Standing Up For Gay Rights Won’t Make You Popular
By grrlpatriot on November 30, 2008 at 7:00 AM in Gay Rights
I moved to Florida about 15 months ago and only recently started reading our local newspaper, Florida Today. I’m proud of our paper. The editorial staff weighed in on the recent gay adoption ruling and fully supports ending the Florida ban on gay adoptions in a strongly worded editorial. Here are a few snips:
Discrimination against gays is the last legally sanctioned, socially acceptable form of bigotry in America, and an ugly stain on our nation’s promise of equality for all. State voters made it worse Nov. 4, when they sullied the Florida Constitution by passing an amendment that bans gay marriage, denying homosexuals the same rights their fellow citizens enjoy.
…
That Florida continues to live in the discriminatory Dark Ages on this issue is deplorable, and it’s long past time the ban is stricken from the books. Lederman’s ruling opens the door widely to finally make that happen, and we urge judges who further review the case to follow her lead and with it the Florida Constitution’s clear guarantee of equal protection under the law for everyone. Gay or straight.
Brevard is a conservative leaning county dominated by the aerospace industry and dotted with U.S. Air Force bases. I’m amazed that Florida Today has stood up for issues of equality and fairness, including gay rights. Just so you can get the flavor of the kinds of uninformed, ignorant, and/or misguided ideas people express about gays and lesbians, here are a few comments posted to the editorial. Emphasis mine.
11/29/2008 7:15:10 AM DBarton wrote:
I believe the children should be at the focus of this conversation. A child is entitled to a mother and father as it was designed to be rather than into a mentally unbalanced home of two mothers or two fathers. I am so tired of the gay lifestyle being shoved down our throats on a daily basis and the belief it to be normal. It is a psychiatric problem that deserves attention as it is not normal. Many kids are troubled enough without adding in this factor of a lifestyle that goes against traditional and moral family values. If one chooses to live this type of lifestyle there are certain rights you choose to forfeit. Case Closed!!
…
11/29/2008 7:34:42 AM imoonly wrote (reply to DBarton):
I have to agree. If they were bore [born] with a physical abnormality they would do all the could to get it fixed. But with a sexual confusion disorder they for some reason choose to give into instead of fight it. The children are not better off in gay homes. Simply put, its unnatural.
…
11/29/2008 9:53:25 AM deltajordan wrote:
…Personally, the gays I have known did have psychological problems. IMHO they were effeminate males because their mother died at a young age or they were abused by a priest or other psychological traumas.
…
11/29/2008 7:34:42 AM imoonly wrote (replying to another commenter):
…Homosexuality is not normal. Therefore, raising kids in this environment can only end up causing harm to the child. That harm may not come out until they are older, but it’s abuse in and of itself. Anything that is done against God’s plan will have a negative impact. Just as woman’s lib and divorce has had a negative impact on society.I have great compassion for people that hold these kinds of beliefs, especially when they use religion to try to justify them. They grasp stereotypes and hold on to them like a lifeboat. They are afraid of anything different from themselves. Homosexuality challenges them. I understand that. It challenged me.
Neither my partner nor I are “mentally unbalanced,” suffer from “psychological problems,” or were victims of abuse that caused us to be lesbians. We both had heterosexual parents, siblings, a middle class upbringing, and college educations. We both knew from a very young age (5-6 years old) that we were homosexual and that this biological difference was to be kept a secret. We both chose to hide ourselves in a heterosexual life-style through our teens and early twenties by dating guys. We have both had relationships and sexual experiences with males, with full knowledge that the heterosexual life-style for us was a lie so huge it shook us to our core. (For you heteros, imagine making yourself engage in an emotional AND physically intimate relationship with your same-gender close friend because that’s what society has told you is correct and that opposite-sex relationships were an abomination. The betrayal to yourself would shake you to your core, believe me.)
Gays and lesbians spend years, sometimes decades, in self-exploration, trying to understand who they are, why fitting in as a heterosexual didn’t work, and why they are different. No one chooses to be born homosexual, to be a lighting rod for bigotry from all corners of society. No one chooses this. What we do choose is our freedom. We will no longer be shackled by biblical soundbites or ignorant stereotypes that we are unstable, perverted, abominations. We are stable, monogamous, and spiritual people. We work, pay taxes, go to church, and shop for groceries just like everyone else. We struggle with many of the same issues, share many of the same joys, and dream many of the same dreams. We want to share in our nation’s promise of equality; we want to have the same rights and privileges other citizens have, the right to have our unions and families legally recognized.
Like with civil rights and interacial marriage, our country has come to another crossroads with gay rights. Many brave whites and people of color stood together to usher in a new age of equality, tolerance, and dignity. It’s time once again to unite for the cause of equality. It won’t make you popular, but standing up for gay rights, well, is the right thing to do.
Crossposted from my blog, Red Hot & Blue Politics.
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
GP, thanks for the heart felt post. We can hope Florida overturns this law that goes against everything we Americans stand for.
Millions of and millions of Californians and Floridians voted for “change” then went and voted to take away the rights our constitution guarantees. So sad that their definition of change means more of the same.
“Banning same-sex marriage is a form of gay bashing” -Coretta Scott King
and the opposition:
Delegate Selection (LGBT inclusion as delegates…”Influential individuals” Donna Brazile took the position that there be no change…video tape 10:58 )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD0ANgN36z8
…………
When those working against the LBGT community are ‘Influential Individuals’ that are not elected (elite connected),answer to NO ONE and are within the party mechanics it begs the question, is the party truly democratic.
After the DNC RBC ruling many wrote to have ‘Superdelegate’ Donna Brazile removed and it all went on deaf ears, and now we learn that she is an ‘Influential Individual’(as Dean per Dean’s deposition) working against the LBGT community. They should at the very least be honest about it and the press should lift the veil of secrecy that offers cover to such views.
I am a 35 year old Lesbian woman and I am in love with two women. We have been together for 6 years and we want to marry each other. We feel that we should have the same rights that everybody else in this country has. I think that if we truly love each other and have established a home together we three should be allowed by law to marry and adopt children if we want to. We may not be a conventional family, but we are a family. I don’t think that it should make any difference whether we are a couple or we are three. We still feel the same about each other.
Where is Joe?
http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/the-incredibly-shrinking-vp/
Even more important, where is Hillary? Is it true that BO planned on some last-minute worm as the day approached?
PUMA!!
I don’t think they can afford to do that, given that ‘the universe’ isn’t singing and that the world is still filled with people fighting and arguing about and there is talk of wars.
Oh, well guess the rock star thing is just for those seeking free food and concerts, not the working folks or those struggling. Democracy and Human Rights must be a continuous on-going work…welcome to the real world, and not the PR view of Hollywood Obama.
I am always dumbfounded at the sheer ignorance of a great many Americans. Using the bible or “psychology” as justification for such blatant bigotry and outright distortion is beyond reprehensible. It is those who believe this junk science that suffer from psychological problems.
Our Founders saw the wisdom in keeping religion separate from the government. It saddens me people don’t see the wisdom of separating religion and the secular when making public policy. Our Founders also saw the wisdom albeit incomplete at first, of protecting minority rights. They also saw the wisdom of a representative democracy. If there were no ballot initiatives, the modern equivalent of mob rule, the representatives would be duty bound to protect the vulnerable minority in this case. Some states would (like Massachusetts, see next) and other state legislatures would not. At least there is some refuge of equality on same gender marriage.
In Massachusetts the states highest court saw nothing in the state Constitution prohibiting same gender marriage. Far from “judicial activism” it is the polar opposite: they were interpreting the state Constitution literally in my view. Subsequent to the courts ruling the only way those who wished to deny marriage equality could stop same gender marriage was to amend the state Constitution. But they had a major hurdle, the legislature had to allow the measure to move forward. The legislature refused to let this move forward. They did their job: in this case going against the majority of their constituents. However, they chose to protect the rights of their minority constituents. This is what we elect and pay them to do: make difficult choicea. One of the reasons the Founders of our Republic and Massachusetts chose representative democracy was revealed right before our eyes!
There is also one other thing I think about: Just because one religion has bigger numbers today and can force their views on the rest of us, they should be aware this could flip on them. At a future time, another religion could take majority hold and if we allow the first group’s views to become the law of the land, this sets a horrific precedent: The first group will be crying the blues when the new top dog religion comes to town and changes the law yet again.
Final thought: By the way, I’m sure at one point opponents on the SCOTUS lifting the bans on interracial marriage thought the court was involved in “judicial activism.” I find that term to be a red herring especially considering it is not used when the courts are activists but favor a social right wing perspective. Selective indignation is so hypocritical and shallow.
The pendulum will swing the other way in time, I’m sure.
No pun intended I assume?
Galt…You just made me emit a Lisa Lubner snort…lol
LOL.
Not on this one. I have a gay brother who is now nearly 70. He didn’t have it easy–my Father was in many ways, fairly rigid. Katmoon’s Father is gay and he didn’t exactly have it easy, either. It is a difficult issue but one that does need to be resolved. I don’t see why we can’t at least allow for civil marriages, as the de minimis position. It could be done as a civil matter with no involvement by the Church. There has to be some wasy to compromise on this issue.
I hope so. One major sticking point is the law and regulations gives married couples a broad range of rights and privileges. We need to make sure same gender couples are given the same rights as not to violate equal protection. There is also the problem of “separate but equal.” We don’t want a watered down compromise on the fundamental issues. We all know how “separate but equal” worked out.
I think ultimately the SCOTUS will weigh in, even with a conservative majority, and will outlaw bans on same gender marriage, just as they outlawed bans on interracial marriage in the past. Will social conservatives call a conservative court activists if this happens? Probably. But they will get over it just as a past generations social conservatives got over interracial marriage. That’s Galt’s prognostication, anyway.
I’m no legal whiz but as I vaguely understand it, the marriage contract comes to us primarily through common law, which has been added to over the course of the years. To make changes of such import at this late date would be onerous (I think). That is one reason why I was suggesting civil unions as a better way to go as it is cleaner, in the legal sense. Only my opinion, though, which could be entirely wrong.
You could be on to something. But in my non-expert view I think the USC and amendments would trump common law when push comes to shove.
I think if Churches could be assured of Clergy not being prosecuted or churches not being sued to force them as a civil right…There would be less active opposition. Churches are watching what happens in other democracies and are wary. Gay activists say this is a false argument to over bigotry but I see a pattern that relates to secular pressure on a lot of issues that with regard to the centralized RCC structure is pretty clear and not a new development…I mean
Henry VIII squabbled essentially over the same thing…
I had thought Civil Unions with equal protections was the solution…But I was wrong and if it becomes a Civil Rights Issue Formally ( it is already is to many ) then how will this be resolved in the Churches…How can the State legislate Theology in a Republic…Grrrr….Hmmmmm….
It would be nice if we could just leave the churches and common law out of this and simply make it a civil matter (see post above). We just need to resolve this before anyone else grows old without the benefit off being able to be with a partner of their choosing with all the right and priviliges others have.
Oops-privileges
I have a Gay Twin Brother and many Gay friends…It is a complicated issue and I had hoped for a solution…I hope whatever resolution that comes is workable and not reactionary…Which of course Prop 8 was… Ignoring your opposition and their arguments is always a risky MO with unpredictable results…Better to suffer through the arguments to at least learn the elements…
From what I have gathered reading what the Church folks say ( getting past the moral BS ) it really boils down to Church Authority…at least where the Bishops are concerned…RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ENGLAND AND CANADA WERE NOT ENCOURAGING…*SIGH*
“It would be nice if we could just leave the churches and common law out of this and simply make it a civil matter.”
But that’s exactly what made these people go ballistic - the secularization of marriage, so I don’t think that’s a helpful strategy.
And let’s be careful about this ‘church and state’ stuff. The man’s name was the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. The church can speak to the people on social issues. Gays vs. religion? Religion wins. Not a good frame.
Religious conservatives worry about the institution of marriage — divorce rate, etc. Then give gays a stake in that institution and we’ll help rebuild it. After all, gays control Hollywood, TV, the newspapers, the liberal media — snark.
We’ve been dogmatized on this ‘marriage is a right’ frame. In the end, this is about ‘coming out.’ Coming out of the closet in the Bible Belt. All the people in those posts have a close relative who is not straight — they just don’t know it. Coming out works.
I like this.
It’s first amendment issue. A marriage license is the civil union portion of the event we call marriage. It’s the state recognizing the legality of the union. It’s only called a marriage license because for as long as marriage licenses have existed, couples got them and then went the church and got married. The state had no interest in the religious part of the union. That has first amendment protections. The state only has an interest in the civil part of the union. The attack on gay marriage is an attack on the freedom of religion. Banning gay marriage by prohibiting the church portion of the union but permitting the civil portion is inherently unconstitutional. The state can’t tell a church who they can marry. That’s protected. What the evangelics who oppose gay marriage are doing is trying to insert the state into the business of the church by using the state to dictate a ban to all churches because of what a few churches oppose. Lets face it, there are churches that would marry gay Americans tomorrow if the civil part became law. But the evangelics are waging a war on the freedom of religion to stop that from happening. As folks go, the evangelics are really about as unAmerican as people can get.
I would not go that far. They have the right to their agenda, just as we have the right to stop them. Both positions are entirely American. I like everything else you said.
I disagree. They had the chance when they ran the show to do the American thing and try for a constitutional amendment. But they didn’t do that. That was their way to shine and they didn’t do it, pure and simple. Instead they continue their war on article three and their fantasy child called activist judges as part of their larger war on the first amendment. The liberal agenda is clear on how to make changes. If you want to amend the fist amendment, fine, it lays out the procedure to do so. But don’t do that, do something that’s not procedure, I’d appreciate if you don’t go wrapping yourself in the flag as a diversion, because not only are your true colors are shining right through, now I’m probably going to have to burn the thing to dispose of it properly.
Diversion? I told you I liked your comment. I only expressed the opinion _I_ would not go that far on calling them unamerican. By the way, what are these true colors I am being alleged to be hiding? If you read all my comments on this thread and others regarding LGBT issues, I am firmly in the camp of fully unambiguous equality. Since it appears we are allies fundamentally, I don’t see what you are driving at.
i wasn’t knocking you Bro. Sorry for the mistake. The “you” was global and included anyone using extra constitutional means to effect constitutional change.
OK, I thought there was a reason.
How about the civil part remaining intact but allowing a church to sanctify it, if it chose to so do, but if it didn’t chose to, it wouldn’t have to so do. Sounds like a free-for-all, but would that pass muster?
church’s aren’t required to marry anybody and there is nothing that can make them. They can’t be forced to marry hetero-couples. So if any of them are using the fear of being forced to marry gay couples even though the church opposes it, it completely unfounded. They can’t be forced.
I said that up or was it down thread. Its a red herring.
thanks WC…you have given me food for thought…and I will research it more…
WildChild…The state has the right to prosecute for discrimination or denial of civil rights…Correct?
If Gay Marriage becomes a protected civil right and a congregational member wants to be married in a church and sues if the church refuses…then what happens?
The RCC is having all sorts of similar troubles with secular issues that threaten Church Doctrinal authority…Like Ordaining Women…Catholic school curriculum…Abortions in Catholic Hospitals…and now the Bishops have added this issue…I’m just sayin and yours is an interesting perspective that makes me think…Hmmmmm…
equal protection laws don not apply when it comes to religious ceremonies. That’s the “religion ” that the freedom of religion protects. Yes there a civil side to church administration where those laws do apply. but not the religious part ,and a marriage ceremony is strictly religious.
I am going to keep reading up on it…I am not opposed to Gay Marriage…I am wary of State and Church Relations…Your reasoning has provoked in me the need to broaden and study more…Sometimes my brain just hurts…from effort to learn and understand…chuckle…
Thanks.
I would think it could be made perfectly clear in however this works out that churches are exempt, based on freedom of religion. I don’t see any need for alarm on this.
Galt..I am not alarmist wily nily…A Catholic Bishop in Canada is being threatened with criminal prosecution by the state….To the RCC all of this is kinda the same thing to them…it affect Church Authority…And although Churches are supposed to be protected how come a church run facility is being sued in California for not renting space to a Gay couple…Can you see how confused folks can get about this stuff? I’m just exposing the argument even if it makes people uncomfortable because it is a real argument to them and if it is to b either disproven or resolved it needs to be put up front…No?
if the church is renting out its facilities for secular events, equal protection laws would apply.
That’s in Canada, but I was unaware of it. I see no sign that will ever happen in the US. I would oppose the state imposing same gender marriage on the clergy although I hope some day all religions voluntarily change and embrace it.
it is essays and discussions like this that keep me a NQ freak and help me cope with missing my kid so much…Thanks you guys for a Kickass discussion even if it make my Brain Swell from thinking…or maybe that’s from opening…chuckle…NQ AND IT’S WRITERS/COMMENTERS ROCK! SERIOUSLY ONE OF THE ALL TIME BEST BLOG COMMUNITIES ANYWHERE…NO DOUBT ABOUT IT…
great post. I’m amazed though, if I didn’t know better you’d think the only discrimination in this country is against blacks. That’s all you hear about.
Alot of people do use the bible to further their own personal beliefs. Some of it is ignorance, some hate, some intolerance. And yes, some of it is people set in their way of thinking and they absolutely refuse to even think there could be another way of looking at something.
I personally believe in God but have no idea what he thinks of gay people. Perhaps the purpose of gay people is to teach others to be more tolerant-I don’t know. I do know that a person’s worth has nothing to do with the gender of the partner they are with. It’s about character, integrity, compassion, helping others.
Considering the better part of my formative years were spent between a seriously unstable heterosexual mother, and a kind, loving, and excellent gay father, there is no law required to separate parenting ability into lifestyle differences. From first hand experience, a parent who is loving and caring with their child, will have a happier and more well balanced child than one who as a parent treats a child with anything less than love and care. It really is that simple.
Thanks for sharing this experience concerning your parents. It’s key that mainstream America needs to understand that gays and lesbians can create stable, loving, and safe environments for children.
It is also imperative that LGBT kids see stable committed same gender couples are a normal part of society, so these children have positive role models. This will cut down on negative behaviors including promiscuity, unsafe sex because of low self-esteem, substance abuse and even suicide. I would hope compassion figures in as we work out the legal issues.
Just what is/was “God’s plan”? In reading the Bible it seems that the very reason God sent JC is because the ENTIRE world was/is dysfunctional and evil, IE “Mentally Unbalanced”. Of course most of the faux Xtian Bible thumpers do not include themselves in the mentally unbalanced category and therefore have no need for JC personally. Meaning, (in their own dysfunctional minds), JC was/is not intended to help them with their dysfunctionallity and essentially dooming the bible thumpers to hell for eternity [it would seem]. That Bible the thumpers quote says JC only associated with the sinners, the thieves, prostitutes, and/or tax collecters. He had no respect for the religious people in general calling them “White Washed Tombs” and “Hypocrits” and “Broods of Vipers”, advising them to “Take The Plank Out Of Their Own Eyes before they try to remove the speck from someone else’s eye”. The Apostle Paul talked about “the thorn in his flesh and reminded his congregant members that none of them “HATED” him because of that [thorn in his flesh]. Since no sane person would ever “HATE” anyone who is or was physically ill or injured then that thorn in Paul’s flesh must have been something other. Paul, the Apostle was never married and he wished everyone could be like he[celebate]. The Middle Eastern religious folks had a habit of stoning people who did not conform to their sexual preferrances and or habits. No wonder Paul loved the church who didn’t hate him.
I don’t understand why we just don’t mind our own business and let people live their own lives. If it’s a religious problem for some, then they would do well to remind themselves they aren’t God. If they feel so strongly that it’s a God issue, then it’s between the person and God. I find it truly amazing that people completely skip over the concept or paying attention to the log in your own eye instead of the sliver in everyone else’s. This country needs to mind it’s own business. Every gay person I know is a hell of a lot more kind than some of these religious zealots I know. religion is becoming an intrusive pain in the ass in America instead of a source of comfort. That’s the kind of thing we are fighting against in the Middle East.
After all, christianity was at first a Middle Eastern religion and has been the cause of more wars and killing than any other single source in the history of the world–IN the Name of GOD.
religion-bashing is as bad as gay-bashing.
Stating facts is not bashing. christianity begin in Israel, in the Middle East, almost 2,000 years ago.
agreed. but your primary post included ‘has been the cause of more wars and killing than any other single source in the history of the world–IN the Name of GOD.’ That is religion bashing.
No that is not religion bashing but rather historical facts. As a matter of fact WW11 was a war where christians killed christians numbering in the millions. Not to even mention the slaughter of non-christians like the Jews and the Islamics.
nope, you use the word ’cause’. ‘has been the cause of more wars……’
That is wrong. People used religion. But saying christianity is the cause is religion bashing.
Its the same as saying that Islam is the cause of the terror attacks. That too is wrong. Terrorists used religion. So its isnt the ’cause’.
Nonsense. When the dominant order allows/chooses to let ‘religion’ stand as the justification, its religion. Just like persecution of Jewish people is racism/religious discrimination even if somebody ‘thinks’ its really motivated by generic imperialism. When the people getting hurt are characterized by their race, religion, etc., that matters and can’t be wormed away.
Uppity’s comment is right.
So do you think its right to blame Islam for all the terrorists that use it? Or will you be ‘politically correct’ in that instance?
Frankly the only thing I think that separates any of our own religious zealots from Jihad nutballs is that they live in a country where they can’t get away with murder. Old testament obsessed Christians are the antithesis of Jesus’ intent. That’s my two cents.
This is what happens when we listen to men. Religion isn’t God. Religion is Man. Man interprets to suit his own beastly nature. I have YET to see a church that claims to be New Testament focused that doesn’t blow hate on everybody at one time or another.
It doesn’t matter to me, Christian or Muslim. I have known Muslims for decades who dont’t behave like these crackpots. And I know Christians who truly strive to live the New Testament without criticizing everybody else and telling them what to do. They understand that it’s a full time job just focusing on their OWN faults. And they do it quietly without a lot of chest pounding and smoke blowing at everybody around them.
The problem with all religions is their zealots who think they speak for God while trying to fool God themselves daily.
Go into your closet to pray. I do believe I know who said that. And keep your specific doctrines to yourself without shoving them down everybody else’s throats.
I would far rather be stranded on an island with a bunch of gays and lesbians than a bunch of religious zealots from ANY religion. They don’t hurt me and they don’t hurt you. And they certainly are NOT a threat to marriage. The biggest threat to marriage is DIVORCE. Perhaps all these religous sects should focus on that first, since so many of them have no problem marrying and remarrying and remarrying.
and read my post again. I didn’t reply to Uppitys comment.
At least 4,000,000 Jewish people died in the name of God. Hitler was in the process of destroying what he and his party called the “Christ Haters and the Christ Killers”.
“Seig Und Heil”–means “Victory and Salvation” pronounced in their [nazi] salute or salutation. Then there were the crusades–in the NAME of GOD. ETC ETC ETC.
If you are implying We’reallbondsmen that WWII as a religious war amongst Christians then I suggest you read up on History…
Every religion that seeks to expand in power and territory results in Bloodshed.
This is not and never has been singular to Christianity…and to imply this shows ignorance…Buddism and it’s spread throughout Asia and the sub-continent has caused millions of deaths…as has Islam…sheesh!
“bondsmen” was a holdover from past comments on the bail-outs. Even the civil war was fought with each side invoking “In the Name of God” as their mainstay, Americans killing Americans, IE christians–in the name of God.
War has never been confined to christians or christianity but the number of lives lost in the name of god (or gods) is greatest in the wars waged by christians. How about GW Bush’s war of choice, Iraq?
While I’m not going to dispute the fact of Lives lost in so called Chistian wars…I think Mao and Stalin killing Bitter clingy folks would no doubt trump anything in the West in the same century…
There have been twenty (20) centuries since the establishment of christianity. Mao and Stalin combined in their century can’t hold a candle.
PEACE–PLEASE
You have a right to express your sentiments and I to debate them…I find discussions like these to be informative and entertaning and for the most part stimulating in a constructive way. Debate through rhetoric is the foundation of Western Civilization and this tradition lives on with candor, wit and passion at this site…chuckle…Socrates and Diogenes would be active members here and often I hear echoes of their voices in even the most strident of opinionators here…
Hmmmm….For many churches this is symptomatic of Secular tampering with church governance and or doctrine. In my opinion when these issues are addressed…The cause will advance.
For example in Canada a Catholic Bishop is being threatened with prosecution for imposing Canon Law with regards to instruction to Priests about performing marriages in the church. These are real legal issues of secular vs. religious and it needs to be addressed instead of ignored or discounted. In the eyes of the RCC it has to do with doctrinal authority and is bundled into what the RCC perceives as an overall assault on it’s cohesion and Vatican Authority in the balance between Secular Laws and Church Authority. Gay Marriage is lumped in with Catholic Education, Abortion in Catholic Hospitals, Female Priests etc…
The RCC is a centralized Authoritarian Christian Denomination that is global and until this is wrangled out…there will be opposition. The RCC is well aware of the dramatic schism happening in The Anglican Church of England over similar issues and when folks minimize this as simply a privacy issue or one of simply bigotry it does not serve the interests of those who fight for the cause imho…everyone has a right to an opinion but for many….this has to do with a whole set of legal issues on Church freedom and stability that they feel just as passionately about as Gays do about Civil Rights or Women do about equality. Many hoped that civil unions would be a compromise that could work.For Gays it became a separate but equal slap in th face. It is instructive to look at all sides of an argument not to surrender principles but to understand and form solutions…Religious Faith for many is both cultural and primary..Just is…I’m just sayin’
Hmmmm….I think that could be historically inaccurate and biased. Buddism caused a bit of a fracas and still does and a whole lot people died…And to Blame GOD is in my opinion silly…
Empires progress whether there be a Roman Eagle, A Christian Cross, Or any other symbol at the forefront…The Russian Revolution and the advance of the Soviet Empire had the State as the New Religion at it’s fore front…Atheism as it’s standard…
Okay, now for the proverbial fly in the ointment.
First, after this misogyny-befilthied election, I don’t know how anyone can think that sexism is no longer socially acceptable. And that goes for pervasive bigotry against fat folks, Christians, and hillbillies.
Second, people who can’t understand the positions of culturally conservative people, as to gay rights, need to keep this in mind: most, if not all, of the former are not CHOOSING to think the way they do or say the things they truthfully believe any more than homosexuals can choose how they feel. They’re not doing it to be hateful or divisive. They honestly believe that children are better off in a home composed of a father and mother. And they have the right to think this and to vote the way they feel. People who favor adoption by gays, same-sex marriage, etc. have the right in this nation to keep pushing their cases both in the courts and courts of public opinion.
i add my thanks for an informative and heartful post. here’s hoping more children get the chance for loving parents no matter what their sexual orientation. florida has been behind the times for awhile now.
Grrlpatriot this was an insightful article on what is for many people a complicated issue. I appreciate the tone of the article especially given the recent heartbreaking disappointments suffered by proponents of Gay Rights in many states. It is my belief that when folks become more educated…They become more open minded. Gay Rights Movement has become ensnared in the broad battle of Secular vs. Religion. My hope is that there will be an outreach to conservative religious leaders so that this obstacle can be overcome because I think it is painful for people on both sides of the issue and the fact that you recognize that and speak freely of compassion towards your opponents speaks volumes about your courage and principles. I am a Roman Catholic with a Gay twin brother and even he has mixed feelings over this issue ( He is struggling with what he perceives as the death of Gay Culture which was his refuge throughout his youth…and he has no personal interest in either marriage or adoption as of yet )
I think when Gay Activists, politicians, and lawyers address the concerns Religions have toward Secular involvement…Cooler heads may prevail. Thankyou for your article. And thanks NQ for posting it.
Omnia Vincit Amor…Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Love conquers all…Fortune favor the brave
With the divorce rate in this country, children are not living in two parent homes!
There is an argument to be made about the financial aspects for extending full marital benefits to gays.
I am not well versed on that subject, but have seen discussions, pro and con, on that facet of the issue.
For those who are injured by the bias against them, I extend my sympathy…although I do not think they are the last victims in this society.
It seems as if Paul the Apostle, who was never married, essentially adopted Timothy as his own son and was always sending for him.
Hmmm….Paul spoke of caring about Timothy as if he were a son but he did not adopt him…Paul was a Roman Citizen and did not go through the legal process of adoption. He was speaking both metaphorically and intentionally to overcome cultural obstacles and form unification amongst congregations. Timothy was GREEK and there was devision between Greek Jews and Israeli Jews. This had more to do with cultural politics then Paul’s stance or actions toward adoption…it also had to do with apostolic authority and Paul’s quibbles with the other Jewish desciples on inclusion and the application of Jewish Law to these new members of what was then a RENEGADE JEWISH SECT…
Niether did Amam and Eve pocess a formal marriage license but they were considered married because of their acts.
2nd Timothy 1:2 To Timothy, My beloved son:—”.
Paul adopted Timothy by and through an act of love. Would you deny Paul that right due to a formallity? And Actually I did say “Paul “ESSENTIALLY” adopted–”.
Hmmmm….Catholics believe the sacrament of marriage was enacted by God with the couple and although a piece of paper is not specifically mentioned in Genesis…chuckle…The RCC holds equal weight to tradition and scripture as one evolves through custom and practice for centuries before it may actually be codified in text..Judaism similarily has customs/traditions that evolved long before the texts…
So in this a Protestant might use this argument based on scripture and a lack of Marriage being mentioned to forward their argument and a Catholic theologian would turn to the Church Doctors who hold equal weight in the formation of the theology and Doctrine…St. Paul being of course a Founding Church Doctor
Would I deny Paul the right to adopt Timothy is a specious argument…sorry…It’s like apples and oranges and is a fallacy. I suggest you might use another example…And with regards to Paul…Certainly not as he is pretty clear on his stance about Marriage, although like Jesus he was radical in his ideas about Divorce which was an accepted Jewish practice. It is because of this the RCC has the current docrinal stance
it does with regards to Divorce and annulments and Canon Law etc…
It aint’ easy to be Catholic…chuckle…
California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) confirmed Monday (11/25/08) that it will investigate allegations that the LDS Church failed to report nonmonetary contributions to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.
An independent nonprofit organization, Californians Against Hate, called for the investigation after the measure passed earlier this month, effectively ending same-sex marriages in that state.
“They read my letter and I guess came to the conclusion that there’s something worth looking into,” said Fred Karger, who heads Californians Against Hate, which was formed to track donations in support of the ballot initiative. “I’m hopeful that the LDS Church will cooperate and share all the records and all the information
Link to full article below:
http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11064769
The irony in the name “Californians Against Hate” is that the organization itself is about hate - hate against people who disagree with them, and making them all out to be haters when they are not.
This is a very divisive issue. There is a mingling of several issues and I believe they can’t all be considered as “Gay Rights”. There is the issue of private sexual preference and behavior. That is clearly no place the government belongs unless there is coercion, or abuse.
Marriage is another kettle of fish. Marriage laws and societal benefits/support have evolved and been constructed for a variety of reasons but chief amongst them is an affirmation that our nation supports the family unit as the best method of procreation and raising new citizens. That is why there are tax benefits for marriage and raising children. It is not clear that those benefits should be extended to gay couples since procreation and a nuclear family is not the commitment being made. That is one of the reasons I favor civil unions.
On the other hand gay adoptive parents are making a commitment to the next generation and that would seem to fall within the type of action that America has traditionally supported with tax concessions. They do deserve the same societal support as any other parents. It may be cumbersome but I would favor a slower approach to changing the definition of marriage giving the tax advantages with children adopted or natural and retaining marriage as one type of life partnership, defined as between a man and a woman.
The last of the threads I want to consider is attitudes towards the homosexual choice. With the best of intentions many heterosexual people feel that the Gay lifestyle is not something that they would chose for their children if they had a choice. It is more difficult in many ways and the path to grandchildren is less clear. For that reason they are very reluctant to see it highlighted and glamorized. They think that this exposure will encourage children to experiment and that children who might not have chosen this path will become confused or imprinted by early experiences.
Parents are engaged in promoting behaviors they think will benefit their children and discouraging potential harmful behaviors from the time their children are born.Exposing them to the idea of variable sexual orientation certainly falls into the category of potentially harmful and it is not a surprise that parents don’t want the media and teachers to decide how this is presented. As more Gay couples raise children the process will become simpler since they will be part of the pool. The sexual aspects will not be sensationalized as they are being now.
You raise some good and valid points. I do have to ask do you think heterosexuality is a choice?
I think it can be. I think we are all wired differently and some can chose.
I’m not as sure. Does one “choose” to be heterosexual? Is it possible that genetics plays the defining role? I’m just not convinced, yet, either way.
I think it is possible for people to subdue their physical feelings through willpower. That is, suppose a gay person by physical predisposition (and I do believe in that) decides for cultural or personal reasons to reject gay sex and pursue heterosexual relations. It has certainly been done many times, although the results have been mixed for satisfaction.
Then we move to the next question, is it “right” to do things because it is possible, or “wrong” not to do things because it is difficult? In what sense is it “right” to suppress one’s instincts? Is suppressing a sexual urge in the same category as suppressing a homicidal one, and vice-versa? There is little to go on for guidance, and for various reasons most religions seem to be anti-gay.
I think you could probably program people to be attracted to one thing or another by constant repetition of salacious images that are tied in with the automatic sex response.
I mean, how else can you explain why many men actually find big disgusting, fake, insanely huge boobs “arousing” except for the fact that they have been associated with “vagina” in many porn films?
Wouldn’t this explain why a man who was abused by a priest or other male figure in childhood has a sexual attraction to men, due to the repeated trauma and association of sex with male anatomy?
Note: I am not saying all gay men have been abused. I believe there are people who are biologically gay and probably quite a few acting homosexuals who are not. See my longer post below.
Interesting…There was a study that was comprehensive on whether Female endowment and the concept of ideal beauty was cultural or evolutionary…Here is what they found…
Every culture has an IDEAL which in Western Art is best expressed by the Venus d’ Milo in terms of ideal proportions of ratio and that this survey was global…The consistency amongst Males despite age,ethnicity,etc…was what astonished the researchers…They’re conclusion thus far is that it is evolutionary…ingrained in the Male Psyche…
You are so full of it with this lame-ass attempt at pop psychology.
Wouldn’t this explain why a man who was abused by a priest or other male figure in childhood has a sexual attraction to men, due to the repeated trauma and association of sex with male anatomy?
Yeah. Sure. And I bet that’s why women who’ve been raped/sexually assaulted by strangers (as adults) are just sooo eager for their husbands/boyfriends to get them in the sack the next day. Please. Most women who’ve been raped by strangers (or even acquaintances, who actually make up the majority of rapes) are incredibly reluctant to resume ANY type of sexual relationship, even with a longtime partner, for weeks, even months after the assault.
The trouble is that doesn’t explain why the vast majority of gay men have never been sexually assaulted (much less by Catholic priests). If you want to turn the matter around, studies have found that *some* lesbians (but, by no means, all) were sexually abused as children by MEN. Why then are they not living a heterosexual life?
As to your comment about the “huge boobs” being arousing *only* because of porn, ask yourself why this is so when not all porn actresses have been so massively endowed? Historically, huge boobs are a recent aspect of the porn industry but straight men have been fascinated by boobs (of all shapes and sizes) since the dawn of time. It’s simply a fact. At puberty, when all the hormones begin kicking in, the little girls who start sprouting faster become the targets of male attention first. But, for most girls, even if they sprouted earlier, their female peers who develop bigger get even more attention.
But, I’d also point out that men–even straight men–are incredibly fascinated with the penis. The bigger, the better. Men will lie about their endowment if they don’t think their own is “large enough”. But, straight men are in no way thinking, “gee, I’d love to have that thing up my butthole” nor are they necessarily thinking about the number of guys they could get to service them. No, they’re thinking about attracting women, even though it’s highly unlikely a woman is going to even see his equipment until they’re alone and naked but, you can certainly bet the straight guy will be (discreetly) checking out other guys’ equipment in the locker rooms or the gym showers or at the urinals to see how he measures up against the other guys. (The truly well-endowed guy won’t be shy about showing his off at those places either, to some degree daring other guys to challenge his “supremacy”.) This has ZERO to do with being sexually abused. Men of all ages and sexual orientations LOVE their penises, and we practically worship the phallus or its symbol. Think about language–we “erect” monuments; we might go off half-”cocked” (and you might remember that originated from gun usage–an old-style pistol had to be fully cocked before firing; if it were only “half-cocked”, it couldn’t be fired, and often led to you being shot instead). What shape are most rockets? Why do asparagus and zucchini have reputations as aphrodisiacs? (Hint–look at their shapes.) Also, why do people find “creative” ways to eat common things like bananas and ice cream cones and lollipops? Again, the phallic connotations. (Now, most straight men wouldn’t think about eating those foods in any “creative” manner, but watch how they’ll react when an attractive woman begins eating a banana.)
Even now, most men in straight-oriented porn are more well-endowed than the average guy and a lot of straight men are watching the way the porn actor’s tool is functioning just as much as they are the woman’s breasts or vadge. Even for straight men, in the typical guy/girl (or guys/girls, or guy/girl/girl) flick, the “money shot” is when the porn actor ejaculates. (I really don’t have any idea what strtaight guys watching girl/girl flicks are waiting for. A few women produce something similar to the male semen ejaculate, but certainly not enough–not even in the porn industry–can do that for it to be reliable.)
“The trouble is that doesn’t explain why the vast majority of gay men have never been sexually assaulted (much less by Catholic priests). If you want to turn the matter around, studies have found that *some* lesbians (but, by no means, all) were sexually abused as children by MEN. Why then are they not living a heterosexual life?”
Don’t oversimplify. I have said that I believe there are biological gays and then those who may be entering into homosexual relationships due to abuse. Does that mean all gays are? No. So if only a SMALL percentage of gay men are acting that way due to childhood abuse, shouldn’t those guys get some help?
And yes, there are probably lesbians who are lesbians because of childhood abuse - the rape from a father is so traumatic they do not trust men and therefore choose to be with women.
As for the big boobs and porn thing - studies show that frequent viewing of porn distorts straight men’s expectations of women and their perceptions of women’s bodies. Men that I know that aren’t so much into porn seem to prefer a natural figure to fake huge triple D breasts.
yuck
A perfect summation.
That has got to be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.
Hmmmm…Ancient Greek Culture encouraged Pedagogical relations between Males in the upper echelons of society. Homosexual Sexual activity took on approved forms…And in the society was encouraged as a sort of “phase” that preceded a citizens natural responsibility to form partnerships for binding families and tribal alliances and the propagation of children. Marriage in this case was achieved for this purpose..Propagation and alliances of families/tribes…
To many Greeks and Romans of Classical times the idea of a primarily Gay Persona would most likely baffle them…
There were strict social customs…Folks should read the Philosophers and some history to gain a better understanding of the historical interaction in Culture and society…
Does it matter?
Does what matter?
Whether it’s a “choice” or biological.
it matters to the moralists I suppose.It matters to Gays who felt stigmatized as psychological misfits indeed Homosexuality being Biological has liberated many and strengthened a Natural perspective as opposed to a primarily Moral one. Like Addiction which although it has moral consequences we now know has biological elements and allows new treatment and compassion. I’m using addiction because understanding and Social awareness is a recent phenom and progress towards reformation and treatment is recent. Not to imply anything negative or addictive about Homosexuality. Human sexuality and the study of this is still in it’s infancy…although the fascination is ancient. To me any dialog is both enlightening and can be constructive if allowed to be heard and considered thoughtfully…
workingclass artist, well put.
I think it matters in that, some gay activists are denying that anyone might possibly be turning to homosexuality due to issues other than biology.
If there are people out there who “became gay” because of childhood abuse or rape, I would like to see them get help and healed. Not healed from being “gay” per se, but healed from the trauma. And if they can’t acknowledge that their homosexual actions are in some part “acting out” their abuse due to Political Correctness, then they aren’t going to get the healing they need.
Please note: I believe there are biological gays and then people who turn to homosexuality for other reasons: I.e., the woman who turns to women for sex because she can’t trust men due to her father raping her.
Human sexuality is more complex than most admit…and perhaps more mysterious…As a Political and Social Movement Gay Rights is still very young…and still having growing pains ut one thing is certain…They have accomplished astonishing progress in a relatively short period of time…A single generation especially when compared to other socio-political movements like Labor, Feminists, and Civil Rights…
If they are to succeed in the culmination of the agenda…Wishing away or screaming away Dreaded Churches is politically and socially naive…Gays must address these concerns just as Feminists must or this see-saw continues which could very well be the natural course of things…culturally speaking of course….And like anything else I’ve said these are just my observations as I like the rest of my countrymen Gay or Straight…Religious or Secular stumble along the road…
When English Law tried to impose Gay adoptions in Catholic Orphanges…The RCC closed the orphanges. Why did they do this? Because this became a fight about doctrinal authority. Does the state have the legal right to impose secular law that conficts with Canon Law…England said yes…Vatican said OK we will not operate under those conditions and closed the adoption/orphanages. Does the State have the right to impose laws about abortions in Catholic Hospitals…These will close too. Can Females sue to force the ordination of Female Priests based on descrimination…Churches will close too…Teachers don’t want to go to Mass with their students which is part of the traditional curriculum in Catholic Schools ( why the RCC does not want Teachers Unionized ) Catholic Schools will close too…This is real and important to a lot of people and where and how should these civil rights be applied? For the RCC whether you want to call Catholics bigoted or ignorant or sexist homophobes…It has to do with Doctinal Authority which is the foundation of the church and has been for over 2000 years…
[...] Standing Up For Gay Rights Won’t Make You Popular : NO QUARTER Many brave whites and people of color stood together to usher in a new age of equality, tolerance, and dignity. It’s time once again to unite for the cause of equality. It won’t make you popular, but standing up for gay rights, well, … [...]
I rarely weigh in on discussions like this, but here goes.
First, the question of “gay” rights is really a one issue argument; that of gays being given the right to marry. The argument itself is moot, as there are no laws, in any state, that prevents gays from marrying now. Gays are allowed to marry under the same guidelines as heterosexuals; one man/one woman. The argument then becomes one of being able to marry the person of their choice. The bar has now been changed, and the argument then becomes one of choice, not the ability to marry.
You will hear the arguments that gays should have the right to be with a loved one in the event of a serious illness and should be able to visit them in the hospital and make decisions for their partners. This too, is a weak argument as all the things that are gained by being married, can be gained legally through legal agreements; living wills, wills, beneficiary assignments, power of attorney. In most states, due to “community property” laws, if a person wants to leave their entire estate to their spouse, they must have a will, or that estate will be divided up between the spouse and children. A will allows gays to leave their estates to anyone they choose and it virtually irreversable in a court of law. Same with life insurance, the designation of a beneficiary settles the issue. Wills are a simple matter and can be drawn up without the cost of a lawyer. Forms are available in every book store in the nation and once they are filed out, it is a simple matter to file them at the county court house for a nominal fee.
What does that then leave that grants the benefits of marriage to gays? One thing; the right to file joint tax returns and collect Social Security from a deceased partner along with the $255.00 SS death benefit. But if the “marriage” penalty is reinstated in the tax code, there goes any benefit they would currently enjoy were “gay” marriage legal.
Now, before y’all jump on me and tell me how intolerant I am, let me tell you that these opinions have been gained by one thing; my gay son and his life’s partner. They both have wills, living wills, have assigned power of attorney to each other in the event one of them is unable to make decisions for themselves, have bought a home together with rights of suvivorship, have a joint checking/savings accounts, also with rights of suvivorship. They also explained to me that when it is time to draw Social Security, they would take a loss in payment if they were to draw against each other and not their own account.
To equate this fight for “equality” to the fight for equality for people of color is wrong. There is only one way you can be sure someone is gay, they tell you, as the author of this entry did. If the author was to place her picture here, you would not be able to look at her and say “She’s gay” as you could if she were say, African American. You also cannot demand that the government stay out of your bedroom and then demand rights based on what you do in your bedroom; either you want the government out (and the abolition of sodomy laws) or you don’t, at which time you subject yourself to the will of the majority.
All laws in a republican (small R) society are designed for two reasons; the security of that society and the survival of the society. i.e., traffic laws are designed to protect other drivers.
Gay marriage, according to my gay son, does nothing to guarantee the survival of the society (as two men cannnot create an offspring, nor can two women). So laws that protect society are all done with that survival in mind.
What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business. And it should remain private. That was the first battle gays took on; the right to privacy. But now you want to throw those privacy rights away and let the world know what you do when you are in the privacy of your own home. No one knows you are gay unless you tell them and that, frankly, is nobody’s business.
According to my gay son, and his partner, the gay “movement” really has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with forced acceptance, not being content with tolerance, they are striving for “protected” status based on personal actions.
And the question arrises, if marriage laws are now to be designed on “choice of partner”, then will we not have to give those same “rights” to the man who wants to marry his own daughter who is of legal age, or a woman wants to marry her first cousin, brother or other immediate family member? You cannot give “the right of choice” to one segment of our society and not to the other. Either we have the right to place limitations on who people marry to guarantee the survival of the species, or we don’t.
Personally, I don’t care. If gays want to marry, fine. The divorce lawyers will make out like bandits, just as they do from heterosexual couples. Community property laws will apply, and when gay couples split up (and they do just like straight couples) there will not be anymore smooth transactions like “you take the couch and I’ll take the stero”. It will all be decided in a court of law after much legal expense.
You cannot be denied a job, if you are gay. And your future employeer has no way of knowing your sexual preferences unless you tell them. You cannot be denied buying a home if you are gay. You cannot be denied entrance to any public place if you are gay. Gays are already guaranteed equal protection under the law. The argument that they are not allowed to obtain a marriage license is a shadow argument. Because the truth of the matter is that the only way anyone knows a person is gay is by that person making their private life public.
If you want to abolish the restriction on gay marriage due to personal choice, and you are willing to take to the streets to protest any restrictions placed, are you also willing to take to the streets and protest the restrictions place on gun owners? When cities started placing restrictions on who could own a fire arm, did you protest the violation of those citizens “civil liberties”?
As I said, I don’t care if gays are allowed to marry. I just wish someone would be honest about what the “movement” is really all about.
A will allows gays to leave their estates to anyone they choose and it virtually irreversable in a court of law.
True, but for example the skip tax on a living will may be dis-allowed. I am curious if your this is something your son ran into?
I am not familiar with any “skip tax” on any type of will.
My son and his parter have put everything in their names, jointly, but I advised them, due to state inheritance laws, that they add “with rights of survivorship” to everything they own backed up by a will. They have also given each other power of attorney eliminating the chance that someone else would have to make decisions for them in the event they could not.
Forgive me if this is a repitition - I seem to be having trouble posting.
I’ve had conversations with gay and lesbian friends who believe that the “gay marriage” issue is simply a political strategy, analogous to the abortion issue. From this perspective, these “wedge” issues are nothing more than tools used to distract, deflect and divide.
That is always the unintended consequence of any political movement. I think one could argue the civil rights movement has turned into a business with organizations not really wanting too much equality but just enough progress to keep the donations flowing. I guess we could not do anything when there is injustice but that’s no solution either. This is an obvious dilemma.
Yep and isn’t ironic and hypocritic especially coming from a man who decried those “gotcha” politics, but they used them at every moment, especially his infamous Religious tours.
It sounds to me like you are not tolerant or informed at all.
It is GREAT to see this covered in your paper, I agree. And so sad to bare witness to ignorant people. Unfortunately, why is it those very ignorant people admitting their bigotry seem to be the same very people crying for rights, fairness and accusations of bigotry for themselves?
I believe that is one thing that this election shined a light on very well-the hypocrisy.
Thank you GP for sharing your life experiences. I can never know your experience. Sadly, from the other severe bigotry we’ve witnessed this election, it seems when it comes to SEXES, we have a long way to go. When even women attack women based on their sex and women are not a or the minority, it surely saddens us all the growth that still has a long way to go here to reach.
It was a GREAT day when Florida ruled gay adoption ban was unconstitutional. … one tiny step forward on what we’ve seen latey of many steps backwards.
Be well.
Just out of curiosity, if there was a a “cure” to homosexuality, would gay people partake in it?
I am certainly not saying such a “cure” should be forced. But if medicine found a way to “cure” homosexuality, should that be allowed to be available and would many gay people use it?
This issue of whether or not being gay is psychologically (or otherwise) not not “normal” is not totally cut and dry, I feel. A few random thoughts I will share:
1. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of young women experimenting with “bisexual” lifestyles due to the pressure in the media and glamorization and sexualization of women being with other women. (Due to porn and even mainstream TV.) I have seen straight women, with boyfriends, making out and having sex with each other in public as exhibitionists, and that has NOTHING to do with being inherently homosexual. It is this sort of thing that I think a lot of conservative Americans (rightly) fear and oppose.
2. I’ve known a lot of gay people and there does seem to be a difference between those who are biologically gay and those who appear to be psychologically “confused.” As in, there seems to be a certain segment of homosexuals who are behaving in that manner due to childhood abuse or rape. Shouldn’t they get the benefit of psychological counseling? Along these lines…
3. I have two flaming gay male friends and both of them late in life appear to be somewhat confused - one is definitely confused and thinks perhaps he might want to be with women…he’s been cuddling and making out with a female friend of his…he thinks he may want to marry a woman…this is not a cut and dry issue.
My other gay male friend is older but has a disturbing penchant to go after really young looking guys who are maybe 21-22 but look like boys. He’s not a pedophile but I wonder why he won’t go after guys his own age. Was he abused or something? I haven’t asked him. But I honestly wonder.
I think the problem here is that gay activists are so determined to “prove” that being gay is not a lifestyle that they refuse to listen to any legitimate concerns from the other side.
I believe homosexuality is an orientation for those who are biologically gay, but it is a choice (due to psychological defense or trauma) for some.
Why can’t gay activists understand why some people are apprehensive over homosexuality being pushed with no limits? For me, it really has nothing to do with homosexuality per se, but the constant and never-ending objectification of women in our culture.
I, as a straight women, am a bit tired of lesbianism pushed as titillation and another way to objectify women. I have no problem with real lesbianism, just the kind that involves glorifying it as another way to objectify women. I’m tired of Girls Gone Wild, women getting it on with other women in every damn TV show while men never kiss each other, women running around here in LA being faux lesbian exhibitionists in the name of pleasing men, etc.
Can we find a middle ground here?
(OK FLAME RETARDANT HAT ON)
Interesting question. I don’t know the answer, but it is interesting.
Just for your amusement, I recall reading a survey they did with 200 senior widows and 200 senior widowers. They asked all of them if they would like a companion and most of both sexes said yes. Then they asked what would be expected by the companion. Most of the men said they expected the same things their dead wives provided for them. Most of the woman said they just wanted some company, friendship, and sharing of the costs and responsibilities. Then they asked them all if they had a sexual preference for their companion. Most of the men said they wanted a woman. Most of the women did too.
Now that’s funny.
But they are seniors–the estrogen is gone and the androgens remain–
Yeah and they figured out that men are too much work. LOL.
And besides, don’t make me laugh. The men just pretend things are any different for them. They are experienced at it.
When I am an old woman, if I were a widower, I would not mind having a female roommate situation like “Golden Girls” where I would have friends who are there for me in that manner. However, I would have NO interest in having sex with them!
OK FLAME RETARDANT HAT ON
I like your hat! Did you get that at Galt’s Haberdashery?
Human beings are complicated, and I can really appreciate where you are coming from.
The Cultural DNA is warped by sterotypes.
I voted FOR PROP 8 on the belief that it WOULD end up in the courts. And it has! So on the merits it will loose. Secondly, the use of Referendum to change the state constitution was at issue. To me any law passed that seeks to take away rights is not constitutional. That said, true long lasting progress takes time. If one supports the concept of seperation of church and state where do you draw the line? And what if your church IS the state?
Hmmmm…Where does one draw the line indeed Teak…This issue has forced me to examine many things of which I realize I had only a superficial understanding or kneejerk reaction to…I am actively engaged in the Socratic Dilemma much to the howling delight of Diogenes…But at least I am actively engaged in the tango which to Socrates is entirely the point and a principle he died for much to the utter bewilderment of Plato…
The Unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates
I think this makes sense. And I will add this thought: It seems to me this may not be like a group of three switches on an appliance: either hetero, bi or homo. I think its more of a variable rotary dial. In other words, someone could be born oriented 85% hetero and in the case of your hetero women having sex with women, this is just an expression of their inherent bisexuality. They will experiment and even on occasion wish to have sex with other women. But they will probably end up getting married to a man in the end. So there could actually be some “choice” involved but not really too much.
This issue is really tiring to me. Its obvious some social conservatives use it because its the last refuge for their bigotry. People are expressing themselves as they are wired and external influences, not one or the other but both. Can we as a species move on now?
Can we as a species move on now…WTF?
You know some people are actually interested in other people and how else are you going to find out except through dialog and investigation…sheeesh!
If you are bored Galt…chuckle…feel free to ump another thread and leave us backward geenpool treaders to our own backward discussions…lol
You are misinterpreting my angst and frustration with discrimination, with a call for the end of dialogue. If I was against the dialogue I would not participate.
ok…Point taken…
Is there anything prior to the comment that started our discussion you were interested in? I’m very passionate about this issue, having worked on diversity issues in the past with the group I feel is being discriminated against in this case. And I also feel we should not go off the deep end and become anti-religious. That’s a right we have to protect as well. I truly believe in the wisdom of the Founders on both issues, as I view their intent: freedom of expression, religion and equal treatment of individuals or groups by the state.
Hmmm…I can tell you what the Bishops say Galt and I think they have a point.
The RCC considers Marriage to be a sacrament which to a Catholic is no minor thing. In the RCC whe a man and woman marry they make binding promise not to each other but to GOD in principle and the church oversees that. This is a tradition that is very old. In the RCC the Vatican enforces Canon Law and the Pope as head Bishop is responsible for instruction and guidance in faith and morals with regard to being Catholic and practicing the sacraments.
The RCC defines marriage as having a principle purpose…Procreation with a secondary benefit of binding families and tribes into stable loyalties bla..bla..bla…This is where that dreaded and misunderstood Infallability thingy comes in. Rarely used but Tradition holds that with regards to the Faith and Moralsof the flock, God will not allow the Pope to lead the flock astray ( the whole upon this rock Peter thing ) Catholic theologians since Augustine have applied Logic and History to the ever evolving understanding of doctrine…But the fundamentals do not change as their has been no successful argument to overturn the logic… For example to the Church Gays like other adults outside marriage should refrain from Sex…The RCC believes this corrupts the spirit and undermines the intended role of Sex and Marriage and how each functions in society. Folks don’t like that…But The RCC isn’t in it to win popularity contests…chuckle…I can disagree all I want…and a priest if he wants can withhold the sacraments if I stray…shrug…
To Catholics this becomes alarming because of 2 things. The State can impose Laws that conflict with doctrine like say ordaining females. And the state causes schism…Parishes lose their churches or are forced underground to practice. Could this happen..It is happening in China, has happened in Russia and Poland and may happen in Canada. For a Catholic why is Religious freedom allowed for certain groups and not others…And for Catholics we are a global church so when any of our churches suffer we all feel it. I may not like some of the tenants of my church but I understand them. If the US continues to legalize abortion can they force Catholic hospitals to perform them? Pass out condoms n Catholic schools? See what I mean? To the church…the threat of secular control is real and pervasive beyond any particular issue…
If secularists have the right to demand the separation of church and state…Don’t the churches have that same right? It does get itchy…doesn’t it?
As long as a religious group does not take public funds, they retain their rights on the issues you raise. If they take public funds, as happened with the Salvation Army when they took part in the faith-based initiative, then in this example, they gave up the right to discriminate based on sexual orientation in their hiring under the program. If you recall, a memo was leaked where they asked the Bush administration for a waiver of federal anti-discrimination law in hiring under the program where they were taking public funds.
Hmmmm….I had forgotten that. It is a complex issue and to my estimation larger in context than the particulars…Kinda like this election was larger than any of the candidates. That is not always a bad thing…chuckle…But often a painful one…but then again principles are prickly in nature…and not easy…But as a Catholic I am used to this itchy garment that American Catholics in particular wear in our uneasy and often rancorous relationship to our country and our Bishop in Rome…It is what it is…
I think we can figure this out, if people take a broader view and compromise when possible.
Straight guys are pushing that not gay women. Take that up with the heterosexual males. Women making out with other women to please men are heterosexual women not gay women.
Provocative Uppity…chuckle…and interesting as usual….
Yeah you think I could get a fight going on something!
lol….You are a national treasure Uppity…indeed…chuckle…
LOL Working. More like a National Troublemaker.
Hmmmm….Well you are in noble if dangerous company..chuckle…Most of the great troublemakers get tossed off cliffs…Ask Aesop…Social Critic is a worthy cause…Beats a boring life of subjugation.
And if you can practice with wit and style…Why not…Socrates considered it the whole point of living…and who remembers the folks that set him up?
Interesting how this thread appears to be only the comments of NQ regulars who fought for a fair election. Seems most also fight for true equal rights. No surprise, the bots are staying away. They like the idea of equality but don’t practice it.
Isn’t that the truth. This sort of topic is kryptonite to bots. It is nice to have at least one thread where the bots don’t dare to tread.
Their rights are very important to them. It’s just that yours aren’t.
Comment by kitty | 2008-11-30 17:01:11
I am a 35 year old Lesbian woman and I am in love with two women. We have been together for 6 years and we want to marry each other. We feel that we should have the same rights that everybody else in this country has. I think that if we truly love each other and have established a home together we three should be allowed by law to marry and adopt children if we want to. We may not be a conventional family, but we are a family. I don’t think that it should make any difference whether we are a couple or we are three. We still feel the same about each other and we want to get married.
Polygamy is against the law. Just ask the mormons who keep trying that stunt. I can guarantee you that you would be treated equal on that score.
I guess our society should have no boundaries or limitations. It appears that we are headed for total chaos. Lack of structure will lead to much unhappiness. Man is not designed to wander to one relationship to another. The mind and body can only tolerate so much partying and decadence.
Hmmmm…And now we arrive at the Mormon conudrum…tada dum….Can they state define Marriage…There is precedent as the Mormons can attest. As defined it was one man and one woman. If the state withdraws or alters this definition…Do the Mormons who currently practice polygamy to the chagrin of the Mother Church and secular authorities have a case…A tangled web is woven…
Standing up for traditional marriage doesn’t make you popular.
No it doesn’t…Look how Sen. Clinton was treated because she chose to work out her marriage to filandering Bill…chuckle…
Ain’t that the truth? The funny thing is I remember reading that the divorce rate is lower (we get help) among liberals and highest in the redstates. Something to be proud of, as a dyed in the wool liberal, but yet Hill and Bill are the exception to the rule I guess.
I think its good people are standing up for traditional marriage and they have a right to. I also believe there are misunderstandings which prevent the issue from being resolved. Religious institutions will not be forced to perform same gender marriage ceremonies. And the issue is which marriages will the government sanction? Clearly, there is nothing in Constitution defining a government sanctioned marriage. I think it would be unwise to amend the Constitution for the first time to allow discrimination of a minority group, which is what would have to happen if we want to define a marriage as being only legally between a woman and a man. I am against discrimination but also defend your right to disagree with me.
you know, a lower case I looks a lot like a lower case L when you don’t have your reading glasses on.
I am a straight, married man and my religious beliefs are against homosexuality. But as a God fearing christian, it’s my understanding that only God can judge man. If gay marriage is not deemed unconstitutional, then by all means let them marry. I don’t have to like it but it won’t affect my marriage on bit. Man should live at let live. Leave the judgment of these people up to God. You’ll feel better. I promise.
Exactly. I wish more people of faith would feel that way.
As far as the divine judgment you believe in, that’s personal and I embrace your right to worship as you deem fit, although I don’t believe there is a judgmental divine entity awaiting us.
I saw MILK at the theater tonight - It is very good! Five thumbs up! A must see! I cannot get over how good it is. Endorsed for sure!
[...] at No Quarter and Partizane. Tags: Brevard County, Florida Gay Adoption Ban Unconstitutional, Florida Today, Gay [...]