Gay marriage... my two cents (or 0.015 Euros)

[Deja Q]

:popcorn:

Points to ponder:

1. Will Bush allow civil unions, which is not marriage but allows the same form of compassionate perks and breaks heterosexuals get?

2. Will Bush put in an amendment that bans divorce? This seems far more relevant regarding marriage. It will also get people to think before marrying.

3. Will this federal amendment be used to wipe out existing civil rights for homosexuals?

4. Politicians claim "the people" should decide. Had "the people" decided in the 1860s, we'd still be enjoying slaves. (Indeed, the social restructuring in America right now, being a slave in some ways was easier and you knew you had shelter and food. Not so today... but now I've digressed too far into a different topic.) If the people decided in the 1950s, we'd still be highly segregated. That leaves for a warm and fuzzy feeling, doesn't it? (not)

5. There is no opposition party. If two-faced pos like Bill Clinton and Paul Wellstone enjoyed signing the DOMA, then turning around and telling us how sooooooooorry they are, you're lookin' at the wrong people for acceptance.

6. Are we ready for marriage? I do not believe so, nor do I have a reason to put time into fighting for it. The whole community needs to unite on this issue and the community wants everything for nothing; much like how everybody does for something or another these days. And that's incontrovertible; marriage/unions are about working. Not getting things for no effort. Maybe once I see signs of the community truly coming together and giving a rip, but also finding somebody to spend my life with... I've been finding Mr. Right for 9 years now and none of us (myself included) is ready or possibly even capable. It may or may not happen, but I don't waste time on improbable things.

7. Why the importance on marriage? "It takes a village", like it or not, is the ultimate truism. We've lived with Thatcher-like nonsense comments about "men, women, children, and families" for the last 25 years and have only seen a breakdown in society. Homosexuality isn't the cause, but those truly responsible for society's decline will eventually make scapegoats out of us. Surely that seems to be more worthy of fighting than a bunch of piddling tax breaks. I don't like being scapegoated and that sure as hasenpfeffer is a more serious and encompassing problem.

[DU9598]

1. Help with poll

Interesting post. The problem is * has no principles, he doesn't think issues through other than the political impact.

Here is a gay marriage poll from a local paper (front page on the left side): Please help show there is not support for an ammendment making equal rights devoid of meaning.

[Deja Q]

2. Done. (I voted "no" as I do not support the amend.) And you are correct.

* has nothing at all. What he does is solely for divisive nature.

Which is a bit sad, you'd think he'd want Americans to be supporting his causes. He's really not doing a good job as President. :7

[W_HAMILTON]

4. Should post it in general discussion

Doesn't look like too many people are voting one way or the other right now, but if you put it in the General Discussion forum, the No's would shoot up like crazy :)

[terrya]

6. Done n/t

[W_HAMILTON]

3. If we had a reporter with any guts

They would challenge Bush, because back before the 2004 election, he went on Today I think it was, and said that he would be in favor of civil unions. Needless to say, it was probably just a ploy to get gay Republicans to vote for him, because he knew the race would be close.

A reporter should challenge him on that. If he thinks that gay people should have civil unions, but marriages should be "protected," ask him why he doesn't put forth a plan that would permit civil unions in every state.

[terrya]

5. Well

Bush said, in an interview before the 2004 election, that he was in favor of civil unions. But that's a moot point with his support of the Marriage Protection Ameendment to be voted on next week. This amendment, as the wording now says, would, if enacted, erase same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic registries, any and all legal recognition of same-sex partnerships.

Of course we're ready for marriage. Why wouldn't we be? There are gay and lesbian couples who wish to enjoy the same legal recognition and the benefits that come with it as heterosexual married couples enjoy and take for granted.

I agree the Democratic Party has a long way to go on same-sex marriage. There are a few good Democrats (such as Russ Feingold) who do support same-sex marriage. I wish we would be more progressive and forward thinking on this issue. Yes, the American people still oppose same-sex martiage. But that oppostion is dropping. The Democratic Party could officially recognize that, but say that they ultimately support same-sex marriage.

We should fight for same-sex marriage because, quite frankly, it's the right thing to do. Saem-sex relationships are just as valid as heterosexual ones. That, to me, is a given. And we should fight for the same rights that heterosexual couple enjoy. Saem-sex marriage will happen. It's just going to be a long, hard fight.

[Deja Q]

9. Not moot. It's a flip-flop. A problem with politicians is that they are

driven. By money. They have no ethics.

Let me put it this way: If your lover betrayed you, would you help him the next time he asks for it? Chances are you'd say yes. But what if he kept betraying you? At what point do you decide he ain't worth it anymore?

That is how I feel with the gay community. Granted, my perspective is a bit more unique than most, but I am no less a person than anyone else in our community and I don't like being treated second-rate in a group of people that's treated as second-rate. A second-rate second-rate is too depressing. (and there are reasons why I am not shedding details... for a small quantity of those reasons involves other DU members. And I sure as hell will not fight for their (or the others in the outside world) benefit at this time.)



There are things I will still speak my mind for, have no doubts. We're still a community, even if I am the mauve sheep of the family. The little freak that's good for poking at.

Communities help each other. They don't dis their own. That is my point and I will not be called a freeper for it.

[Siyahamba]

7. Interesting questions

1. Though he gave brief lip service to it, conveniently before the 2004 election, the language seems to ban them. The language about the "legal incidents thereof" in the amendment is a lot like the "any similar union" language used in the successful Michigan amendment which was used to ban both marriage and civil unions, even though its backers said it would only affect marriage.

2. No. This would incur the wrath of the many, many divorced Republicans.

3. Yes, again the "legal incidents thereof" points to that.

4. Bush says marriage should be decided by a democratic vote, I wonder if he'll push to rescind Loving v. Virginia?

5. Pretty much.

6. Sorry, but this "there's no reason to support it since it doesn't affect me personally" sounds like a Republican mindset.

7. It's far more than "a bunch of piddling tax breaks." There are 1,049 federal rights granted by marriage.

[Deja Q]

8. Okay...

For point #2, that's their problem. They want to protect marriage, therefore they need to eat the cake they're buying. It cannot be had both ways, and if they make the attempt, somebody else will see the irrational imbalance and if they have the clout will make the appropriate changes. They say "protect marriage" yet what they do has nothing to DO with marriage.


And as for point #6:

Just come out and accuse me of being a freeper then. :eyes:

Sorry, but until you have the guts to ask me questions rather than point and insinuate, you're only proving an even worse point I've made elsewhere. Those in a community who hurt others and then say of them they need to support an issue are entirely irrational, if not stupid. I've been hurt, personally, a few too many times.

(You do know I'm gay, correct?)

Also consider, anything done properly needs to be done with self-interest. That's why we look for jobs that appeal to our interests. It's no different. And, right now, I find the job issue a bit more a concern. You would too, once you realize yours is in hazard.


Also also consider: People who are attracted to one another do so out of self interest. It is a mutual exchange of two fantasies. This is not love, this is lust. and this isn't freeper thinking either. This is dispassionate, stoic observation of an incontrovertible fact regarding human nature: Self-interest. It is also true that if someone is interested in me and I do not share the interest, I do not involve myself. The same is just as true for anybody. (now if I dated, married, and did things with a woman I was totally unattracted to, I would break the concept of self-interest. But that's, once again, the point. Everything we do is out of self-interest and it cannot be denied. Why not ask me to marry you? :D )

[Obamarama]

10. Interesting perspectives, Hypno Toad.

Especially liked your observations in #4, re: "if we had let the people decide in 1860"... etc...

I was a little diappointed to read your #6, though. I think you are selling yourself (and others in the gay community) short by saying we're not ready. I've happily been ensconsed in a 17 year relationship and we are MORE than ready. Intellectually, sure...we don't NEED to get married to feel any more connected. Nonetheless, if the option were available we'd still take it for the legal protections it offers the relationship we've worked hard to maintain.

Would a civil union alternative work for me? Yes, but to an extent. I'm still left wondering WHY my partner and I should be expected to have anything less than our heterosexual counterparts enjoy in terms of codifying our relationship.

If the issues surrounding gay marriage were simply up for discussion and debate, that would be one thing. But to go to the extent of enacting a CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT to protect "the sanctity of marriage" from me and my partner makes me want to go to the mat on this one.

[mitchtv]

11. 29 years here

Who's not ready?

[idgiehkt]

12. we may not be ready, but they aren't either.

50% divorce rate and somehow GAYS aren't ready? What other standard is there to measure by? Our homo sapien brains have evolved at the same rate theirs have over the millenia. The truth is that many more of them are choosing freedom from marriage. I would like them to try and pass a mandatory marriage amendment for heterosexuals at the same time they try to deny it to us and see how well that goes over. We'd have a lot of people backing us then, if that happened.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

13. I think it comes down to something much simplier...

Marriage is a rights baring institution. To deny two people access to those rights simply because you don't like their sex is illegal. The same way it is illegal to deny equal education cause someone is of a different race.

[Meldread]

14. Gee, thanks for speaking for us.

"6. Are we ready for marriage? I do not believe so, nor do I have a reason to put time into fighting for it."
Gee, thanks for speaking for us. Well, maybe *YOU* aren't ready for it but I don't think those of us who WANT to get married have you in mind. I find your comments show a great sense of arrogance, as you seem to think that you can speak for all of us. The fact of the matter is you can only speak for yourself.

My responses to your other comments:
"Maybe once I see signs of the community truly coming together and giving a rip, but also finding somebody to spend my life with... I've been finding Mr. Right for 9 years now and none of us (myself included) is ready or possibly even capable."
So it's all about you? How wonderfully short sited. A pity that if you ever *DO* find someone to spend the rest of your life with, you won't be able to enjoy it due to all the laws passed against gay marriage. A pity you aren't thinking about the long term implications of such laws, instead of just how it'd effect *YOU* instead of other people. You blame the community for not "giving a rip", yet aren't you the shining example of someone within the community of not caring?

"If your lover betrayed you, would you help him the next time he asks for it? Chances are you'd say yes. But what if he kept betraying you? At what point do you decide he ain't worth it anymore? That is how I feel with the gay community."
And how has the gay community betrayed you? I wasn't aware that an entire community *owed* anyone anything. That is a very odd way of looking at things.

"and there are reasons why I am not shedding details...
Well without details, your posts look incredibly supercilious. Maybe that isn't your intent, I don't know but that is the way you are coming off to me. You are painting everyone with a big broad brush, and honestly I can't think of anything at all which would justify it. Especially seeing as how your statements can only reflect YOUR thoughts and YOUR opinions and not the thoughts or experiences of everyone else.

"There are things I will still speak my mind for, have no doubts. We're still a community, even if I am the mauve sheep of the family. The little freak that's good for poking at."
Still not making any sense.

"That is my point and I will not be called a freeper for it.
I don't think you're a freeper, I think you are either narcissistic, highly misguided or both.

"People who are attracted to one another do so out of self interest. It is a mutual exchange of two fantasies. This is not love, this is lust. and this isn't freeper thinking either. This is dispassionate, stoic observation of an incontrovertible fact regarding human nature: Self-interest."
Do I even have to justify this with a response? Honestly, if you actually believe that line I pity you.

Let's face it, this thread has NOTHING to do with marriage and some personal beef that you have with "the community". Because, that is the only way anything you've said in this thread makes any sense.

Either that, or you've been attending one of those Christian "cure the gay" camps and are being brainwashed. Either one is likely. Honestly, I pity you more than anything. I pity you for being short sited, and I pity you for the fact you seem to be under some illusion that you are owned something. (Fact: You're not owed anything. Sorry. No one is owed anything.)