quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: wow.. I read the first part of that article.. it blows my mind that 42% of americans were against interracial marriage in 1998.
I think it was 1991 (I'll reread the article), but I'd believe it, sadly.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest- I did not mean to imply that I believe mixed marriage is wrong. I do not honestly believe it was ever wrong, though it was certainly illegal in some places. Places where people believed it was immoral, and thus made it illegal.
Moral absolutes have a tendency not to remain quite as abosolute as might hope, which is why I hesitate to legally enforce a particular code of morals that is based completely on subjective religious belief.
I hope you knew what I meant and were joking, but I really couldn't tell.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Moral absolutes have a tendency not to remain quite as abosolute as might hope, which is why I hesitate to legally enforce a particular code of morals that is based completely on subjective religious belief.
Just wondering, what would you consider to be sufficient basis for morality upon which laws might be enforced? Certainly not "objective" religious belief, I wouldn't think.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is one of those topics that seems to get rather heated no matter how it is approached, and those topics I try to give a bit more free rein. But just a bit. There have been a few steps over the line, and not all by the same person. Please refrain from the personal attacks and profanity. And while generalizations aren't against the TOS, they're rarely helpful to the discussion. Just sayin'.
Did nobody else ever think of Who Wants to Be a Superhero when seeing this thread? I did from the first. I can still picture the ad.
posted
Alright...I'll jump in here, for just a bit. Now, I realize I haven't read the entire thread, but I've read about the first and last thirds, and I think I feel comfortable with voicing my (rather unpopular) view here. Just my two cents, on the general topic of gay marriage, not directed at anyone.
Listen, I'm gay, for those of you who don't know. I will also preface this by saying I'm a poster child for the 'it isn't a choice' thing, because I'd give my right arm to be normal again. Not my left one, because I'm left handed, but the right one, sure. But I'm coming to grips with who and what I am, however much that may be a seperate discussion from this one.
However, I'll say this: You want to keep marriage between man and a woman, you want to protect and 'defend' it, you want to 'save' society by keeping that all to yourselves? Fine. Keep it. I don't want it, if you want it that bad. Yes, I know what that'll mean for me, if I ever, god be willing, enter into a long-term, committed relationship with some guy. It means I couldn't necessarily visit him in the hospital if he got sick. It means I can't make medical and legal decisions for him if he's unable to do so for himself, and it means he can't do that for me. It means different taxes, complications when buying property, etc, etc, so on so forth.
You know what? I don't care. Keep your legalities. Keep your marriages and your sanctity and your Las Vegas marriage parlors. Keep your divorces and your pre-nups. So, it'll be harder for me. Bring it on. But if you want that concept so badly, if it's so important to you, keep it. I don't want it. The fight ain't worth it to me. I'm a good little gay man, I keep within the bounds, I act straight, I don't plaster rainbow stickers on my car or nothing. Far be it from me to rock the boat.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already wanna be equal, Pix. It really is almost a thing of letting go, though. They want it so badly. They want it to be theirs, sacred, theirs to use and mess up. Screw it. I'm not gonna fight them on it. I don't have the right to force them, just like they don't have the right to force me from who I am.
...and please don't ever tell me what I really am thinking again, or what I'll think 'when I get better'. You're my friend, but I'm not in the mood.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Human: I understand where you're coming from. I sympathize with you more than you know. I wish you all the best in accepting yourself, and wish you can one day be happy being you. If you wanna talk sometime, email me through the board. You seem like a good guy.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't get the impression that Human isn't "accepting himself". From what I can tell, he's just pissed, he thinks this is a stupid fight, and he's not buying into anybody's agenda. If anything, he's way MORE self-accepting than he would be if he molded himself into the image of what a "good gay man" is supposed to say and advocate.
Maybe I'm misreading, but if I'm not, then SHEESH.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what that meant, exactly, but I'll take it as a good thing
I've been all over the map on this issue, internally, and I still haven't quite landed yet, so I imagine practically everything I say could potentially be surprising Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No offense, but I didn't think that the person who understood my comment best would be the straight LDS son of Orson Scott Card. However, it is a pleasant surprise, and one I'm rather pleased to be able to express. (And god, I hope that didn't sound pretentious.)
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Human, you know what? Sometimes I just want to break out the parentheses and (((Human))) you.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Human has a point. I wish we could accept each other and love each other as we are, without the need to label people and yell at each other about our differences. Human just wants to live his life and be happy. I'm all for that.
I can't speak for everyone, Human, but I wish you well.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Olivet: You know I'd never think *anything* like that of you!
Obviously I didn't know it, or I wouldn't have worried. dee-dee-dee on me.
quote: Just wondering, what would you consider to be sufficient basis for morality upon which laws might be enforced? Certainly not "objective" religious belief, I wouldn't think.
The trouble with basing laws on religious belief *only* is that you have to pick a religion. I mean, the Taliban was the result of (I believe) the efforts of people inspired by religious feeling and the certanty of their own righteousness.
*shrug* I think te body politic should make and enforce laws to protect itself and its citizens from material harm. Violent crime, abusive business practices and so forth. Ideally, it would stay mostly out of the practice of religion and the minutiae of people's lives (such as sexual practices, child rearing, the height of one's lawn)except when it is necessary to protect its citizens (the typical "your rights end where mine begin" type of thing).
Now, I realize that the legal system has a long history of enforcing social norms, but those norms change. In retrospect, the illegality of mixed marriages is, for example, kind of embarrassing.
I recently watched Birth of a Nation, a grand spectacle of filmmaking and racism wrapped up in a nifty 3 hour bundle. The image of the sweet young white girl throwing herself off a cliff to escape the embraces of a black man (actually a white actor in dark make-up, since people of color were not allowed to have speaking roles in 'white' movies)... just blew my mind. The racism was just... painful to watch.
The standards are different now. Though I would not go so far as to say that my country is color blind, at least no one is getting arrested for using the wrong water fountain, you know?
My point is that social norms (often defended and supported by religious or other belief) change. Sometimes the social norms change well ahead of the laws, but legal and social norms in flux bring about debates debates like these. I think that is a good thing.
People who feel a genuine need to fight what they see as teh decay of society should do so. People who feel the need to fight for rights they are denied should do so as well.
But to me, the big picture and the final outcome is obvious-- only the timeline is in question.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Human: I'm not willing to "just let them have it" If you don't want to fight for equal rights, that's fine. It's a long, upsetting fight.
But don't give up for the rest of us.
And you *are* still a kid and you *are* still in that awful place and when you *do* get a taste of what it's like to be in a reasonable place, surrounded by people who won't hate you for what you are and don't use "gay" as a swear word, you will want more. You will want equality.
And if you still don't after all that, If you're still content to sit at the back of the bus, then please, don't give ammunition to those who would do us harm.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My reason for supporting SSM is purely selfish. When some are denied equal rights, it is bad for all of us. Segregation was a blot on society for all of society. So is this.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Pix, all Human wants to do is the Christian thing. You know, turn the other cheek, treat his enemies as he would want to be treated.
There seems to be more of that in the New Testament than attacks on his sexuality.
Hey, if he can be more Christ-like than the Christian Right Extremists who believe being Christ-like means fighting devils, imagined or real, then Human: Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I admit, I've never heard anybody articulate human's point of view before, it's certainly given me pause and something to think about.
Thanks for breaking down a wall on this discussion and letting me see its alittle bit bigger then I supposed.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, now, don't go reading too much into it. While it's partly a "I don't wanna fight over legalities and a concept" it's also a bit of a "screw you, you can have it". About fifty-fifty, really. I also really don't believe I have the right to force around the entire legal system of this country to get that rather narrow yet important set of rights.
Pix: Okay, I'm starting to agree with Geoff here. Where am I saying I don't want equality? I wanna be treated like everyone else, that's sorta the point. But I also really...it's hard to explain, and I just woke up, which makes it harder. Also, how dare you tell me what I'm gonna want when I'm 'more enlightened'? True or not, my mind is not yours, and what you thought when you go in that position isn't necessarily what I'm gonna think. And much as my position might seem to fly in the face with the traditional 'gay agenda', don't be so foolish to think I'm gonna start stabbing myself and those like me in the back. Not fighting with tooth and nail isn't the same as helping the other side, not one bit.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: I do that by fighting for christian rights too. To pray in school, for instance. Or to display the 10 commandments at their job even if they're a judge.
But saying "You can have it I don't want it" doesn't read like turning the other cheek. It reads like sour grapes.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Human: You're saying you don't want equality when you say "You can keep marriage."
There's a right wing radio talk show host out here... You guys all know I'm fiscally conservative, so it will come as no shock to hear I used to listen to this guy.
But he got to the point where he couldn't clear his throat without ripping on gays. And one of the things he said was "I know TONS of gay guys and they all say 'No man, I don't ever want to get married'" and he would bring this up daily.
So he has an anecdotal set of evidence coming from a small sample of gay *men* who say they don't want to get married and he uses that to explain that MOST gay people don't really want marriage.
And that's what I mean about giving ammunition to the enemy.
(and that's why I can't listen to this guy without *screaming* anymore)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then the guy is stupid. Anyone who has half a brain could know that he's an idiot. He's taking a small piece of data and extrapolating it over an entire demographic, which is known to cause glaring errors. Also, if most gay people didn't wanna get married, then why is there an issue? I'm sorry, the 'liberal gay cabal' argument doesn't hold. Anyone who listens to an idiot like that is already convinced, so who cares what he says? Why are you listening to him in the first place?
Also, they're not the enemy. I'm sorry, I have a hard time believing that the entire straight community, y'know, most of the world, is my enemy. I have to live with these people, I have to work with them, be friends with them. And it makes it a lot harder when they're 'the enemy'. So, I don't. I refuse.
((Yeah. So much for gay solidarity, folks!))
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The entire straight community is not our enemy. Only the ones fighting against equal rights.
There are a lot of really cool and wonderful straight people out there and some of them have posted on this thread.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our. You keep using our like I'm on the same page as you, like we're some kind of united front, a brotherhood or whatever. I'm not. I'm a reluctant member of a social demographic. And I don't see the point in pissing a lot of people off, fighting over this. Not when it's been made plain to me by a large majority of the American public that it will be a cold day in hell when they extend that priviledge to people like me!
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: Wow, that wasn't at all condescending.
I don't get the impression that Human isn't "accepting himself". From what I can tell, he's just pissed, he thinks this is a stupid fight, and he's not buying into anybody's agenda. If anything, he's way MORE self-accepting than he would be if he molded himself into the image of what a "good gay man" is supposed to say and advocate.
Maybe I'm misreading, but if I'm not, then SHEESH.
I never meant for that to come across that way at all. I read things like this: "But I'm coming to grips with who and what I am..." "I will also preface this by saying I'm a poster child for the 'it isn't a choice' thing, because I'd give my right arm to be normal again." and thought that's what he was saying, that he'd had a hard time accepting himself.
...I struggled through it for three years with no one to help me, and I still struggle now. I know how hard it can be to go through this, so when I read this... I thought I might be able to help someone... even a stranger's comforting voice can help when you feel like you don't matter.
I... I just thought I could help...
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh. Yeah. Right, four states out of fifty, forgive me if I'm not on my feet cheering for the new revolution! Not to mention that in several of those states, the whole idea is still under legislative attack, and y'know, there's that whole constitutional amendment hanging over our collective heads. And every state we 'win' makes that amendment a little more likely! Not to mention that your 'victories' come once every few years, at this rate, yes, the US will have SSM. In 2100.
Edit for Hitoshi: I'm not entirely sure Geoff was aiming at you, Hitoshi. If he was aiming that at you, I don't agree with him. I think you were trying to comment on something somewhat different than the main topic of the thread. Believe me, I know how nice that stranger's voice can sound.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hitoshi: I don't know if I could have made it if someone hadn't helped me. Thank God for the internet. I think I would have eventually succeeded in killing myself.
(If somehow you find this, thank you Dawn.)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, Hitoshi...if you ever wanna talk, I'll extend the same offer you extended to me--email me through the board, or you can find me on AIM and Yahoo IM under the SN "Dracofire87".
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not when it's been made plain to me by a large majority of the American public that it will be a cold day in hell when they extend that priviledge to people like me!
"We" will win, of that I have no doubt. I use "We" to refer to all of us who are fighting for gay marriage, straight or gay. If you aren't in that category, Human, then I suppose it doesn't refer to you. To me that's sad, but it certainly is your choice.
The fight may look desperate, but look at the accomplishments the movement has made in just the last 20 years. Those ammendments are only necessary because we've come this far! They are a last ditch measure by the religious in this country because they are trying to delay the inevitable.
This generation (of 20 somethings) is about a million percent more tolerant than the generation before it of gay marriage. The next generation will turn the tide for sure.
It's going to happen, and it will happen in the next thirty years.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not that I don't think it would be a good idea. It's not that I wouldn't avail myself of the priviledge if it were open to me. I just don't see the use in sticking out my already vulnerable neck for something I can't see happening in my lifetime.
And no offense, X, but if you think this generation is more tolerant, you haven't met the guys I hang out with on a regular basis. They'll choke on their own masculinity and pride before they vote for something like SSM.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, they're not. Most of them don't live here by choice. Most of them come from the St. Louis area. They're all educated, all very smart, and none cut from the redneck cloth of this area. Believe me, I can tell if someone is, it's in everything they do. They just don't believe gay guys can be...well, real men. They don't believe it's anything but icky, choice or no choice. I can't just excuse it away by saying their 'just rednecks', because they're not. One of them is getting his doctorate, for god's sake.
Edit: Okay, they do choose to live here, but it's only because of the college, not because they like the town.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Human: Ah, ok. His was following mine and it seemed like he was addressing some of what I'd said, so I thought he was directing that at me. If he was then I hope he knows that wasn't my intention. If not, then I feel a bit silly. ^^; EDIT: Thanks for the offer. It might be a while before I can take you up on that offer of IMing since I don't have ready access to IM services, but I can email. So yeah, and thanks.
Pix: Yeah. I was still bitter even once I accepted I was gay, but I met a couple people online at about that time that have helped me a lot since then. I owe a lot to them. Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Human, sweetie... they're rednecks.
Oh well in that case they must be idiots. Rednecks, sheesh, why don't we start making laws keeping them from their rights?
[Edit: Sorry to be so snarky. That kind of comment bothers me a little bit. Next time I'll refrain from comment.]
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's going to happen, and it will happen in the next thirty years.
I think this is correct. The only support I have for that belief is the speed of social change over the last thirty years, and the fact that some of niece's best friends are gay or bisexual, pretty openly. She lives in a small, rural area, one where people who are different are pretty likely to get the crap beaten out of them. Yet her best buddy in 7th grade is gay (poor thing is 15-- years of social struggle and beatings left him behind his agemates, but he's decided to accept himself-- he doesn't seem out of plaace because he's kind of small for his age).
I think, for the majority of her generation, equal rights for gays will be a no-brainer. But I could be wrong.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't speak for them, but I would also feel that being gay is "icky" (although I would prefer, I dunno, "unfortunate"), choice or no choice. But icky is a big jump to voting against SSM.
Personally, I believe* that it does have a strong genetic component and would instinctively compare it with say dwarfism or a peanut allergy. You know, something you wouldn't want your children to have, but not something you need to legally discriminate against.
The long wind is, I might not particularly like gay culture, but I'm not going to go out of my way to vote against SSM and I think there are a fair number of people in the same boat.
I guess its a corollary to the saying "I may not like what you're saying...but I'll defend you to the death to allow you to say it" except "I may not like you ... but I'll defend your rights."
* No real proof though
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Human: No, I mean they're rednecks so of course they believe that way. There are plenty of smart rednecks. They're just wrong. Heck, my PARENTS are rednecks and they're brilliant!
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not get the "ick factor" thing anymore. It strains my imagination, and I am a lifelong monogamist heterosexual.
There is absolutely nothing gay people do that heterosexual couples don't do, regularly and with abandon (though some of it may not be to my particular taste). I am not particularly comfortable discussing the sex lives of others, myself, so maybe it is an extension of that. You see two people of teh same sex kiss and you think you know what they do (though you could be wrong). You may even do the same with hetero couples (unconsciously or otherwise) or maybe it never occurs to people because they assume hetero people are 'normal' sexually (at least in the absence of multiple piercings or collars). The only thing I'm sure of is that most people who think they know what two people do in private are dead wrong.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry if I came across as critical of your militancy Pix. I back you 100% in your fight for the right to marry.
I think we all agree that Human has a right to his opinion. The idea of "You are With Us or Against Us" is never appropriate.
In many ways you have been in his place, and have moved on. Yet you have moved on in ways that are pure Pixiest. Human will move on, or has moved on. To tell him he will move on in the same way you have is a bit presumptious, and sounds preachy to those without your experience.
p.s. I wrote this an hour and a half ago and didn't press Post until just now. Sorry if it's out dated.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And no offense, X, but if you think this generation is more tolerant, you haven't met the guys I hang out with on a regular basis. They'll choke on their own masculinity and pride before they vote for something like SSM.
I'm sorry, Human, but why then do you hang out with them?
I admit that the ultra-macho "must drink beer, must watch sports, must NEVER admit to being attracted to a man, or else you aren't a man yourself" type is still very much in existance, but there are MANY MANY people who are not this way. I tend not to hang around with that type myself, so I wonder why you would choose to do so.
The poll numbers are very much against gay marriage, but I would bet dollars to donuts that if you polled young people aged 15-28 the same question, the trend would be reversed. I'd love to see some stats on this, but don't even know where to look.
When the current crop of children reaches voting age, I think you'll see a serious change in public opinion. Like Olivet said, for kids growing up these days, with openly gay individuals all over the media, and in their everyday lives (as teachers, schoolmates, coaches, friends) they can't help but want what's best for them.
There are now many openly gay students in our public schools, something completely unheard of 15 years ago.
You'd get run out of town on a rail for being an openly gay teacher in the last generation, now you'd likely be embraced, at least in some places in the country.
Celebrities who hid their homosexuality for years, have now come out, usually to the betterment of their careers.
Heck, how many openly gay/bisexual hatrackers are there now? For years and years it was just KarlEd. Now you guys could have your own con .
In addition to being exposed to homosexuality in their lives, those of us straight homosexual rights advocates who have children will teach those children that being gay is not a bad thing.
Anti-homosexual legislation is based on fear. Pure and simple. The current generation has less fear of homosexuality than our parents did, and our children will have very little fear at all.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry, Human, but why then do you hang out with them?
From what I can tell, the only things wrong with these guys are:
1. They have a political disagreement with Human, over an issue that Human has decided to throw to the dogs in frustration. 2. As is common among straight men, they find the thought of homosexual intercourse abhorrent. This doesn't translate directly into prejudice. It's a very common visceral reaction that people are expected to transcend. Simply having the reaction doesn't mean these guys are bad people, or bad friends. If they were cruel to Human about it, then THAT would make them bad friends.
In general, I'm not a fan of the practice of demonizing your political opponents — such as deciding that you could never be friends with one, or deciding that they could only possibly have a base motivation like "fear".
The religious folk, red-staters, conservatives, and other people who tend to oppose gay marriage are as varied as humans can be. Painting them all with the same brush would be like telling a gay man that because he's gay, his politics obviously should line up with every other gay man, and if they don't then he's not being true .. to ... himself ... hey, wait a minute
Can't we all just be individuals? I've got stacks of friends on both sides of this issue. I'd really like not to think that I've got to pick one stack and reject the other.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, my cube-mate is a "red-state conservative", as is 95% of my company. I live in Nebraska, for crying out loud .
I like him, and hang out with him, and he's very much against gay marriage. I've had conservative friends in New York, one which I think would make a great hatracker, judging by the friendly (but intense) political debates we've had.
However, I wouldn't ever describe my conservative friends the way Human did his friends. Human can hang out with whoever he wants to, of course, but I'd ask the same question of a black man dating a white woman in the 50's who was friends which a bunch of guys zealously opposed to letting interracial marriage be legal.
At some level, sure, you can seperate the person from the position. But when that person is opposed to a fundamental right of yours, which impacts your life in a very real and meaningful way, I have to wonder if you really should.
Not that its any of my business, of course.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy, among other things, they set up an elaborate (weeks in the making) scenario in an RPG with Human in which his character was (I may get the details wrong) dressed up like a woman, knocked unconscious, and thrown to a group of rapacious thugs to be a plaything. Something like that. And now he is the butt (pardon the expression) of this joke whenever he gets back together with him. They seem to have hit on this as a weak spot and delight in shaming him -- whether they sense his true orientation or not is a matter of debate amongst those privvy to the unfolding of all this over at Mike's forum.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: In general, I'm not a fan of the practice of demonizing your political opponents — such as deciding that you could never be friends with one, or deciding that they could only possibly have a base motivation like "fear".
Thanks, I was just about to say this.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, I didn't know that bit. If they're aware, on any level, of Human's orientation, and are singling him out because of it, that sounds really crappy.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
