have disappeared the parades will likely pass away as well, or will become much less prevalent as a mark of remembrance as many parades that started out as civil rights requests have become. Until that time it seems a bit silly to complain that homosexual people make themselves noticed with parades and requests for equal treatment as if they should just sit down and shut up and take whatever society chooses to dish out to them no matter how unequal or violent.

I just don't agree with you moving the goal posts from the original statement.

What goal posts did I move? He said 'let gays have their parades' BECAUSE 'straights have them too'.

I want to know where any straight pride parade is. Mardi Gras isn't a straight pride parade, the super bowl parade isn't a straight pride parade.

WTF difference does it make if your flaunting your sexuality in an exclusive or non-exclusive @!$%#ing parade.

It doesn't matter whether it is exclusive or not, that isn't what I'm saying (it is what you are trying to say...) What matters is what the parade is intended for. You can have a Gay Pride parade and nothing but heterosexuals show up, and it is STILL A GAY PRIDE PARADE. THERE ARE NO STRAIGHT PRIDE PARADES. His statement was false, and all I was doing was clarifying.

You don't get it.

No, I get what you are saying. I have no issue with what you are saying, but you can't simply read to see what I'm saying. As I said before, I have no issue with gays marrying, having equal rights, whatever. All I was doing was pointing out a fallacy in a statement. Got it?

Stop discriminating! Deal?

How do you say that I discriminate?

You obviously have not been to a Gay Pride event because there are plenty of heterosexuals that attend as well, albeit in the minority.

PLEASE, oh PLEASE show me where I said that only homosexuals attended gay pride parades? Please, oh PLEASE show me where I said anything OTHER than that there were NO straight pride parades?

Trying to make a point, whatever that point is, by saying there is no "Striaght Pride" parades is along the same lines as saying there is no "White History Month" parades because of the existence of "Black History Month" parades.

No one said there weren't any straight pride parades BECAUSE there were gay pride parades, so your analogy sucks.

What is your point? If it was articulated maybe it could better be debated or agreed with.

My point was simply a correction to what Pirate C said in that there are NO straight pride parades, and NO parades that are 'for' heterosexuals the same as gay pride parades are for homosexuals.

Heterosexuals don't need a parade beause their relationships are already granted protection under the law.

I never said they did, all I was doing was correcting a fallacy. However, the difference is parades are celebratory, so it would make sense to hold off on the gay pride parades until AFTER you've been granted equal rights, would you think? Otherwise, it wouldn't be a parade, it would be a boycott or a picket.

Otherwise, it would and could be a civil rights parade.

Until that time it seems a bit silly to complain that homosexual people make themselves noticed with parades and requests for equal treatment as if they should just sit down and shut up and take whatever society chooses to dish out to them no matter how unequal or violent.

I never said that. If you check, I really haven't participated too much in this entire conversation, only on this one specific thing. The reason is because I don't care if homosexuals can marry, or do anything else they want. So, because I don't care, the only reason I read the comments was because I was bored, and looking for fallacies in arguments. I don't pick and choose 'haters' arguments because other people can shoot holes through them entirely too easily. I was simply correcting a fallacy, nothing more nothing less.

Oh, and by the way, whether it is legal or not, people who are 'different' from others will ALWAYS be discriminated against. Hell, EVERYONE is discriminated against at one time or another. Those who fit into minorities (based on whatever qualification you choose to pick) usually STILL are harassed and discriminated against whether it is legal to do or not. Just don't think that things will change all THAT much, because now you'll just have the law behind you (maybe) should something become glaringly obvious.

Otherwise, it would and could be a civil rights parade.

They are civil rights parades, in addition to being celebratory.

However, the difference is parades are celebratory, so it would make sense to hold off on the gay pride parades until AFTER you've been granted equal rights, would you think?

Homosexuals have been granted several civil rights protections in recent years, in addition to achieving changes in how homosexuality is viewed from various official standpoints, such as psychological and legal. The parades are both celebratory and an effort to continue to raise awareness in pursuit of equality under the law. Progress has been made, but there are still changes needed.

As for the "it's always been done, so it'll always be done" argument, as elucidated in your post 6.29, is that any reason to lay down and accept it? Human beings have been in the habit of exhibiting a variety of cruelties towards one another, and yet every bit of progress allows for improvements in the human condition. Did raising awareness of child abuse and passing laws against it eliminate child abuse? No, but more children are aware they have places to go for help, more parents are aware that it is unacceptable, fewer children face abuse unintervened than before. Progress is progress. Ignoring problems just makes perpetrators believe they are justified, otherwise wouldn't people fight against them? Discrimination has occurred in history in many forms, thus the fights against it, the parades, the rallies, the awareness raising activities and the efforts to pass mecessary laws to change problem behavior. Looking backwards through history there are a lot of pretty horrendous things that were accepted practice at one time or another, until people stood up against them. I suppose we could all keep quiet in a world where people are bought and sold, the inquisition is just a fact of life, child labor is a-ok, etc. etc., but many have chosen not to. As a result the majority of the world accepts that these practices are wrong and conducts themselves differently. If we sit down and shut up now it won't be long until those scenarios are prevalent in most places, because those things still exist in parts of the world and the fight is still necessary. It may not ever be unnecessary to speak out against the evils done to humans by humans, but if we shut up now we might as well have not bothered to stand against it in the first place.

Okay, time to get our two cents in on parades and pride events considering we help organize our local one!

Why have the events? That seems to be the question on the table, correct? If you are minority that has been persecuted your entire life....we're talking every single day without end....then you get it. If not, then some of you don't. We you are attacked like that and when you are such a minority you want to "circle the wagons" and get together with like minded folk who share your views.

Also, you have to remember, these events started 30-40 YEARS ago at a time when we were still being rounded up and hauled out of bars on a regular basis and things were not so progressive. In fact, that's WHY they started. You need to put yourself into that historical mindset. These events have continued largely out of tradition, but there are still battles to be fought. Will we always have them? Perhaps. They still have Tet festivals, right? It's about heritage. It's also about viewing or listening to the work of artist that you can't see in a more mainstream environment. They simply wouldn't get the exposure.

Heterosexuals do not need a festival or parade like that simply because everyday is essentially that. It's assumed that everyone is straight. You go to another parade or festival and try and dance with someone of the same gender, you just might walk out with a black eye.

Now, that's not to say that heterosexuals don't band together on occasion too, because they do. Spring break flings are largely a heterosexual phenomena and not really on most gay people's radar even. For another example, google an event called the teste fest and look at the pictures.

As for this:

The problem with homosexuality is....that you keep bringing it up.......

Actually we don't. Most gay people want to live a nice quiet happy life. But the people that would attack us don't want us to and are the ones who bring us up all the time. A good example of that was the Prop 8 battle. They kept saying they were trying to "protect the children", but how many children were exposed to all those ads and the issue itself, that wouldn't have heard otherwise? As usual, the anti-gay conservatives shot themselves in the foot and educated their children singlehandedly.

The problem with homosexuality is....that you keep bringing it up.......

Zanyzazu And yet you keep commenting on it, interesting! if it is something that most don't think about I find it VERY interesting that whenever the issue is brought up, you find a reason to comment negatively and put the onus on us as self proclaimers and in your face people!

Guess what, we were all living quite happy lives when along came Anita Bryant and her conservative club started attacking us, oh it began a little before that with police and politicians trying to out law our behavior but good old Anita Brain lit tha match that started the fire you are still seeing the smoke from today! Her movement called for the mass discrimination of homosexuals and declared all of us deviants, we had NO CHOICE but to defend ourselves! If someone attacked you or yours and called for discrimination against them would YOU not do the same, or would you just quietly shrink away? In many ways we have been forced into this fight!

This has further continued with Prop 8 and all the controversy it created, again we were attacked and had NO CHOICE but to defend ourselves. The Mormons got involved and pushed their money into the fight now bringing religion to fight against us! Again, we had NO CHOICE but to defend ourselves.

The ad's that were used in the 70's and the ones in 08 with prop 8 are scare tactic advertising, they painted us as freaks and sexual predators after children, and we had NO CHOICE except to defend ourselves.

I will say in closing if all this is so bothersome to you, why do you continue to show up and comment? You obviously care enough about it to click on and comment which counters your argument that most people don't think about it!

We have NO CHOICE, we have been beaten, discriminated and hated for reasons beyond most any ones comprehension! We are not going back into any closet and we are done being told who we can love and what is acceptable. If you and yours want to treat us like @!$%# or allow others to do so, then fine, let us stop paying taxes to support all the political firestorms against us that politicians use to win your bigoted vote! YOU can make it a non-issue by giving us the EQUAL RIGHTS THAT WE DESERVE! DO THAT AND WE WON'T "BOTHER" YOU ANYMORE!

is that any reason to lay down and accept it?

Never said it was, just that it would happen. I've met plenty of people who, after getting what they were shooting for, realized that it didn't change things quite like they were expecting. Just pointing out that things don't always work out quite like expected.

Why have the events? That seems to be the question on the table, correct?

Not quite, there actually isn't a question on the table at all. Someone made a comment that we should let homosexuals have gay pride parades because straight people have parades too, and the entire conversation evolved from me telling the guy that there were no straight pride parades... You can't count Mardi Gras, the Super Bowl, Macy's Thanksgiving Day parades as straight pride parades because they are for different reasons.

Spring break flings are largely a heterosexual phenomena and not really on most gay people's radar even.

But they aren't for heterosexuals, they are for whoever chooses to attend.

For another example, google an event called the teste fest and look at the pictures

I don't quite see what a 'festival' for eating fried bull's testicles has to do with this discussion...

Just pointing out that things don't always work out quite like expected.

how true, I'm sure the cops that conducted the raids on gay bars at Stonewall, never expected riots and yearly worldwide gay pride events to commerate the events, with the rainbow "unity" flag and everyone welcome to attend, heterosexuals included

I don't quite see what a 'festival' for eating fried bull's testicles has to do with this discussion...

You haven't delved into the event enough. Look further.

Greg&Jeff, Great post on 6.32 and thank you. I did ask why the parades and you gave an intelligent and respectful response. I honestly didn't know and was hoping someone would fill me in.

One last question if you'll be patient with me and humor me. I've seen some coverage and pics of a previous parade. There seemed to be a lot of people in the parade that were going for the most shock effect they could get. What are your thoughts on it? From what I read and saw some of it just seemed to reinforce negative stereotypes. I can understand why some might be angry and jump at the chance to get in a good "in your face", but it just didn't seem like a good thing to me. Most of the gay people I've been friends with over the years were just normal, everyday people and that's what I would hope for people to see when they look at them - not some of the images from the parade.

they do seem, "in your face" but that's just it, dressing that way, as their fashion, and flambouyance wishes, at work, school, whereever, draws stares and gawking, at a pride event, one can be flaming as their heart desires, and be accepted and appreciated, not gawked at. and yes, it also is the time for some to be "in your face", but thats what happens, when you tell someone, "put it away" all their life.

There seemed to be a lot of people in the parade that were going for the most shock effect they could get. What are your thoughts on it? From what I read and saw some of it just seemed to reinforce negative stereotypes.

It depends on your point of view. What is shocking to you, may not be to the people you are looking at in the photo. "Shock" is a rather relative term. Take someone from 1940, and put them in front of a television of today, and they would probably be shocked by all the sex and violence. They would probably be absolutely horrified at hearing F-bombs dropped right into the living rooms of homes where kids live all through the magic of that cable or satellite dish. Take them to the movies and they would probably pass out. The rest of us...not so much.

Within the gay community there are sub cultures. You have the drag, the promiscuous, the reserved, the bdsm folk, families with kids...it runs the gamut just like straight culture does. A gay pride parade is one of the few places where people can just be themselves, no matter what that "self" is. Which is why some heterosexuals who feel repressed by society at large attend as well. So it's really not about shocking others. It's really about being themselves. Yeah, the photos and videos can portray negative stereotypes, but the point is, such people would be doing their own thing whether cameras were there or not. Society expects people to bottle themselves up and conform conform conform on a daily basis as it is. It's not really much to let people be themselves for ONE day a year. As long as they aren't hurting anyone or doing anything illegal. That's our perspective at least.

Now what's odd is the way people want to take something they find "shocking" in the gay community and broadly proclaim that's how all gays are. That would be like us saying that all straight people go to swinger parties, strip clubs, and are into dominatrix sex because we saw a photo once.

I'm not going to go into the semantics of defining what is considered "shocking". I'm kindof disappointed that you did. The comparison to the f bomb being dropped on TV isn't a good one really since most people can agree that it isn't a good thing that we have lowered our societal standards to that degree.

There's not a whole lot I haven't seen at this point in my life but I'd still find it rather distasteful to act out dominatrix sex in a public parade unless it's something more along the lines of a Mardi Gras parade. Maybe that's where I've got the wrong impression. I was thinking the parades were more about education, equal rights, etc. If you had said it was about cutting loose and having some fun that would make sense to me.

I don't exactly buy that most of those folks are being their "normal selves" even if society pressure weren't on them normally. What turns us on doesn't make us who we are anyhow.

I hope I don't offend you - I just tend to pick apart things I'm not totally familiar with. Maybe it's just one of those I'll have to experience for myself lol.

I'm not going to go into the semantics of defining what is considered "shocking". I'm kindof disappointed that you did.

Why? It's relevant to the question you asked. The people you think are trying to shock people, aren't. Nor do they find themselves "shocking". Again, it's all relative. Don't know how else that can be stated.

I was thinking the parades were more about education, equal rights, etc

The parades are about civil rights AND cutting loose and having some fun. Why does it have to be an either/or choice in your mind? Should we ban the Disney people from putting on a dance routine because it isn't political in nature???

I don't exactly buy that most of those folks are being their "normal selves"

Weather you buy it or not, does not change the reality of the situation. You asked for an explanation, it was explained, and you dismissed it.

What turns us on doesn't make us who we are anyhow.

All of it, no. But it certainly is a HUGE part of a persons life. Who you are turned on by is who you will most likely marry (if you are doing it right). Songs are written about what turns people on or what they are attracted to. Little girls put posters on their walls of boys they find "cute". Sexuality is probably the biggest factor in a persons life. A WHOLE lot of time is spent on it. Finding that person. Planning that wedding. Writing those songs, and those books about princes getting their princesses. Think about how much sexuality plays a part in a humans life. Really really think about it.

Why? It's relevant to the question you asked. The people you think are trying to shock people, aren't. Nor do they find themselves "shocking". Again, it's all relative. Don't know how else that can be stated.

Because I was hoping you wouldn't use semantics to pretend you didn't understand what I was talking about. I was hoping for honest discussion without the word games. They're such a waste of time. I realize that in some areas the "anything goes" mentality is more prevalent than others but I don't think it's gone so far that simulating bdsm in a public parade in broad daylight is considered "normal".

The parades are about civil rights AND cutting loose and having some fun. Why does it have to be an either/or choice in your mind? Should we ban the Disney people from putting on a dance routine because it isn't political in nature???

Because the fight for civil rights is a serious issue and from what I've read and seen the parades are far from anything commanding respect or seriousness. Some of the participants were doing their level best to reinforce all of the negative stereotypes and myths. Some of the interviews and even comments from viners confirmed they did a good job of alienating themselves from would-be supporters. What I'm trying to understand is why they would purposely do that. I could see someone showing up to support gay rights and walking away disgusted and rethinking their position. I remember a few viners posts who reflected just that.

Weather you buy it or not, does not change the reality of the situation. You asked for an explanation, it was explained, and you dismissed it.

Perhaps I'm not buying it because I know from the interviews and reports that some were indeed going for the best shock effect they could get. That's not "being themselves". Some of the people I'm sure were just being themselves, and having fun. Acting out kinky sex fantasies in a public parade doesn't exactly fall in that category. And really they dress in outrageously skimpy underwear every day? To go grocery shopping? To the mall? Well...okay...maybe in Walmart ;)

Think about how much sexuality plays a part in a humans life. Really really think about it.

Of course it is a big part of our life. No argument there. What we like in our bedroom is not who we are though. Rolling down the street acting out a sex fantasy and saying "this is who I am" is sad. They are so much more than that. There are people who already only "see" that stuff when they think of homosexuals and what they really need to see is that they are so much more than that.

Because the fight for civil rights is a serious issue and from what I've read and seen the parades are far from anything commanding respect or seriousness.

Pride parades are a commemoration of the riots at Stonewall, where gays were targeted and harassed/arrested simply for being themselves, which is a very serious issue. It is understandable that some of the significance is loss on some of the younger parade attendees and it is more of a modern pride celebration, but does not negate the severity of the event it is representing.

Organizers aren't going to regulate how people want to portray themselves at these events because it's about being who they are, which is the basis commemorating the event at Stonewall. Sure, people will take a few liberties of the event, but it shouldn't matter how a few dress at the event and rather the point being made; that people should not be targeted based on their sexuality (however they choose to display it).

I think, the point Greg&Jeff are trying to make about the semantics of "shock value" is that people are being themselves at these events and it isn't shocking to them and many around them, but rather they are attending in a manner that they are comfortable with and see themselves as, which others may find shocking when they themselves do not. Therefore, the point of the parade being for classified as an "in your face shock fest" is a relative observation as those there are just being themselves.

In my googling I read a bit about the riots at Stonewall and learned something new so the discussion has taught me something at least :) I guess I'm just thinking of this from the view if I had a 14 year old who heard about the parade and wanted to go to show support I would have to say no because of the "over-the-top" stuff in the parade and because I wouldn't want my kid getting the impression that kinky sex is all that being gay is or that she should stake her identity on sex games and fetishes. She would be selling herself seriously short. I would also really rather her view gays as just fellow human beings and not be concerned about what goes on behind others' closed doors - gay or not.

Because I was hoping you wouldn't use semantics to pretend you didn't understand what I was talking about. I was hoping for honest discussion without the word games.

Pretend we don't understand? WTF? Seriously...not sure how much more honest we can be here. We have told you like it is. You have continued to reject it preferring to answer the question yourself apparently with your preconceived answer. So it sounds like rather then looking for discussion, you were looking for confirmation of something you already came to a conclusion on.

but I don't think it's gone so far that simulating bdsm in a public parade in broad daylight is considered "normal".

How is it that you missed it....THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!! Did you not see the part in our earlier post? Here it is again: "Society expects people to bottle themselves up and conform conform conform on a daily basis as it is. It's not really much to let people be themselves for ONE day a year."

And really they dress in outrageously skimpy underwear every day? To go grocery shopping? To the mall?

The parade is an event with performances, not a trip to the grocery store. You don't see people riding ponies in the grocery store either, or clowns. Or any of the stuff you might see in the Doo Dah parade. (Except maybe people pushing shopping carts still!). You are still missing the point. The parades are not some somber occasion protesting our civil rights. They are a multitude of things.....performance art, show, party, celebration, advertisement for local businesses, advertisements for local clubs like scuba or square dancing, and yes in that all is some political stuff as well. Including some people campaigning for office.

Additionally, the parades reflect the area in which they take place. San Francisco has a much different event then say, somewhere in the midwest would. It's all relative.

I could see someone showing up to support gay rights and walking away disgusted and rethinking their position. I remember a few viners posts who reflected just that.

Because of some people? They turn their back on an entire group? Then they weren't really with us to begin with, now were they.

If I had a 14 year old who heard about the parade and wanted to go to show support I would have to say no because of the "over-the-top" stuff in the parade and because I wouldn't want my kid getting the impression that kinky sex is all that being gay is

Why would she get that impression? Why would anyone get that impression? You see 10 people, do you base your feelings towards the other 9 based on what one of them does? If so, then it perhaps says more about you and what you choose to focus on, then what the other people are doing.

Pretend we don't understand? Actually I was giving you the benefit of the doubt there. Quick rundown - I bring up those who stated they were going for the most shock value they could get. Your original response was along the lines of ohh well it's all subjective and what is "shocking" really, and that's not their purpose really, just being themselves. In retrospect maybe you missed that I was actually repeating what some of the participants stated their whole purpose was and assumed that I was the one inserting that into the discussion?

Why would she get that impression? Why would anyone get that impression? You see 10 people, do you base your feelings towards the other 9 based on what one of them does? If so, then it perhaps says more about you and what you choose to focus on, then what the other people are doing.

Lol have you never seen any of the coverage, pics, stories, interviews, etc surrounding some of the events?

@ Jme....

I think, the point Greg&Jeff are trying to make about the semantics of "shock value" is that people are being themselves at these events and it isn't shocking to them and many around them, but rather they are attending in a manner that they are comfortable with and see themselves as, which others may find shocking when they themselves do not. Therefore, the point of the parade being for classified as an "in your face shock fest" is a relative observation as those there are just being themselves.

Thank you Jme. :) I was just getting a bit frustrated because I don't really consider it "semantics" when a person specifically says that they are going for the biggest shock value they can get. Kinda like me saying I'm going to be a wild woman tonight, you repeating that I was intending to act wild, and someone else saying "Well you can't really say she was intending to act wild because what is defined as wild is subjective". My response would be well yes you can actually say that because I declared that it was my intent. Subjectivity in such a case is irrelevant.

I guess my only remaining questions are - Are the more "extreme" folks a very small percentage of the parade and just the ones who get the most press? Also, that for the one who does a mock performance of bdsm in the parade - that is who they are? That is what they want to be defined by? That's fine if they enjoy and are comfortable with bdsm, but what I'm not getting is why anyone would want themselves to be defined by a sex act?

I guess my only remaining questions are - Are the more "extreme" folks a very small percentage of the parade and just the ones who get the most press? Also, that for the one who does a mock performance of bdsm in the parade - that is who they are? That is what they want to be defined by? That's fine if they enjoy and are comfortable with bdsm, but what I'm not getting is why anyone would want themselves to be defined by a sex act?

I'd have to say yes to your question of extreme individuals getting more press. Sex, violence, shock sells. The cute little couple dressed in normal everyday clothes standing around drinking coffee or walking and conversing without doing anything in particular is "boring" news. It's normal, news doesn't fly off the shelf if it's normal.

For BDSM, honestly, for some that is their normal lifestyle. I know of people, who put on a suit and go to work - looking normal like any other person, BUT the second they are on their own time, at home, in their neighborhood, they are a completely different person - they are encompassed by their lifestyle, whether it's athletics, hobo attire, leathers, bikers, submissive. They are defined by it, yes, as they are too defined by their suit or uniform or costume that they wear for work. If they aren't ashamed of who they are comfortable as they should be fine being defined by what is their life. For many people, sex isn't a hush hush or secret in their life, not ashamed of the intimate details as it's just another thing that makes of their day. It is unconventional in our society for someone to not be ashamed or overly private about their sex life, but people do live that openly and there are groups that are based on that openness, which as adults they shouldn't have to hide it if it harms no one.

Jme, I see your point. It's not so unusual for people to define themselves by their hobbies or interests. I'm the type who sees what goes on in my bedroom as my business and am not particularly interested in what others are doing as well whether it's sexual orientation or merely sexual preferences. If I'm not sleeping with you I don't care unless we're exchanging ideas (smiles).

I find flaunting it graphically in public to be pretty distasteful but that's my personal opinion which we're all entitled to. For me it's not about shame or embarrassment. It's simply a personal part of my life and like spirituality I don't see the point of broadcasting it. If I like chains and whips I don't expect others to like it, embrace it, or even condone it and wouldn't see the point of putting it out there and expecting others to "accept it".

That is just speaking of preferences though. I don't see homosexuality as a "preference". I believe one is born with their sexual orientation. I prefer people's sex lives to be their own business but I guess as long as there is a fight for rights, by the very nature of the fight, that isn't really possible. It is a public matter by necessity.

Thank you for insight and for your directness. I'm the type to just go right to the heart of things and consider anything less pretty much a waste of time. I do tend to keep digging and asking questions until I "get it" and unfortunately can be a pain in the rear in that respect at times. I always appreciate it when I can bug someone who has the patience to hang in there :)

Actually I was giving you the benefit of the doubt there. Quick rundown - I bring up those who stated they were going for the most shock value they could get. Your original response was along the lines of ohh well it's all subjective and what is "shocking" really, and that's not their purpose really, just being themselves. In retrospect maybe you missed that I was actually repeating what some of the participants stated their whole purpose was

Sorry. We aren't mind readers. Can't miss something that was never posted to start with. Let's rewind. Here is your original statement on this subject:

From 6.38 "There seemed to be a lot of people in the parade that were going for the most shock effect they could get. What are your thoughts on it?"

Nowhere in that post is something that has the word "stated" in it. Nowhere in that post does it indicate you were watching interviews with participants saying they wanted to shock someone and that were their exact words. So the original response you got from us which you are now criticizing was based on the original post from you!!!

Now, it's hard to comment on what you saw without having seen it ourselves, but if someone said they were there to shock people, not sure what to make of that. Crazy maybe? It's certainly something that neither of us have EVER heard from anyone and that's after decades of experience with these pride events. We are now curious. Where was this pride event that you saw people interviewed saying that?

Lol have you never seen any of the coverage, pics, stories, interviews, etc surrounding some of the events?

This is a non-answer to a serious question posed to you. Why would you, your daughter, or anyone else for that matter, focus on 10% of the parade and not the 90% that are just dressed in jeans and a t-shirt? When we think back on one of the parades, we tend to remember all sorts of things in it, not just a few. To listen to your recollection, you would think that there were ONLY go go boys on floats. And that's not the case at all. Not by a long shot.

Are the more "extreme" folks a very small percentage of the parade and just the ones who get the most press

Ah...perhaps now we see the problem. You are basing your entire view of a parade based off of a news report that showed drag queens and go go boys. The answer to your question is yes. And again, we'd echo our comments earlier that what you see in a parade is largely geographical in nature. Again, what you would see in say Kansas, is not what you would see in NYC or San Francisco. Further, what you see covered by one news station is not what you would see covered by another. Some are more sensationalistic then others.

Greg&Jeff, I tried going back in my vine history to find it but gave up after a while. It was California but don't remember which city. Your point about them being geographical in nature just makes me grin :) Lol! I'm thinking hold an encore performance of a California parade in MS with Constance as the guest of honor. Think ornery and you'll get why I'm grinning. Not realistically though...people in her town probably wouldn't be very nice.

This is a non-answer to a serious question posed to you. Why would you, your daughter, or anyone else for that matter, focus on 10% of the parade and not the 90% that are just dressed in jeans and a t-shirt? When we think back on one of the parades, we tend to remember all sorts of things in it, not just a few. To listen to your recollection, you would think that there were ONLY go go boys on floats. And that's not the case at all. Not by a long shot.

Okay. So I just need to see it for myself then. And I would before I would let my daughter attend but don't think that's so unreasonable. Are there web sites you would suggest that would give more balanced info/reporting on the parades?

Thanks for hanging in there btw :)

I do tend to keep digging and asking questions until I "get it" and unfortunately can be a pain in the rear in that respect at times. I always appreciate it when I can bug someone who has the patience to hang in there :)

No problem at all, I'm exactly the same way. I recently gave up on a conversation with someone because they belittled my attempt to understand based on the fact that I asked so many questions. I do enjoy conversing with you as we don't view most topics the same way, but still can find understanding. I thank you for this.

Lol now I see why you understand and helped me out! :) Kindred spirits in respect to asking questions. No thanks needed - I'm always happy when I can find those with differing viewpoints I can have good discussion with. If I wanted to hear my own viewpoint I'd head for the nearest mirror. But I wouldn't learn anything that way. I've learned a ton from talking about things with people on the vine and can see a difference in the way I approach a lot of things.

Are there web sites you would suggest that would give more balanced info/reporting on the parades?

Here's some for you to check out:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-orlando-gay-pride-parade-coming-out-photos,0,2812782.photogallery

http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/social-issues/minority-groups/gays-lesbians/gay-pride-chicago-EVFES00003262.phototopic

http://www.associatedcontent.com/video/46189/raw_video_gay_pride_parade.html?cat=64

This last one is pretty good. You'll need 24 minutes to watch it though. From drag to jeans, kids, to adults, politicians to famous actors, it shows it all. It was from 2008 so pre-prop 8.

Greg&Jeff

Thanks for that video. I watched most of it, kind of skipped a little in the middle. Reminded me of what I dislike about parades - too much car honking and not enough band and music playing. I haven't been to any type of parade in years.

The outlandish party outfits worn by some are what you could see people (gay or straight) wearing at raves or concerts - I miss those outifts, so much fun. Loved the girl wearing what looked like a huge plant on her head that was just craziness. OH and GEORGE TAKEI!!!! Loved the interview at the end with his now husband.

Grrrr...this computer can't handle the video. I'll have to wait and pull it up at home. Thanks Greg&Jeff for the links. I did at least manage to pull up the pics from Orlando and Chicago. In the Orlando pics, the ones of the photos of people murdered was sad and imo a really good thing to have in the parade.

The coverage from your links - mucho better! Imagine that - they're nowhere close to the other info that was on the vine a while back. I stand enlightened which was the goal :) Looking forward to watching the video!

You're welcome. Glad they show something you hadn't seen before. All three links were interesting in their own way. It was nice even for us to see some events we didn't get to see personally.

Well.. marriage is a contract that imbues on individuals who enter into it a host of rights granted by the government including all sorts of handy things like inheritance rights, medical rights, childcare rights, etc. Some legal framework obviously needs to exist to dictate property rights between monogamous life-mates.

so lisa, you're against civil marriage for everyone by the sound of it. but that's not really the issue. civil marriages will continue far beyond the forseeable future. gays just want the same rights that straight people have. nothing more. nothing less.

I think of marriage as something between two people and god not two people and the government...

And yet all a couple needs to be married in the United States is a legal document with the signatures of a government official and a few witnesses, leaving religion entirely out of the equation if it so chooses.

To be married, the legal documents are necessary and sufficient. A religious ceremony is neither necessary nor sufficient.

In response to your number 11, homosexual couples can take as much legal action as the law will allow them, and yet without a marriage certificate any other legal effort can be challenged and, in some cases, ignored.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of homosexual couples with medical documentations who were not allowed to see each other in the hospital. Who adopted a child together, later to break up, with one partner disappearing with the child, and the other partner SOL.

You can pretend that there are already legal means to circumvent these inequalities, thus making opposing homosexual marriage justified since homosexuals seem to be able to obtain some of the rights of a married couple, but the truth is that without a marriage certificate, the quality and quantity of these rights remains entirely unequal.

As long as marriage is overseen by the government, it is unjust to provide this to heterosexuals but not to homosexuals. Now, if you advocate for the government removing itself from marriage for all couples - as it seems you do - that's another thing. But until that day happens, it's self-serving to decry homosexual marriage based on "government's involvement" while heterosexual couples can take full advantage of all the benefits the government affords you when you are married.

That was awesome Syntactic..

What really blows me away is that gays want government involment in their relationships by approving marriage between them. Why would even straight people want the government involved in their relationships?

Simply put because marriage is a form of contract law. A state of marriage grants legal rights and defines privileges. Allowing this to some people but not others is discriminatory and a civil rights issue. It's no different than not allowing someone to, say, buy a house because of their skin color.

Within certain religious traditions marriage between two men or two women is inappropriate, but applying that religious tradition to legal definition is more inappropriate. And that's the rub. Marriage as a legal contract has been inappropriately codified as having a religious element; the damage has been done.

I think of marriage as something between two people and god not two people and the government...

That's your subjective definition. I myself an heterosexual and married. But I'm an atheist, which makes your definition invalid as far as the 'god' part is concerned, an example of why framing laws in a religious context is such a sticky topic.

And because the secular definition of marriage is already defined by and associated with non-secular thought we need to redefine it as a purely legal contract... for everybody. Let people apply their own religious elements to their own marriages if they wish, but not at the expense of others' rights.

What the opposers to same-sex, I prefer same-gender or simply gay, marriage cannot seem to do is differentiate between marriage, the legal aspect, from matrimony, the religious aspect. To them marriage and matrimony are the exact same thing.

LISAFREQ: We don't seek government involvement in our relationships, we seek the governments protection of our rights just as single, straight, balck, white, disabled and the rest of Americans do!

P.S. all heterosexual marriages have government involvement, it extends to taxes, estates, etc, do a little homework!

The FMLA is state interpreted so it depends on what state you live in as to whether or not they give leave for it, that said the state can say no but your employer MAY ignore the state and grant it, again it varies. Isn't it great that we have a federal law that is supposed to give us the ability to take care of our loved ones when they need us, yet for some, it is not available! Yeah that sounds fair! G.D. Bigots!

So the gay couples should pay in to support the benefits of straight couples...but should never see any of those benefits themselves. That doesn't seem very fair.

Andrew

My point was only that their are a lot of financial complexities that are yet to be understood how they might work out in real life. With the new health plan, I don't know how it will work out, but I know when I had total care of my parents, I could not be added on to their insurance, so I went without health care for 10 years. The only thing I did not do for them that a partner would do is--to have sex with them. What we mean by family and partnerships etc. are possibly changing now, and it just seems like there is a need to maybe redefine some things in our present society.

Commoner your statement doesnt make any sense, exactly how different would it be if each gay person in that potential couple were to marry one of the opposite sex?

It doesnt matter if two straight people get married or two gay couples get married your 1500 govt benefits woudl apply the same way to each married couple.
There would be no additional costs, the govt cost of marriage would be the same for both the Gay couple and the hetero couple.
I am still not getting your point as there would be no difference in the cost of benefits either married group would be getting

Actually.....

If you look at the differences in a single person's tax return vs a similar tax return of a married couple, you can see significant differences. The threshholds for credits for families with dependent children are different. The phase-out limits are different. Loads of differences in S v MFJ with regards to potential tax consequences. The AMT exemption changes when married. The Retirement Savings Contribution credit changes when married. And that is just the beginning.

There are many different ways that a family's estate can be greatly affected by their filing status, from the time of union through their time of death.

When the government started giving benefits for being married they by default put the institution under the scrutiny of the 14th amendment ,hence the inevitable and correct ruling in the case of Loving vs. Virginia in regards to miscegenation laws.

My point was only that their are a lot of financial complexities that are yet to be understood how they might work out in real life.

It doesn't matter if there are "complexities" or not. It's a matter of discrimination and equality. Either everyone in this country is equal, or we have social class system much as the kings did with serfs and pheasants. So which is it going to be?

Over a thousand rights and benefits garnered on married couples. Just citing your examples, adoption and estate law. A marriage certificate will cost you under $100 bucks, legal fees for adoption can be in the tens of thousands. Obviously not being able to be married can be a significant financial burden.

We obviously need marriage for property rights management at the very least, and the secular government should absolutely not be discriminating against homosexual couples when it comes to distributing those rights and privileges.

Lisa,

Couple of item... first off you link is just another one of those slippery slope arguments and has no basis in fact.

Second thing is yes gays can and do use legal documents to try and protect our love ones but unlike a marriage license, people do contest these and even sometimes win them thus negating the purpose of going through it.

As for adoptions/foster care, some states actively ban gays and lesbians from being adoptive or foster parents because its better to have a child unloved in an institution and with a loving gay or lesbian person. Have to "protect the children".

You seem to think that government has no right in the marriage business but unlike the gays you have the option to take advantage of it if you so choose.

In closing, I guess I find it hard to believe you have gay friends because a friend would not advocate second class citizenship for the "friend" just so they can feel "normal". Guess what we are normal.

Can a gay person not make a will and leave their estate to whom ever they wish? I declare the government will never have your best interest in mind. Because you are human beings you have rights in America. Making marriage a contract with the government just seems to be so dumb as all get out.

Andrew's point is valid. And with all due respect, you have a somewhat naive understanding of contract and inheritance law.

First off, one does not make a marriage contract with the government. They make it with another person. The role of government is to legally define the framework of that arrangement (and for the record, in a representative Democracy, it's worth pointing out that you are the government). Regardless, entering into that contract binds two people legally in a state that will define rights and responsibilities and that supersedes other legal assumptions of rights and responsibilities.

And without the definition of rights, even a will is a dicey proposition. Sure, Bill Gates could write his will to leave his entire fortune to, say, me (Really! He could!). However, that does not mean his children could not challenge that will. And, frankly, they would probably win because they are his descendants, whereas legally I am just some schmo with no claim to his estate. However, if Gates left everything to his wife, his children would likely be out of luck (see Marshall v. Marshall -- i.e., the Anna Nicole Smith case -- as an example).

Lisa, You make comments like 'Why can't this or that law be changed?' or 'they can get legal documents to protect?'

Here's what I believe (I'm not gay) most gays are talking about when they mention all they want is the same rights as others. To put it simply, did you have to get legal documents or have laws changed to protect your rights? No, because when you got that one little piece of paper, called a marriage certificate, it gave you all those rights without having to get laws changed or pay for legal documentation.

Why should thousands of laws be changed and gays have to protect themselves through legal documentation when one legal document (marriage certificate) will give them all of this?

A gay couple can legally get many of the rights granted by marriage through other types of legal documents but no where near the 1400 + rights a single marriage license grants by default.

There is no legal document that a gay couple could get that would exempt them form testifing against their partner in the court of law that a marriage liscense by default grants.

Depending on the adoption in a particular state, partners may not be able to legally adopt the children of their partner thus loose custody to the biological family if the partner should die and wills stating a wish for the child to continued to be raised by the partner have been successfully challenged in the court of law.

There have been cases where a partner was not allowed in the hospital room of their dying partner even though they had power of attorney simply because the biological family told the hospital to not let them in.

These are just a few examples of marriage rights that cannot be gained by other means or are sometimes successfully challenged by biological family members.

Lisafrequency

This is an old argument, but since you appear to know little about how rights are involved, imagine this reinforcement of Just an Observation-826313's post above:

A 20 year-old man tells his parents he's gay. His parents, horrified about where they went wrong, virtually disown their son. He moves in with the person he loves; his soul-mate, if you will.

He and his partner live their lives happily together for 20 years. His parents haven't spoken to him in those 20 years. Suddenly, he is involved in a traffic accident. He is taken to the hospital and placed in ICU. He is unconscious and therefore unable to make any decisions on his treatment.

A nurse knows him and his family from years back and calls his parents. Knowing he has made himself a comfortable living, and at 40 he may not have a will, they come to his bedside.

Now guess who is allowed to make the medical decisions for him? His partner of the last 20 years? No. He can't even visit him in ICU and hold his hand. The two people that shut him out of their lives for 20 years are the only ones legally allowed to visit and make crucial decisions for this man.

Now can provisions have been made beforehand? Yes. But why should someone have to make special provision after special provision after special provision when they would have it all from a simple marriage license and ceremony?

And your post below makes no sense:

I don't mean to sound harsh but I see a lot of gay relationships end rather badly I would hate to see these battles in divorce court.

Do you think that a homosexual relationship breaking up is harder than a heterosexual breakup? I see bad heterosexual breakups almost every day. That's no argument at all.

Unlike the majority of heterosexual relationships which end in rainbows and roses? As a serial heterosexual dater I wouldn't want to compare any of my trainwreck relationships to that of my friends Terry and Cathy who've been in a committed lesbian relationship since I was in diapers.

A lot of heterosexual relationships end badly, too. The thing is the contract exists to provide an outline for handling the forming and when necessary the dissolution of a family relationship. The existence of the contract provides a framework that protects intentionally formed family units from interference by others, and one that makes the courts job a little easier if it becomes necessary to dissolve the union. There seems to be no legitimate legal reason to deny access to the contract to same sex partners, imo.

Lisa,

It may be hard to comprehend, but divorce is actually another argument for allowing gay marriage.

A divorce proceeding determines custody rights, visitation rights, equatable division of assets, and who gets the pet hamster. Without it the partner that put his/her name on everything could take everything and literally kick the other out of the house with nothing but the clothes on their back and there would be little this person could legally do to try to recover some of what he/she had contributed in building the household.

I see a lot of gay relationships end rather badly I would hate to see these battles in divorce court.

That's not entirely a bad thing. The reality is that homosexuals enter committed relationships. The reality is that some of these relationships survive, some don't - no different than heterosexual relationships.

The difference is that heterosexuals have divorce proceedings to handle how assets are divided, custody, etc. Homosexuals do not.

Well, as comedians are wont to point out, same sex marriage should be legal, so gays can be as miserable as the rest of us. Anyway, the issue is simple access to a legal contract, so I hope they get it, too. It won't fix relationship issues in general for gays or straights, but it does tend to make things easier from a legal stand point.

I'd more agree if you'd said "heteros get divorced" as how can one know it's miserable without getting married first. But that aside, I understood the point, if gays want to suffer through marriage as heteros do, all for them, just don't complain when it sucks. (I'm not against marriage at all, but heard the joke at some point in my life and it's stuck with me.)

hope you guys get what you want and I hope it doesn't make you miserable. There is a reason many herteros don't get married...

YOU sound pretty miserable yourself. Perhaps you have had unhappy relationships (who hasn't?!!) but that doesn't mean you can't find someone out there to settle down with and be happy.

Although gay couples can't procreate together, they still do maintain the organs (if they are fertile) to procreate and as many do wish to have families with their partners can still populate the world. Thankfully, they would have to plan and wouldn't result in accidental pregnancies, which these days are some what of a problem and strain society, if the parents aren't able to support their accidental pregnancy.

Therefore, to say they wouldn't be able to procreate is a bit of a lie, it just takes a little more thought and planning than most heterosexual couples. Certainly isn't a bad thing at all with the over-population of the world as it is.

how many gay friends have you had? how close were you to them?

In my opinion being gay is a form of mental retardation. The friends I have had in the past that are gay have been emotional space cadet's knowing in their heart that what they were acting on is wrong but still giving into the desires of it. Man and Man cannot pro-create and fill they earth and woman and woman cannot either. Male and female together are natural in my eyes and heart and I think gay people need help.

Ahhh - one has arrived. Religious bible thumping but no Leviticus spouting? Hmmm - you are off your game.

MENTAL RETARDATION???????? Are you @!$%#ing serious????? WOW!!! That takes the cake! SJ - you show great restraint in the face of raccoon @!$%# crazy. I applaud you. To grenade troll a whole segment of our population as mentally retarded is about the most despicable comment I have seen in a long time. And based upon what??? "The friends that I have had in the past that are gay" There's some real solid evidence for ya!

Hey nonAngel. Did you tell them to their face - these gays friends of yours you allegedly had - did you tell them to their face that you thought they were mentally retarded? How long after that did the friendship last?

Couldn't agree more Angels, which is why for years I've been petitioning congress to immediately dissolve all marriages once a woman shows the first signs of menopause, since she obviously can't procreate after that point and the man who can should be able to move on and find a younger fertile mate and continue making little babies for Gaaawd.

Give me a break. Gays are easily as smart as heterosexuals, and their ability to procreate should have no bearing on whether they can enter into a property rights contract sanctioned by the government, aka marriage.

In my opinion being gay is a form of mental retardation.

Some of the greatest thinkers, artists, scientists, musicians, and even military minds that have ever graced this earth have been homosexuals. You may want to rethink this blanket statement.

Angels...that is what you call a friendship? You label them as mentally retarded because you feel what they do in their bedroom is wrong? Does that also apply to anyone who does anything other than missionary position retarded? Adulterers?

@ Jme re 14.2 When I read your post I had a thought...going off of your comments about no unplanned pregnancies...what if homosexuality is God's way of correcting the problem that heteros have created? What if on down the line we evolve into a predominantly homosexual population? That would help with the overpopulation problem, abortion rates, unwanted children, orphanages, etc etc etc. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony if homosexuality in humans were just God's way of correcting a "mistake"?

Oh I know I'll get kicked for that by someone LOL. Especially considering I'm Baptist. ;) I giggle because I know that's going to get someone irritated, but in seriousness...who is to say that it isn't true?

Justme

Ha, didn't take my thought that far, but it would be interesting. And yes, beware you may get a tongue lashing here for that comment. haha.

It's an interesting thought isn't it? Yeah, I'm sure someone will eventually blast but such is life. Some people like me, some don't. I do so it's all good :) I'd be curious to hear Lyamhound's take on that theory. Hopefully he'll drop in.

Cool stuff SJ! Thanks for the link. Welcome to the vine btw....you sure know how to come in with a big splash don't you!?

Going with that theory though, one could propose that homosexuality is a natural process of balancing things out. It would be fairly safe to say that we are not in balance with nature considering how we gobble up resources and trash the environment.

There are tons of tolerant people on here but as you said the haters tend to be more vocal. If you look past them you'll find some really cool people. I've seen articles where even the most conservative person has applauded someone on a subject they are strongly against.

There are tons of tolerant people on here but as you said the haters tend to be more vocal

There was one person that was very vocally against any homosexual, won't name names, and said some very inflammatory things. Through conversation on newsvine this person eventually admitted to being sexualy attacked, raped, as an adult by someone of the same sex. The pro-homosexual community on newsvine rallied around this person and offered their support immediately dismissing the past hurtful things the person said. Many befreinded this person.

My point, sometimes their are valid reasons these vocal people are so vocal and so hateful. Just try to keep that in mind when trying to deal with them.

Just, You have a really good point. I know I lose sight of that sometimes despite my best intentions. I'm sure we all can when we sometimes see an especially offensive and outrageous comment. I do usually try to find out where the other person is coming from for the very reason you point out. Thanks for the reminder :)

"In my opinion being gay is a form of mental retardation." ( Angels01).

I wonder if the Gays would come under the Americans with Disabilities Act ? because you think there all retarded ! foolish child !

Angels, that's just creepy. That also has nothing to do with learning difficulties. It just sounds like you were in with the wrong crowd. I've been friends with a lot of gay people and never had that issue. I have though had problems with my hetero female friends trying like hell to get into my man's pants. That makes them whores but again, has nothing to do with learning disabilities, i.e. mental retardation.

"Bed my husband", do you actually speak like this?

Anyway, your former gay friends sound like backstabbing women, which everyone has encountered, simply sounds like you need to be able to better choose your friends. It is not solid evidence that all gays are manipulative, just that people are manipulative and deceitful, but we all knew this already.

Your experiences does give good explanation to your aversion to gays, but labeling them mentally retarded is a bit of a stretch and lies in basis beyond just your former friends behaviors. You simply had bad experiences as we all have with selfish people, but should not lead you to label all as bad; stereotyping is bad.

You should hear how they talk about me I was told I need to go to "rent a brain" because of someone disagreeing with what I said. There are a lot of people who just can't accept someone who is not just like them.

First there was this

I am just not so sure that marriage is the best route to take.

I don't mean to sound harsh but I see a lot of gay relationships end rather badly I would hate to see these battles in divorce court.

Then there was this

You should hear how they talk about me I was told I need to go to "rent a brain" because of someone disagreeing with what I said.

This goes well beyond "disagreeing with what I said." For heaven's sakes, you are trying to limit what their rights should be because you think you would "hate to see these battle's in divorce court?"

You do need to "rent a brain" if you think that holding these positions and verbalizing them to gays will results in anything other than people thinking you need to "Rent a brain." Do you hold the same position for heterosexual couples? Hell over 50% of them end in divorce. Do you think marriage isn't the best choice for them since you don't want them to see them end up ion divorce court? WTF???

Do you hold the same position for heterosexual couples?

Yes!! I do not see that offical marriage makes these people any happier or more secure in their relationships.

Yes!! I do not see that offical marriage makes these people any happier or more secure in their relationships.

Because you don't think they'll be happy, they should try if they want to?

Yes!! I do not see that offical marriage makes these people any happier or more secure in their relationships.

So let me get this straight - you're anti-marriage and want to dictate what people should and should not do with their lives because of what you think is best for them? I see, it is much more clear now. I suppose we should have laws and @!$%#s that prevent that kind of behavior? You a conservative by the way? Probably against bigger government except when t comes to controlling people's personal lives. It would make some sort of sick sense.

I did not say anything about dictating anyone. I am only speaking from the prespective of someone who has been married twice.

I believe marriage puts the government more in control of your life. I don't think the government should have any involvment in someone's personal life which is why I am against government sanctioned marriage. The government ain't my daddy.

I think of marriage as a spiritual happening rather than a government contract. In spiritual terms when you have sex with someone you are joined by the spirit which is what I believe marriage is no matter what the government or the church calls it.

I did not say anything about dictating anyone. I am only speaking from the prespective of someone who has been married twice.

But just because it didn't work out for you, doesn't mean that marriages can't work out just fine for others. That's a ridiculous reason to withhold them from another group. It's like saying because you can't drive, no one should. Or because tomatoes make you sick no one should eat them. It's silly.

I believe marriage puts the government more in control of your life.

HOW?

Government only gets involved to make sure you aren't marrying your brother at the beginning and helps sort things out at the end (death or divorce). That's not unreasonable.

(Angels01):, "The gay "use to be" friends I had all tried to bed my husband, "all" thought, once they met him is was either a drink away or they could get him to spill his seed in one of their butt's." Unquote. That being said,Angel. I'm not going to or about to give you a tongue lashing. (Although at first I thought you needed one ! ). So I shall refrain from such.

But I do think you should reevaluate your circle of friends. In addition to that, heterosexuals do the same thing with other husbands & wives in a straight relationship as well. ( it's nothing new). As I stated in an earlier seed, I've been on both sides of the fence,in my life. That does not make me a professional in relationships,it just means I'm smart enough to know who to trust and who not to. As far as the statement retarded, (very BAD choice of words) My Dear ! You stated: " I only had 4 gay friends throughout my life". It is not many by any means. Judging all gays by only 4 people in your life, is not good math my dear. I have many,many gay friends and they are not at all like you described. They would not think twice about going to bed with a straight person spouse,(in my opinion). I have straight friends that have actually said, they would " nail " Her, in a minute if they could ! ( I was appalled !! at such a statement) So much for respect ! toward another persons wife? I'm sure you understand what I'm saying here.

The 4 (use to be ) friends have no respect for you or your husband. You can't pick your Parents.... but you can pick your friends ! Follow your Heart...,It will tell you what to do.

It is not that you have an aversion to gays as your experience with them would definitely not leave a good taste in one's mouth, but you called them mentally retarded - that is the problem people are having with your opinion and suspecting you are a troll.

You should have learned more so from your experiences making friends at night clubs isn't the best place to do so and anyone met at a night club is more than likely after your husband or you no matter gay, straight, male or female.

anyone met at a night club is more than likely after your husband or you no matter gay, straight, male or female.

or shemale ...

8^)

RAC 0129

Ah and I thought I covered all my bases. =P

Off-topic: Why is it a shemale though? Couldn't it be mangirl? It's my same issue with spork, I call it a foon! =) Totally off-topic and not a serious question by all means. Ha. Just thinking aloud, so to speak.

The one's I had become friends with were trying to steal my husband and made horrible comments while at dance clubs and dinner parties about straight men that they wanted to convert and get to swing the other way.

If you feel threatened by gays, you need to have more confidence in YOURSELF. If your man is really straight, there isn't anything to worry about now is there? He's not going to leave you for another man. So who cares what some off color commentary is. Straight men do it all the time. It's just men being men. And you never mention women. You do realize that they make up at least half of the homosexual population too, right? Do you feel threatened by them as well?

( RAC 0129 & JmetheSad ): " or shemale ..." & " Off-topic: Why is it a shemale though? Couldn't it be mangirl?"

Just to let you gentlemen know, I take offence to such a word ! It is known as Transsexual. Far more complicated than you realize,or your intellect displays on the knowledge of people such as myself. Would you call a Black person, " a Niger " to there face? or a person in a wheel chair, "a cripple" to there face?

I would think you would have better Class, than that,or perhaps a higher caliber than that of which you two have displayed !

LindaMarie2

My apologizes for being seemingly insulting towards yourself and other transsexuals, but my comments were off-color commentary pretty inconsistent with the rest of my behavior here and I should have maintained my better manners. Although I do have to say I was not referring to transsexuals at all, but hermaphodites - with male and female parts, which I know transsexuals are not.

I understand you mistook my statement as something to be insulting toward you, but that was not my intention nor stated in actuality. Again my apologize you took offense to it, but please don't insult my intellect purely on one comment as if you scroll through my history, I'm considerably cordial and respectful, but I'm not perfect.

As for your questions of calling someone a @!$%# or cripple. No, I would not use those words to their face, of course, but I don't consider the internet to be face-to-face conversation so I don't feel I have done as such. Yet, not disregarding the feels that may be hurt due to miscommunication and my poor choice of words. And being as you really know nothing about me, I'd say you would have done much assuming about how much class I should have as just another person on the vine, although I'd hope I would meet your assumption (on any other comment I would), but have failed to do so in this instance, but as I've stated before I am not perfect and I will make mistakes.

Again, LindaMarie2 I apologize that you were offended by a remark you believed to be about transsexuals.

(JmetheSad), Your apologize is excepted.

And you are correct, I do not know you. But I will at least say this much, your class and caliber has risen a peg or two, due to the fact that you know it was wrong to make a statement such as you have. And Man enough to apologize for it. Which I find very rare in men ...these day's. I'm quite sure you are an intelligent young man,or you would have blown-off the statement with another derogatory comment with complete disregard to people and there feelings. Transsexualism and hermaphrodites is a very touchy subject to those involved in it. A great many of Us,are not gay, as the community,or family knows of us. But "We" are excepted in the Gay community to a percent. But most of the straight people that I have encountered in my life who use the wording: "she-male", in reference to Us,we take it as a direct insult ! And I know a great many transsexuals in my circle of life that will actually fight like a Man because of it. ( I am not one of them, I am too much a Lady to fight a Man ).

But at least your desent enough to apologize for it. I'll give you credit for that.

As has been said, there was no intention of using shemale as a term to describe transsexual. I would have said that if I wanted to - it is a term used to describe people with both male and female genitalia. If you look at the context in which we used it, it was meant to be critical of a person who has some pretty negative views if gays due to some pretty shallow and dubious situations.

There was not intent to offend transsexuals.

LindaMarie2

Glad to calm the waters as no insult was intended, but I was really questioning the word itself as I referenced spork and foon. My response was purely for word assemble, but I fully understand the insult that would be there.

Just to clarify though, I'm a chick, but don't worry about it at all. I'm not clarifying because I'm insult, just because if it's noted in the future I'm a girl, I'd feel rude to not have corrected someone soon, who thinks I'm a guy.

Although, I do have to say the most I really know about transsexuals is from watching Eddie Izzard (love him) and some passing health channel shows, but I always enjoy learning new things and am very open to new information.

(JmetheSad), Well, dulynoted on the gender,My dear. Thank You . Most of the time I seem to think there are a lot of guy's on here,for some reason or another? Maybe it's because the way they phrase themselves or so. But I do like to be corrected from time too time when I make a mistake or say something out of turn.

Eddie Lzzard !! Now there is a wild one !! I like Him too. Many a nights,I almost "pee'd" my pants laughing ! You mentioned Health Shows,which reminds me of the time I had to talk to my brothers and Sister about my transition in life from M2F gender. I came to my oldest brother,with all the Medical papers and Therapy papers about myself regarding transsexualism and asked Him to read them about his little brother. ( I was the baby of the Family). So He went in the other room and read them. He came back out to the living room and said: " I know about this, I saw it on HBO ! You were born this way ! " I cried so hard when I heard Him say that to me. I was so afraid he would not understand. I Love Him,So Much ! My oldest and only Sister,was a bit different understanding about it. When I told Her and showed her the papers, she said : "I already knew you were transsexual when you were little, Sweetheart." " I finally have a "little Sister" ! Well THAT brought the water work's big time !! I really cried then..! So as you can see, I have a very Loving and understanding family around me.

Wow LindaMarie! You do have an awesome family :) Some of my gay friends' families have been really crappy toward them when they were honest about themselves. One's grandmother keeps reminding him that he stands to receive a large amount of money from her when he gets married and has some grandbabies. I don't think he cares much about the money but it is very obvious that her continuing refusal to accept him as is hurts him quite a bit.

(Justme-517872), Thank You ! That's very kind of you to say so...

I to know of a few families that have done similar things to the Brothers & Sisters of the gay community, such as dis-owning them as a family member and actual beatings of them because there gay. I am friends with one Sister,that actually was told by Her Father,to get out of the house and move to another State ! ( He wanted nothing to do with Her ) She lived with me for several months,until She found a good job, ( she's a computer programmer). And got a New Apartment to live in. ( She's extremely intelligent person with a lovely personality). But some of the horror stories I hear from the young ones I meet,just make my stomach turn ! on the way there familes have treated them, just because they are different.

Stay Safe, and smell the Flowers along your journey in life. LindaMarie.

Ok, my apologizes for the assumption as I clearly misread your post, but the problem still stands with the fact that you consider it a mental retardation based on actions of a few, which are shared by many heterosexual males and females. I can understand the dislike of those few gays you knew, but to stereotype based on a few with such a classification as a mental disorder is a bit far-fetched.

Did they ever stop and wonder what the rights a spiritual soul might have when the body dies?

Irrelevant, especially in matters of civics and law. People have different beliefs regarding the soul or afterlife. Catholicism is merely one belief, and who's to say it's the correct one.

, there's no other option that I'm aware of.

Sure there is: nether of those. No heaven, no hell, no afterlife!

On gay issues, and marriage, where is the separation of church and state?

I'm wondering that too? Marriage is a legal contract with rights provided by federal law. The religious aspect is merely ceremonial and should have no say in the legality or issue of marriage.

. Most of my exposure to Catholicismis of the Irish variety, where the communion wine is usually replaced by Bushmills and services end with a fist fight.

Now THAT'S religion, lol

Angel, you are one sick @!$%#. And I mean that in a nice way, like, run for help...now! No, faster, go now! (Sorry SJ)

Angels, My biggest question is do you understand what mental retardation is? What you described doesn't exactly fit. Being gay doesn't have even a remote connection with learning ability, IQ, etc.

You are basing your blanket assumption of gay people on one small sample of people who obviously weren't terribly good people. That is the equivalent of saying that all black men are criminals because you were robbed once by a black man. While I think that hesitation is a fairly natural after-effect it is usually recognized as not being logical and people work toward getting past it. My best suggestion is to get out in the world and acquaint yourself with more people. Perhaps there are some people in your life already who are gay but are just very careful not to let you know that.

Does anyone really want to listen? Does anyone really want to understand?

I certainly do. I'm continually searching to understand the mind of those who are against gays, not dislike the gay lifestyle, but against them. It's easy to understand disliking a lifestyle or behavior, but to actively try to restrict the lifestyle/behavior is beyond my understanding and I am always curious to the reasoning for the "live and let live (if it's exactly like me)" mentality.

I try to stay away from the "hysterical denunciations of how terrible anyone that does not support the Gay position is" attitude, but people don't seem to like much to be question about their reasoning, but I'm still hopeful for the individual that will let me pick their brain.

Well said SJSeattle. I know I don't always follow the logic, when there is some, but that's where I rely other the opposing position to guide me through their thought process, which many don't seem to want to do. Either they feel I'm being patronizing or are annoyed by how others may react to their comments or think I'm "playing" stupid with them, but I'm honestly always interested in how they think and genuinely can't see it from their perspective, which is why I need the help to understand.

The part that irks me is circling back around and saying the same thing because I'll repeat my previous response as well. If I had missed something pointing it out and taking the conversation forward to the part I'm missing is always what I'm looking for, but with hot topics it's hard to keep that motion going sometimes as the conversation gets frustrating, on both ends, when you can't seem to get the other to understand. But there is always hope in finding another that can explain their position and aid in keeping the conversation civil.

From what I've seen in the various discussions on the vine, there is very little tolerance and no attempt at comprehension when it comes to someone who objects for moral/religious reasons. The conversations seem to always degenerate into calling the religious person a bigot, hater, ignorant, intolerant, unable to think for themselves. Not to mention slamming their religion, and making stupid comments about the "flying spaghetti monster" and other childish remarks.

Many times the advocate can either not understand that it is a moral issue for some or simply refuses to acknowledge the fact. On one discussion I suggested that a person actually make an effort to understand what their opponent is thinking and where they were coming from on it. Boy did I get a good thrashing for making such an outlandish suggestion.

The fact is, there are those on both sides who are equally guilty of being intolerant and having no respect whatsoever for anyone who does not wholly agree with them. On the vine you can find those who can disagree with mutual respect - you just have to look past the trolls.

As Justme can tell everyone, I am against Gay Marriage and I think Gay behavior is immoral. I also believe that we are all free to choose what we want to do. As long as two adults want to do what they want to do in private, I could care less.

The conversations seem to always degenerate into calling the religious person a bigot, hater, ignorant, intolerant, unable to think for themselves

Justme is correct about this. It appears that there are more individual doing this than there are individuals trashing Gays. One question, is saying Gay behavior immoral, trashing them as individuals?

One question, is saying Gay behavior immoral, trashing them as individuals?

Yes it is because you are assigning your sense of morality upon someone else. What is moral to one person is not necessarily immoral to another.

Personal example: I find hunting for sport, for fun, morally reprehensible. I find nothing moral in the taking of any life simply for fun. This comes from a person who entire family is sports hunters. Do I love my family less? No. Do I consider my family immoral? Also no. This is simply my own personal moral.

I find hunting for sport, for fun, morally reprehensible.

How have you trashed those who hunt for fun as individuals?

Just, But there are those who would say that just by considering hunting for sport immoral you are assigning your own values on others and being intolerant. Unless you pat them on the back and say "hey, what you're doing is okay and I support it" then yes you are being intolerant by their standards.

You are obviously able to seperate the act from the person and still love that person just the same. For some reason, some folks seem unable to believe religious/moral objectors can do the same. Some can't obviously but is it really fair or accurate to assign that "inability" to everyone? Some will not condone the act of being in a homosexual relationship but would still extend respect and affection to someone who is.

Grandpastephen,

How have you trashed those who hunt for fun as individuals?

I haven't. In my post I specifically state that sports hunting is immoral to me but I do not consider those who engage in and enjoy sports hunting to be immoral. I do not assign my morality upon others.

Stating "Gay behavior is immoral" is assigning your morality upon all those that are gay, and by proxy those who are not gay but support the gay community.

There are two basic types of immoral behavior for which most moral beliefs can be placed.

1) Immoral behavior that harms others human beings and are universal to all such as theft, murder, assault etc.

2) Immoral behavior that does not harm other human beings and is not universally accepted as being immoral such as being homosexual, treatment of animals (food for us in some cases is sacred or tainted to others, pets for us in some cases is food for others), and in my case sports hunting.

Calling someone immoral is "trashing", using your word, and slandering someone else if that moral is not a universal moral. IMO

------------------------

Just me,

You said

"hey, what you're doing is okay and I support it".

Did I not pretty much say just that when I said I did not consider my family to be immoral because they engage in sports hunting which to me is immoral. Just because I specifically used my family does not mean that I do not feel the same way about those that are not a part of my family. I do.

Just, I'm only saying if we apply the same "rules" to your situation as is applied to those with religious/moral objections then you are guilty of assigning your morality on others. Does anyone in your family know that you are against it? If so, guilty as charged. Do you tell them it is okay and not immoral? If so, then you're not guilty even if not honest.

Just because you find it immoral does not make you intolerant, or hateful, or whatever else ugly label people come up with. It also does not mean that you are assigning your beliefs to anyone. The same is true for those who find homosexual relationships to be immoral.

Did I not pretty much say just that when I said I did not consider my family to be immoral because they engage in sports hunting which to me is immoral.

Many moral objectors also do not consider homosexuals to be immoral either - their actions are what is considered immoral (relationship with same sex).

Does anyone in your family know that you are against it?

Actually this is the very first time I have ever articulated my personal moral objection to sports hunting to anyone. If asked I simply say I am not interested.

Many moral objectors also do not consider homosexuals to be immoral either - their actions are what is considered immoral

The difference being that they find that action in others to be immoral where in my sports hunting example I do not find the action in others to be immoral. I keep it personal and do not assign nor judge others based upon my own moral compass.

The moment you say someones actions is immoral you are assigning your moral belief upon them.

Just an Observation-826313

Please allow me to point out your contradictions.

The moment you say someones actions is immoral you are assigning your moral belief upon them.

So here, you are saying that if you believe something is immoral, then you are saying you believe THEY are immoral.

In my post I specifically state that sports hunting is immoral to me but I do not consider those who engage in and enjoy sports hunting to be immoral.

Here you say while you consider certain actions immoral, you don't consider those who engage in such actions as immoral.

Pretty much it is like this. If ANYONE considers an action to be immoral, then TO THEM, other people who commit those acts are immoral. That is how it works, it can't be any other way because without the people there to do the action, it would never happen so couldn't be immoral. The immorality is the action being taken by people. You can't possibly say that something is immoral, but the people doing it aren't.

Where the conflict comes into play is each person's depiction of morality.

I had to come to the end of this article to see some comments relevant to the article :-)

SJSeattle, I would agree with those here who have stated that they consider homosexuality immoral. I do so because I try to live my life according to the teaching in the Bible, and it's teaching is clearly contrary to homosexuality. So if you ask me (like you did here), I'll be honest and say that I believe homosexual acts are sin (as murder, telling lies, stealing, being a hypocrite, etc., are also sins). But I don't go about proclaiming my convictions to everyone on the street, not will I lift a finger to interfere in your life.

You stated in the comments that you don't want Bible verses being used as arguments, so I might not be able to help you. Still, if I can engage in this discussion in any profitable way, it will be a pleasure. I don't have constant internet access, however (I live in the interior of Brazil), so my responses might be few and far between :-)

Cheers.

There is no contradiction in my statements, just maybe a slight instance of not comprehending or misunderstanding.

Me: The moment you say someones actions is immoral you are assigning your moral belief upon them.

Re: So here, you are saying that if you believe something is immoral, then you are saying you believe THEY are immoral.

No , it states if you say someone elses actions is immoral, assigning your morality to another, then you are in fact calling that person immoral. One can hold a personal moral belief on an action yet not find that same action immoral when engaged in by someone else. Another example will be given below.

Me: In my post I specifically state that sports hunting is immoral to me but I do not consider those who engage in and enjoy sports hunting to be immoral.

Re: Here you say while you consider certain actions immoral, you don't consider those who engage in such actions as immoral.

This one you got correct with the possible exception that the immoral action is only being assigned to myself, a personal belief, which I do not expect nor require anyone else to hold.

I have a few Muslim friends all of which morally believe it is wrong to eat pork due to their religious beliefs. However, they do not consider me to be immoral or acting in an immoral fashion for loving my bacon, in fact one even went as far as to cook me up some bacon one morning for breakfast but did not eat any himself. They are not assigning their morals to me while still applying that moral belief to themselves.

It would be wrong of them to say I could not eat bacon as much as it would be wrong for me to insist that they do eat bacon.

Even if you are very polite and respectful about it I'm betting they at least suspect that you find it distasteful to some degree. It isn't at all uncommon though for people to voice their opinion against hunting for sport. It usually doesn't degenerate into name-calling and meanness though. The worst I've seen is some good-natured ribbing.

The difference being that they find that action in others to be immoral where in my sports hunting example I do not find the action in others to be immoral. I keep it personal and do not assign nor judge others based upon my own moral compass.

You find the action of.... to be immoral. For some of the objectors that same phrase could be used. I'm betting many of those (more level-headed) on the vine who say they find it immoral don't go around denouncing it normally either. The whole purpose of this site is to give our opinions on things so it would defy the purpose to jump in a discussion and only say "I'm not interested in this".

If I were to say I don't like something or believe it's not right that is nothing more than my opinion. I am not forcing others to conform to or live by my beliefs and have no interest in doing so. I don't like everything others do and I don't see a point in lying and pretending I'm okay with it. We are actually allowed to disagree. Where we go wrong is blasting each other for our opinions and not respecting that we are actually allowed to disagree.

There was an article a while back about the right or wrong of some guards standing by while a girl was beaten. I was told I have no right to say what they did was wrong and judge them. As a society, yes we actually do. We do have a right to set standards of conduct and disapprove of those who disregard them. Just as I would tell a gay couple making out in public to get a room, I would also say the same thing to a hetero couple. I guess the challenge is that homosexuality is for some one of the "societal standards" and for others it is just their natural self.

I don't think the issue of homosexuality is the same. I'm one who believes the only choice is in whether or not to be honest about it. But I do recognize and accept that not everyone feels the same way about it. I don't think they have to, and won't bash them for their views. The only thing that is a "have to" imo is equal rights and being respectful of our differences.

Just an Observation-826313

Ahh, ok. I get what you are getting at. Your opinion is that if YOU do something, you may consider it immoral, but you don't have an opinion about the same act if another person does it.

Not that that is a bad thing, just 99.9% of the people on this planet don't think that way. If they did, we wouldn't have need for a justice system, because no one else would look at the morality (and legality) of criminals.

Now, in regards to that, I don't look at it that way. If there is something I consider immoral, then no matter if it is myself doing it or another person, it is still immoral. Whoever does the act is acting immorally, which makes them an immoral person. However, on the flip side, that is in my opinion based on my morals and values. If they also feel it is an immoral act, then they feel themselves that they are being immoral. If they don't consider it immoral, then they've got nothing to worry about.

Does no one remember the age old addage "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me."? What does it matter to YOU if I consider something you do immoral, as long as you are alright with it? It shouldn't, and that is really the ONLY answer.

Now, what DOES matter is when people who consider something immoral will attack, assault, or otherwise do things of that nature to those based on their moral opinions. Those people just need to be sat down, explained how opinions work, and then slapped around a bit (since their morality lets them do things, then other people feeling their actions are immoral should also be able to smack THEM around...)

Well stated Zanilth. There are plenty of folks who deem me immoral because I am an unwed mother. So what. I know why they think that way and will even ackknowledge some of their points in arguing against it are good ones. They have a right to think that way. As you pointed out though they do not have a right to attack, asault, harrass, etc.

I'm not big on pretending I don't have an opinion or keeping it "secret". I think people are thin-skinned enough as it is for one. For another, if we get to the point where we no longer discuss issues because it's "terrible" to express an opinion imo we'll have a whole new set of problems on our hands with little chance of solving them.

SJS you asked

if I may ask would you/did you vote for Prop 8? If so, why?

I would vote for it. To me marriage is a moral issue, so let me ask, will a Gay couple feel more moral if they are married? If marriage is not a moral issue to you, is it a financial issue?

Yes it is because you are assigning your sense of morality upon someone else. What is moral to one person is not necessarily immoral to another.

I believe I understand now what your are trying to say. As I said I believe Gay behavior is immoral, at the same time it is not my place to judge. As I have also said that two adults do in the privacy of there life, I could care less about, I will leave the judging up to God. I like to think I am not assigning my moral values to others at the most I will share them, if the other person is willing to listen.

It's kind of funny (and yet sad), that you do not see the irony of these two statements:

I would vote for it. To me marriage is a moral issue

at the same time it is not my place to judge

Do you not realize that by deciding whom we do and do not marry that you ARE judging? No offense to you personally, but who are you do decide whom our marriage partners are? Do you think we would be happy with female partners? You would be incredibly wrong.

I will ask again, do you need to be married to be a moral couple?

Do you not realize that by deciding whom we do and do not marry that you ARE judging?

Things that affect the society I live in are open to my judgment, is that fair.

I will ask again, do you need to be married to be a moral couple?

No, but the contract is necessary to be a legal couple and to have all the legal protections against interference from other family members.

Things that affect the society I live in are open to my judgment, is that fair.

As long as you are willing to understand that the weight of your judgment doesn't outweigh the judgment of any other individual in society.

Things that affect the society I live in are open to my judgment, is that fair.

Not when your judgements are arbitrary and don't affect society. However, your "judgment" DOES have a real world effect on couples like us out there in the world. And just as we would not vote on your marriage or decide that you couldn't have rights that others were granted, we would like the same courtesy in return. The Golden Rule if you will. Do onto others, only as you would have them do onto YOU.

zanilth wrote:

Does no one remember the age old addage "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me."? What does it matter to YOU if I consider something you do immoral, as long as you are alright with it? It shouldn't, and that is really the ONLY answer.

Now, what DOES matter is when people who consider something immoral will attack, assault, or otherwise do things of that nature to those based on their moral opinions. Those people just need to be sat down, explained how opinions work, and then slapped around a bit (since their morality lets them do things, then other people feeling their actions are immoral should also be able to smack THEM around...)

Agreed, 100%.

SJSeattle wrote:

Paddy and Grandpastephen (and Angels, if you haven't been scared away), if I may ask would you/did you vote for Prop 8? If so, why?

I had never heard of Prop 8 until now (I live in Brazil). If there was the same vote here in Brazil, I would vote for it. Regarding Greg&Jrff's statement that:

Do you not realize that by deciding whom we do and do not marry that you ARE judging?

I don't agree with your conclusion, because I'm not deciding anything. A vote was proposed, my opinion was asked, to I honestly gave my opinion.

Cheers, Paddy

Correction to above: "A vote was proposed, my opinion was asked, so I honestly gave my opinion".

I'm willing to try and explain that in more detail. If, as Grandpa stated, anyone really wants to try and understand why I live as I live.

Cheers, Paddy

I'm interested, Paddy. Are you originally from Brazil, or are you an American living there for work or other reasons? (This is just curiosity, and has no real bearing on the debate concerning rights). As to the actual debate concerning the vote on prop 8, do you feel it is appropriate to vote on the rights of others? Why or why not? You stated you would vote yes on prop 8, had it been proposed in your area, because that vote is consistent with your opinion. If you don't mind, would you elaborate on that a little bit? I know you have been posting here, and I could probably discern your opinion from reading back, but just for clarity purposes, if you'll restate it here we can be very clear about what we are discussing. I know that my posts can appear somewhat strident, but I'm not looking necessarily for an argument. I think discussion on a variety of issues is extremely important to the process and to potential learning on both sides of any debate. I want to understand opposition to same sex marriage, partly in the hopes that I can learn about how other people think and feel, but also in the hopes that greater awareness may reduce some of that opposition. So, if you don't mind entering into a discussion with me, I am interested.

I don't agree with your conclusion, because I'm not deciding anything

You most certainly ARE!!! You would be deciding whom someone else can marry and what rights they can and cannot have. Would you want complete strangers whom you will never meet in life deciding on YOUR marriage partner?

Greg&Jeff,
I think that is the crux of the vote issue. It seems like some people feel that they are just expressing an opinion, but this isn't a poll. It is literally a vote on whether some people should have equal access to a civil contract. There is a danger in making this a regular practice that extends far past just the issue up for vote.

Liberal,

I'm an Irishman who's lived most of his 42 years in Brazil, periodically returning to N Ireland for a breath of fresh air :-)

As to the actual debate concerning the vote on prop 8, do you feel it is appropriate to vote on the rights of others? Why or why not? You stated you would vote yes on prop 8, had it been proposed in your area, because that vote is consistent with your opinion. If you don't mind, would you elaborate on that a little bit? I know you have been posting here, and I could probably discern your opinion from reading back, but just for clarity purposes, if you'll restate it here we can be very clear about what we are discussing. I know that my posts can appear somewhat strident, but I'm not looking necessarily for an argument. I think discussion on a variety of issues is extremely important to the process and to potential learning on both sides of any debate. I want to understand opposition to same sex marriage, partly in the hopes that I can learn about how other people think and feel, but also in the hopes that greater awareness may reduce some of that opposition. So, if you don't mind entering into a discussion with me, I am interested.

Sure, it will be a pleasure to discuss this with you.

You want to know exactly where I stand on this issue. Well, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that is clearly against homosexuality. Based on the teaching of the Bible, my opinion is that a healthy society (in the moral sense of "healthy") depends on healthy families (and "family" to me means husband, wife, children). Anything that poses a threat to healthy families (homosexuality, divorce, cheating husbands/wives, abusive parents, etc.) is, in my opinion, something that is morally wrong, and something that, if it becomes the normal, accepted behaviour of society, will be detrimental to me as a member of that society.

That is my opinion. Now, how does it affect my relationships in a society where the vast majority of people think differently? Well, I also believe that it is not my responsibility to change society, or it's laws, so I "live and let live".

Let's get down to practical, specfic examples :-)

If you were my neighbour, and a practising homosexual, I would be courteous and polite to you. If you ever needed help, I would help (say someone broke into your house, I would do what I could to protect you and your property). I would not preach against your lifestyle, unless you asked me for my opinion. But I could not be a friend in the sense of going out together with you, or something like that. There would always be a barrier between us, but I would do my best to not let that barrier lead me to be unloving toward you.

That, of course, is my ideal. I am far from perfect, but that is how I try to live.

I know your eyebrows are probably raised now (to put it mildly :-), but I'm simply trying to be sincere with you. I await your feedback, and will do my best to keep this courteous and polite.

Cheers, Paddy.

P.S. I don't have continuous internet access, so sometimes you might have to be patient before I reply. But I will reply.

I don't agree with your conclusion, because I'm not deciding anything

You most certainly ARE!!!

Greg, at the most, I would be helping to decide. But is that not what democracy's about? What is it here that you're against?

a) The fact that I have a different opinion;

b) The fact that I was asked to express that opinion;

c) Or the fact that my opinion would influence a law that would affect the whole community?

Then again, as already stated, I had never heard of this proposition before today, so maybe I've got the whole thing wrong :-)

Cheers, Paddy

Well, Paddy, for the most part I think you're fine. You're willing to acknowledge that others think or feel differently from you, and that they have the right to do so. And you are willing and able to extend basic civility to neighbors. Most gay rights proponents will never ask that you form a deep or abiding relationship with gay people if that goes against your inclination. All they are asking for, all I am asking for, is that we all have the same right to live and function in society, the same access to civil government and the protections it offers. There is where I will disagree with you, the issue of voting. I don't believe, in a free country, that the citizens should have the right to vote to deny access to civil contracts to one group of people simply because they do not "approve" of how those people live. If we begin to vote to exclude some from equal participation in society we will begin to be stripped of the rights and freedoms that make free societies work. The point of freedom is that I decide for myself and you decide for yourself, so long as neither of us is actively harming others. I don't decide for you and you don't decide for me. When we open that sort of thing up for a vote it becomes mob rule about who gets to be a fully protected citizen and who doesn't, creating a class discrepancy for citizenship.

There seems to be a discrepancy here:

Well, I also believe that it is not my responsibility to change society, or it's laws, so I "live and let live".

vs.

Greg, at the most, I would be helping to decide

So on one hand you say it's not your responsibility to change society, and then in another post you say you in fact would attempt to involve yourself in society's laws through your vote. That's very contradictory.

What is it here that you're against?

a) The fact that I have a different opinion;

b) The fact that I was asked to express that opinion;

c) Or the fact that my opinion would influence a law that would affect the whole community?

You can have a different opinion, but when you vote on something that affects someone else's life directly and in an adverse way that's where the line should be drawn. It perhaps may seem democratic to you, to vote another person's rights away, but would you want YOUR right to marry someone you loved voted on? Rights just shouldn't be up the whim of a proposition. We aren't talking Indian Casino gambling here. We are talking the person you want to spend your entire life with and possibly are even raising children with. Quite simply, they need the protections of marriage just as any straight couple and their children do.

Liberal and Greg,

Bear in mind that I don't fully understand the politics involved in your case (I have never been in the USA, save for a couple of hours in a connecting flight to elsewhere).

What I was saying about changing society and maybe influencing a decision is this (forget about proposition 8 for the time being): I'll not take part in any marches against homosexuals, but I'll not refrain from giving my opinion if asked (whether I'm asked in private, or in a public voting).

You two are presenting the case simply as a matter of individual rights. To me, it means more than that. I understand you have no sympathy for my convictions, and I'm not trying to convince you. But the point in my mind is this: if you (generic "you") are a homosexual or not, that's your problem and your decision, not mine. But when the society in which I live overturns my idea of "family", and accepts that same-sex couples can adopt and bring up children, etc., with society's blessing and support, I believe that's a different story. To me, it is the future of society that is at stake.

Just to let you see how wacky I am :-) If prop 8 was not about prohibiting same-sex unions, but about prohibiting smoking, or drinking, or divorce, or lying, or hypocrisy, my vote would be the same. I'm not silly enough to believe my ideal of society would be functional, which is why, if there were a voluntary vote about any of these matters, I'd simply stay at home, and not vote. But as voting is compulsory here in Brazil, I would vote with my conscience, however wacky and impractical it might seem.

After all, I'm Irish :-)

Cheers, Paddy

Well, Paddy,
Here we take personal freedom so seriously that voting is never compulsory. :D
I think in your situation examining the reasons why your ideal society wouldn't work might be an important step to take. Personal freedom entails two things beyond just the ability to make your own choices about your life. It involves a serious responsibility to yourself and others, and in addition to that it involves a requirement that the individual respect the personal freedom of those around him/her.
To me it seems odd to think that heterosexuality or homosexuality in the individual would have any realistic impact on the ability to parent. So many heterosexual parents inflict a variety of horrible things on their children, and the rest of us are just muddling through as best we can, maybe we're doing a good job, maybe not. But most experts are in agreement that the key components to raising children are love and concern. A heterosexual parent without those things will invariably be a terrible failure as a parent. A homosexual parent with those things has the same chance of succeeding as anyone else.
To you it is the future of society at stake, could you clarify how granting homosexual families equal legal protection will negatively impact the future of society as whole?
To me it is also the future of society that is at risk, and I'll explain why I feel that way as well. To me, denying equal civil protection to any family because some people don't like the components of that family will negatively impact society by creating a class division for citizenship, allowing one group of citizens to enjoy full citizenship while another group does not. In addition to that marrying societal morals to one groups religious beliefs is a very dangerous concept, it subverts the use of reason in managing society and excludes individuals that do not subscribe to that religious belief from having a full say in the management of their own society. Religious morals are for individuals (in the U.S.A., because we have a constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion) to use in guiding their own personal life choices. They are not for use by one group (here) to dictate the personal life choices of others. For a society like the United States to function properly morality must be divorced from specific religious ideology. It must instead be based in reason.

While it's mildly depressing in that it appears no compromise can be reached

SJ you are right, how do you compromise on a yes or no issue, there is not way to compromise between it is all right for Gays to Marry and it is not all right for Gays to Marry. Unless you consider Civil Union as a middle ground between yes and no, or all most? Most who support the Gay side on this issue are not willing to compromise.

To me it seems odd to think that heterosexuality or homosexuality in the individual would have any realistic impact on the ability to parent.

Most who have a concern about homosexual individuals parenting would say the issue is that a child need a mother and a father to develop to there full potential as a human being. They need to see and experience both type of behavior, male and female.

The thing is GrandpaStephen this isn't just a yes or no issue. This is, at least in part, an issue of who decides for whom how a life is to be lived. A heterosexual begins dating, chooses for themselves who to date. No one has a veto power on that decision for them. As they explore relationships they eventually, for some, choose a person they want to build a life with. One of them proposes, one accepts, they plan a wedding, get a civil license and marry. No one has a legal right to tell them no, so long as they are both legal adults and unrelated. A homosexual begins dating, and goes through the exact same process in a similar fashion and no one has veto power in their choices right up until they try to access the same civil contract at which point they must face the fact that people who are different from them have given themselves the power to deny them access to that contract simply because they outnumber the homosexual citizens.

As far as the parenting argument goes, the reality is that people are allowed to become parents without interference, both heterosexual and homosexual, single and married. Married heterosexual parents are sometimes good parents, sometimes bad. Sometimes the male and female behavior they show their children is worthy of emulation, sometimes it is definitely not. Sometimes a parent dies, sometimes both parents die, and the children are raised by grandparents, or grandparent or aunt or uncle. The thing is most of these children turn out perfectly great, regardless of who parents them or whether there are one or two, male or female. Given love, concern, and basic security most kids turn out fine. So claiming to oppose homosexuals parenting because it isn't a male/female parent partnership is very unrealistic at the very least.

The question isn't do you as an individual approve of gay marriage or parenting. That is a yes or no question. The question is do gay people have the same freedoms as any other citizen to marry and be parents. That is a more complicated issue. You have stated civil unions might be a middle ground. Why do you feel that way, and would calling it a civil union make it more palatable to you? Because, in reality, even though we call it marriage, what the government offers is a civil union contract. Personally I would not oppose changing the name of the contract to civil union, so long as the rights and protections it provides are the same for everybody.

The question is do gay people have the same freedoms as any other citizen to marry and be parents.

At this point because it is still an issue we are voting on it is a yes or no question.

You have stated civil unions might be a middle ground. Why do you feel that way, and would calling it a civil union make it more palatable to you?

Do you want me to tell you the true reason or do you want something that will not cause an emotional blow out

If by all the rights you mean financial, medical, tax benefit, inheritance that are accorded a heterosexual couple I agree. If you want to include adoption then I can not agree, two consenting adults can do anything with each other in the privacy of there home that they want. I am often told that being Gay is so bad that no one would chose it, why inflict that on a helpless child?

The children are just fine. Ask them. Watch interviews with them. Read books (objective ones, not ones with a religious anti-gay agenda). This notion that they need a mother and a father is a bunch of BS. You don't even hold your fellow heterosexuals to that standard.

Time and time again, it's been our observation that anti-gay people seem to want to hold gays to a higher standard then they are willing to require of heterosexuals. They expect gay people to be pure as the driven snow in order to get rights while they ignore the straight people who go to swingers parties and strip clubs. Those people can still get married. Those people can still adopt. Clearly the reasoning is faulty and people are being disingenuous. If they weren't, they would be making straight people jump through the same hoops and not allow single people to adopt. Or couples to divorce for that matter.

The reality is that children are better off in a home where their caregiver loves them and cares for them. Children raised by gay parents are just as happy and well adjusted as children raised by parents who are straight. If homosexual people can become parents genetically, whether that involves a surrogate for males or because a female homosexual becomes pregnant by artificial insemination, or however they go about it there seems to be little purpose in banning adoption or foster parenting for them, other than to punish them for "being gay". Sexual practices by heterosexual parents aren't used to prevent them from parenting, unless they expose the children to them directly, so why should they be used to prevent homosexual people from parenting?

You have stated civil unions might be a middle ground. Why do you feel that way, and would calling it a civil union make it more palatable to you?

Do you want me to tell you the true reason or do you want something that will not cause an emotional blow out

I would like to know your reasons.

Read books (objective ones,

You forgot to say any book that said that it is better to have a mother and a father is not objective, only those that say a single parent or two same sex parents is objective.

I would like to know your reasons.

Because I would be easier to give two adults the rights to financial, medical, tax benefit, inheritance that are accorded a heterosexual couple, but restrict the right to adopt. What do you want to bet Liberal Madmama that most will turn down the deal. That makes me wonder does anyone really want to compromise?

Why should anyone ever compromise when human rights and dignity are on the line?

SJ you asked

I'd like to think that the Newsvine community is rational enough that someone will be willing to actually discuss the issue

and this is the response you get

Why should anyone ever compromise when human rights and dignity are on the line?

No concern or care for anybody elses position.

seriously? why should a gay man be willing to accept a lesser status than that of a straight man? Why construct artificial boundaries and distinctions between the two? Its a matter of discrimination and prejudice and nothing more. Excuses and reasons can always be fabricated not to do something but ethically there is no legitimate reason to deny gays anything but the same rights as straights.

Because I would be easier to give two adults the rights to financial, medical, tax benefit, inheritance that are accorded a heterosexual couple, but restrict the right to adopt. What do you want to bet Liberal Madmama that most will turn down the deal. That makes me wonder does anyone really want to compromise?

Can you offer a legitimate reason why we should restrict the right of homosexual people to adopt? Homosexual people are raising and have for some time been raising children to no ill effects. As have single people, whether because of divorce, death, or choice. If you would restrict the right of homosexuals to adopt because children are better off in a home with a mother and a father would you want to go so far as removing children from the homes of homosexual people who have them by biological means? What about from single parent homes?

Can you offer a legitimate reason why we should restrict the right of homosexual people to adopt?

I understand you do not like my reason, that is your right.

would you want to go so far as removing children from the homes of homosexual people who have them by biological means? What about from single parent homes?

In a single parent home I would do all I can to help, in the homosexual home I do not think they would want my help.

been raising children to no ill effects.

Is no ill effects all you would want for a child? As I said it takes a mother and a father to help a child to develop to the fullest of its potential, that is what I want for a child.

Its a matter of discrimination and prejudice and nothing more. Excuses and reasons can always be fabricated not to do something but ethically there is no legitimate reason

It is interesting how BOA completely discounts me as a human because he disagrees with me. Just like the slave owners would discount the slaves and make them less than human, that is what is happening here. Because I discriminate and I am prejudice my beliefs and feeling do not matter.

Where in my post did I say you were anything but human? Prejudice and discrimination are not animal behaviours. Your feelings and beliefs matter but they should never be used to make a community into second class citizens simply because of their sexual orientation.

Your feelings and beliefs matter but they should never be used to make a community into second class citizens

If they matter then maybe you should understand them, if you understand them then you will be able to make a judgment of my action when you say I am making a community into second class citizens. Explain to everyone what I mean when I say "family and marriage" you were quick to put me down with words like Prejudice and discrimination, be as quick to show you have enough understanding .

It was more to do with your assertion that gay couples shouldn't adopt and that we should call their marriages civil unions. This is based on a value judgement that you hold for homosexuals that sees them as inferior because of their sexual orientation, this is prejudice. When you act on prejudice this becomes discrimination. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Whether that's possible remains to be seen.

Of course it is possible, two MATURE ADULTS, can always work out a problem if they want to. It is when they do not want to, or they are not mature that there is a problem.

BOA when you say this

This is based on a value judgement that you hold for homosexuals that sees them as inferior because of their sexual orientation,

it shows you do not understand me in the least, of what value is your opinion when you judge without an understanding of all the facts?

I was only going by what you were posting, you are accountable for your words.

Is no ill effects all you would want for a child? As I said it takes a mother and a father to help a child to develop to the fullest of its potential, that is what I want for a child.

I don't agree. Many children have reached their fullest potential without having a mother/father upbringing. Many children have reached their fullest potential despite having an abusive heterosexual mother and father. The idea that a child will be denied the opportunity to reach his or her full potential simply because the parent or parents in the household are homosexual has already been proven by more than one study to be false. It is not that I don't like your reason, it is that your reason is false.

Liberal,

As I feared, the conversation has evolved a lot since I was last online, and I can't hope to catch up on all that's been said. In the main, I agree with what Grandpa has been presenting, so I'll not repeat what he's said. I'll just address one or two wee issues from your last response to me.

Here we take personal freedom so seriously that voting is never compulsory. :D

Something I would love to see here in Brazil :-)

For a society like the United States to function properly morality must be divorced from specific religious ideology. It must instead be based in reason.

Liberal, I think you've grasped already that this is what makes our world views so different one to the other: what is the basis for a moral code of conduct?

To you it is reason that defines morality. I know that, and respect that, and that is why, as I've stated, I will not try to change society. What shapes my moral view of life is something shared by a small minority (here in Brazil anyway), so it is useless to try and force everyone to see life as I do. Not only useless, but arrogant and inconsiderate!

To me, however, morality is defined by God, and is revealed to us in His word, the Bible. Being brought up in a Christian home where I was always given the liberty to choose my own way, I tried many things until I finally reached where I am (I wrote about it on Newsvine four years ago). I am now personally convinced that the Bible is God's word, and that it's morals (being His morals) are perfect.

To me, it's not a question of simply stating: homosexual couples aren't capable of rearing children, heterosexual couples are. I would word it differently: any couple that follows the moral code presented in God's word presents the ideal soil for a young life to grow and bloom. That moral code includes heterosexuality, but also love, honesty, compassion, truth, etc. So I believe homosexual couples are inadequate for rearing children, as are heterosexual couples who don't love one another and their children, or heterosexual couples who are dishonest, etc., etc.

Now, for a person like me (and, I suspect, Grandpa, by what contact I've had with him here on the Vine), these convictions we present aren't just theology. They are truths for which we've risked a lot, and for which we've lost a lot. It's not just an intellectual debate about what shapes our morality, or about what validates moral codes. It is a profound conviction that we (humanity) were created by a moral God, and are accountable to Him.

You accept studies conducted by organisations, or by the Government. I accept the Bible. We're poles apart. And there is no chance of compromise.

But, for my part, with no hard feelings.

Cheers, and feel free to question me if I wasn't clear somewhere.

Paddy,
I appreciate your reasoned response. But I will disagree with you again on two points. :D The first is that we are poles apart, having read your mostly very reasonable remarks I don't believe we are nearly that far apart at all. The second is that there is no compromise. You have already hit on the ideal compromise in that you recognize the right of other people to live as they see fit, just as I and others like me recognize your right and the right of people choosing to belong to a religion to live as they see fit. That is the compromise I am seeking here in America, one in which the government remains generally neutral (as the American government is supposed to do) and in which I am free to live by a reasoned morality, just as my neighbor is free to live by a religious morality if they should so choose. The only time the government should interfere to regulate is if someone hurts someone else ro tries to deprive them of their freedom or property.

So I believe homosexual couples are inadequate for rearing children, as are heterosexual couples who don't love one another and their children, or heterosexual couples who are dishonest, etc., etc.

Except no one prevents such heterosexual's from adopting or having their own children or marrying etc. Once again pointing to how anti-gay people have a lower standard for their own group of heterosexuals to follow, but set the bar much higher for gay people.

PAddy, why do you judge homosexuals to be inadaquate to raise children, since they meet all your requirements, love, compassion, honesty, truth,?

ps denying them children lacks compassion on your part, negating your abilty to propery raise children by your own standards.

as for the bible and homosexuality being wrong, that's just the biased King James version, since King James was a closet homosexual... being a gay christian, I've asked God and got the answer to that..

SJ, thanks for your civil response. You wrote:

I agree with Galileo: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

I also agree with Galileo (on this point, anyway :-) So does the Bible: "I will pray with the spirit, but I will also pray with the understanding" (I Corinthians chapter 14, round about v. 15). Faith and reason can live happily together, as long as we understand their differences.

Liberal, your civility is also much appreciated. You wrote:

The first is that we are poles apart, having read your mostly very reasonable remarks I don't believe we are nearly that far apart at all. The second is that there is no compromise. You have already hit on the ideal compromise in that you recognize the right of other people to live as they see fit

Well, if that's a common ground, fair enough. When I mentioned compromise, I was thinking of our opinion regarding same-sex marriage. I don't accept it, you do, and in this, I don't think there's any compromise. But, yes, we can respect each other :-)

Gregg, enjoyed talking with you. You wrote:

Except no one prevents such heterosexual's from adopting or having their own children or marrying etc. Once again pointing to how anti-gay people have a lower standard for their own group of heterosexuals to follow, but set the bar much higher for gay people.

I don't know who you mean by "anti-gay people". If you mean the fundamentalist ignoramuses, then yes, there are plenty of people, on either side of the fence (this fence, or any other one) that have double standards, one for their own group and one for the rest of humanity.

If you understood that that is my position, then please re-read my comments. I'm more wacky than your typical North American Fundamentalist: I'm not only against same-sex marriages, but against a host of things the majority of heterosexuals like and enjoy :-)

Jim, glad to hear from you. You wrote:

PAddy, why do you judge homosexuals to be inadaquate to raise children, since they meet all your requirements, love, compassion, honesty, truth,?

As I mentioned some comments back, because the Bible is against homosexuality. It's not about their personality, but about their position.

ps denying them children lacks compassion on your part, negating your abilty to propery raise children by your own standards.

"Follow truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15). Finding the balance between love (or compassion) and truth is not easy. I don't profess to have reached that state of balance, but I am seeking it. Being compassionate is not allowing everyone to do what they want.

as for the bible and homosexuality being wrong, that's just the biased King James version, since King James was a closet homosexual...

I'm an Irish Brazilian, who has always read and studied the Bible in Portuguese (and a wee bit Greek and Hebrew). No matter what King James believed or practised, the Bible condemns homosexuality.

Cheers, Paddy.

G+J it you believe this

Except no one prevents such heterosexual's from adopting or having their own children or marrying etc.

you need to do more research, it is not easy for heterosexual couples to adopt.

No matter what King James believed or practised, the Bible condemns homosexuality

King James goes way back, so it doens't matter what langage it's been translated too. I guess my point is that you may find bibles condemning homosexuality, but if you read with your heart not your brain, GOD doesn't condemn homosexuality, but every priest that has ever translated the bible, has infered his own biases against gays into the translation, (those biases exist on other issues too, so ALL the bible should be read with your heart, and none of it taken literally,) as in that many translations, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the original meaning to be literally intact, although it is still there metaphorically, and if you open your heart to God , He will tell you what He meant,

see " out of sight, out of mind " concept, translated to french and back to english,

" blind , brainless " not quite the same concept at all, it that is just one languange and back. an English Bible has gone though no less than 13 translations,

so, if you find the bible condemns homosexuality, it is because you are staight, you can not impose Gods message to You, onto me, or anyone else, or any other scripture for that matter, to each His own.

you need to do more research, it is not easy for heterosexual couples to adopt

Name me one state where heterosexuals are barred from adopting, just because they are heterosexuals.

This is very true, but I think he means that at least heterosexuals have the ability to try. And quite frankly, if Madonna can adopt the qualifications can't be that stringent.

Exactly! What SJ said! :)

If you go back to # 23.62 you will see where G*J said that

heterosexual couples who don't love one another and their children, or heterosexual couples who are dishonest, etc., etc

Can adopt, I think not.

Jim, you wrote:

an English Bible has gone though no less than 13 translations,

so, if you find the bible condemns homosexuality, it is because you are staight,

It's not quite as simple (or as complicated!) as that. The majority of English Bibles you can pick up today were translated directly from the Hebrew (Old Testament*) and Greek (New Testament). The same holds for the Portuguese Bibles I use (three different translations). And an interesting point: every single translation I've seen up to now, even while differing in some minor points, agree in condemning homosexuality.

you can not impose Gods message to You, onto me, or anyone else, or any other scripture for that matter, to each His own.

I agree, I cannot impose anything on you. But that does not mean that the Bible's message is vague or has two different (and opposing) interpretations in this matter. What the Bible says about homosexuality is very clear. I will not impose that on you, you are free to accept it or reject it. But is not possible, in intellectual honesty, to suggest that the Bible supports homosexuality.

Cheers.

* P.S. Yes, I know about the chapter in Chaldean, but they are a very small proportion of the whole.

heterosexual couples who don't love one another and their children, or heterosexual couples who are dishonest, etc., etc

Can adopt, I think not.

Sure they can. There is no "love test". Nor is there an honesty one either. How would you even measure those things anyway?

Paddy. the majority of bibles in the us are the King James translation, including the living bible, I would guess, that even your portuguese bible is the King James version, and the original bible,, is written in ancient I stress ancient hebrew, and anyone that has access to translate, is predijuced towards the "church" opinion, and not GODs true intent.

'You need to watch more History channel programming......

It's a bad week for adoption, with the motherand grandmother sending a adopted child back to Russia,

wow paddy -- you seem to ignore the fact every single bible out there is written by man -- they are all chuck full of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and contradictions oh for your education not all bibles are translations from the hebrew writings -- the entire king james re-write is full of bull @!$%# that does not exist in the hebrew texts-- perhaps you should try to educate yourself before you blather on to show how little about your bible that you actually know

nice try and so typical of your ilk to just blather untruths and hope someone will believe you

Besides all that have you sold your daughter into slavery or do you choose to ignore that part of your man written bible

Do you wear clothes made of mixed fibers or do you also just ignore that part of the man written bible?

How about shell fish and pork -- yup many things I am sure you simply choose to ignore all the while you use other mis quotes and mis translations to condemn others -- how VERY UN-Christian of you

Paddy. the majority of bibles in the us are the King James translation, including the living bible, I would guess, that even your portuguese bible is the King James version

No, the Portuguese versions I use (three of them) are not King James' Version.

and the original bible,, is written in ancient I stress ancient hebrew, and anyone that has access to translate, is predijuced towards the "church" opinion, and not GODs true intent.

'You need to watch more History channel programming...…

Jim, I don't know what to say without sounding offensive. But it's not HIstory Channel programming that will enlighten you in regards to ancient texts. Try and find and read some of the many books which explain the difference between the many Hebrew texts (only for the Old Testament) and Greek texts (for the New Testament). Saying that anyone who has "access to translate" [sic] is prejudiced toward the "church" opinion shows, at best, a total lack of knowledge regarding the myriad of different translators and translations of the Bible that exist today.

For example, try and look up something about the many problems that Dean John William Burgon (hint, "Dean" is an anglican church title) had with the greek text of Westcott and Hort (who also happen to be Anglican ministers) in the late eighteen hundreds. You'll find a lot of information via Google, if you're interested.

rbach, you wrote:

wow paddy -- you seem to ignore the fact every single bible out there is written by man -- they are all chuck full of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and contradictions oh for your education not all bibles are translations from the hebrew writings -- the entire king james re-write is full of bull @!$%# that does not exist in the hebrew texts-- perhaps you should try to educate yourself before you blather on to show how little about your bible that you actually know

Again, what can I say without sounding offensive? So the Bible is "chuck full" [sic] of inconsistencies? I'll suggest this little article, if you have time to read it.

Since you say I know so little about the Bible, pray instruct me, my friend. What are the parts of the King James version that do not exist in the hebrew texts? (even though I'm not defending the King James Version, a detail you seem to have skipped over :-)

nice try and so typical of your ilk to just blather untruths and hope someone will believe you

I appreciate your politeness, mate :-)

Besides all that have you sold your daughter into slavery or do you choose to ignore that part of your man written bible. Do you wear clothes made of mixed fibers or do you also just ignore that part of the man written bible? How about shell fish and pork -- yup many things I am sure you simply choose to ignore all the while you use other mis quotes and mis translations to condemn others -- how VERY UN-Christian of you

I don't suppose you've ever heard of the difference between OLD and NEW Testaments? If you are interested, I can try and explain it to you, and thus clear up this muddle that exists in your mind. As the NEW Testament says:

By calling this covenant “new”, he has made the first one obsolete;

"Obsolete" is a key word here :-)

Cheers.

ahh. old testament obsolete, that would mean leviticus 18:22 which in king james says homosexuality is an abomonation, in a non-king james it says man shalll not lie with man, as with woman, this actually means, that the previous laws forbid men having sex with female relatives applys to women as with men, meaning women can't have sex with male relatives, Thats' one simple example ot two differing translations, oh by the way, God told me this, after much prayer about me being a good christian and being gay....

next as for translations you missed my point entirely, that not everything CAN be translated

such as the concept of a man saying upon seeing the statue of liberty... "out of sight, out of mind" which most americans would understand as being something spectacular, almost inconceiveable, now translate that into french which only has one word for mind and brain, and the French reply would be, of course the statue of liberty cannot see and has no brain, completely missing the message of outta sight outta mind, and that's a simple phrase, not a theological text...... thus again, I don't care what language you read the bible in, if you read it with a dictionary, you risk missing God's message, to you, and will never divine His message to ME.

Cheers, and God Bless

Cheers, Jim. All the best to you.

Over and out :-)

Exactly, if you truly did not care and did not wish to impose your opinions, and in the case of homosexuality typically morals, upon others then you would not join a discussion.

If that were true we're all guilty including you because we all have an opinion. There are good reasons why we should discuss our views and discuss current issues. If we all hide our feelings and pretend we don't have an opinion on anything, we'll never resolve anything and people will become even more unable to handle differing views than they are now. You consider me to be imposing my views on others while I consider it sad that you feel you have to hide your feelings even from your family. There is a big difference between voicing an opinion and trying to make everyone else abide by it.

The problem with most discussions with regards to homosexuality is that one side comes in with their stance being equal/human/civil rights and the other sides stance is religious morality and it is hard to find common ground between these two on which to hold an intellectual, civil debate.

Excellent statement and agreed completely. The biggest obstacle I've seen on both sides is a blind refusal to accept or acknowledge the fact that it is a different type of issue depending on the person (rights vs morality). My take on the whole issue is make all legal definition civil unions for everyone. Everyone. Since "marriage" does carry a religious connotation for some, then remove it completely from gov. involvement and let it just be a matter of personal preference how/where you get married. That falls in line with separation of church and state anyhow.

My take on the whole issue is make all legal definition civil unions for everyone. Everyone. Since "marriage" does carry a religious connotation for some, then remove it completely from gov. involvement and let it just be a matter of personal preference how/where you get married.

My take on the word marriage, based on its history and etymology, is that marriage (the legal aspect) is being confused with matrimony (the religious aspect) of unions.

With that said, even if the government changed the legal term it uses from marriage to civil union, I can hear the uproar from the people currently or soon to be married worried about how there rights will be affected under the law with the name change. There will also be a portion of those opposed that will still oppose even with the new name.

I may be pessimistic, but a simple change of word will not diffuse the issue, in my opinion. To me it is not as much about the word as it is the idea.

Any concerns about their rights "changing" I would hope would be easily dispelled since it changes nothing at all for those about to get married other than their marriage license would be called a civil union license.

In many of the arguments I've seen, people get hung up on the word "marriage" and can't seem to progress beyond that. So take that out of the equation. If it is becomes solely a personal preference (isn't it now anyways?) they can believe whatever they want about marriage (matrimony).

There will of course still be some opposed but I've also seen a lot of comments from people who are in favor of equal rights but again, get hung up on that one M word. Several have said they would support the civil union thing. Maybe I'm just optimistic but I think it could gain enough support to make it happen sooner than a victory over "marriage".

In many of the arguments I've seen, people get hung up on the word "marriage" and can't seem to progress beyond that.

My experience has been the opposite they are hung up about the whole concept of homosexuality itself, getting married is just a small part. The issue of protecting the "traditional marriage"(as if today's marriages even remotely looks like a marriage from just even a few hundred years ago) is dropped (if it is even brought up in the first place) in favor of the disgust they have for what we may or may not do sexually with each other.

Not everyone is. There are people who are uncomfortable with it but agree that the legal protections and rights should be there. I don't think I've talked to anyone yet who would advocate not letting someone be by their loved one's side as they lay dying. Most agree that is just plain cruel and wrong. Maybe the legalities take people's minds off the more intimate aspects and maybe in that we can find a point at which a truce can be reached at least on legal rights. Tolerance all both sides I'm sure will take a little longer.

I don't think I've talked to anyone yet who would advocate not letting someone be by their loved one's side as they lay dying

Well, because you haven't talked to them yet, does not mean they are not out there. Look up Washington State and referendum 71, that wasn't about marriage. That was about having rights. And they tried to take that away too.

Well, because you haven't talked to them yet, does not mean they are not out there. Look up Washington State and referendum 71, that wasn't about marriage. That was about having rights. And they tried to take that away too.

So the amount of evil people isn't as smalll a percentage as I would hope going by the voting results on that one :( I do tend to be a bit optimistic a lot of times. I wonder how much of the voting against it was thanks to misinformation and propaganda from special interest groups though?

Some years ago in Cincinnati, there was an issue put to vote to ban discrimination of gays in employment and housing. They managed to set it up to where voting yes meant kicking the bill out, and voting no meant voting the bill into law. The opposition worded their propaganda accordingly and when it came time to vote a whole lot of people when in and voted Yes thinking they were supporting the law.