NYtimes Article RE: Gay marriage...

[roygbiv]

I found this to be quite an interesting read RE: The so-called 'culture war' and gay marriage in the US.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/magazine/19ANTIGAY.html

and to save you all the trouble of saying it yourself:


Like fuck I'm reading all that.

Hmm.. I was going to say more on this but think I will save it for later...

[Not sure if this is more appropriate for Rant or Off Topic...]

[Solstis]

For those of you lacking access to NYTimes, I would post a site for passwords, but I'd rather not get a warning.

Er, so, basically, the first page describes what is more or less a shrine to "traditional" marriage (uh-huh), and talks about the backlash to the gay rights movement. It also goes on to explore the rift in the nation over "secularism" and "conservatism."

This has been a Solstis super-summary.

(Probably Off-Topic. A mod may move it, though any homosexuality based topic in Off-Topic seems to get locked.)



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2005-06-20 16:04 ]</font>

[anwserman]

What's Their Real Problem With Gay Marriage? (It's the Gay Part)

By RUSSELL SHORTO

Published: June 19, 2005

Maryland's anti-gay-marriage crusaders share this with organizers nationwide: They say they are fighting a disease.

My synopsis.

[Ness]

It's a sad state of affairs when people let their beliefs get in the way of happiness between two people.

[zero12410]

the sadest thing about most of this is the defense the moral right has been using against same sex marage is the "If we legalize gay marrage, what's next bestiality?" and it's already legal in more than half the states in the US

[Orange_Coconut]

On 2005-06-22 12:33, zero12410 wrote:
the sadest thing about most of this is the defense the moral right has been using against same sex marage is the "If we legalize gay marrage, what's next bestiality?" and it's already legal in more than half the states in the US



The problem with that argument is that beastiality is between a human and another species. Unfortunately for us, we can't tell what another species feels, says or even thinks. So instead of having two people being attracted to eachother and being able to live with eachother, you have a person and an animal who cannot communicate, provide for eachother nor really get what the other is thinking exactly. It's a totally seperate thing, and people are just ridiculous when it comes to letting people have their freedom in this "free country".

There is no law against being attracted to the same gender, there are only religious beliefs and personal feelings about them, mainly influenced by past beliefs. At least, that's how I see it.

[navci]

On 2005-06-22 12:38, Orange_Coconut wrote:

The problem with that argument is that beastiality is between a human and another species. Unfortunately for us, we can't tell what another species feels, says or even thinks. So instead of having two people being attracted to eachother and being able to live with eachother, you have a person and an animal who cannot communicate, provide for eachother nor really get what the other is thinking exactly. It's a totally seperate thing, and people are just ridiculous when it comes to letting people have their freedom in this "free country".



Ya know. I never thought about it that way. Good point. That is how it would work with children as well, no?



There is no law against being attracted to the same gender, there are only religious beliefs and personal feelings about them, mainly influenced by past beliefs. At least, that's how I see it.


I believe the debate really lies in whether or not they can get married. There are the whole arguement about benefits. Which might sound petty but is as important to an everyday living as it is to the whole "Sacred marriage definition" arguement also.

Er. Yes. I agree with Orange_coconut.

[roygbiv]

yeah but there are still a lot of people who equate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality...


but I agree there is a big difference as far as consent is concerned.

[navci]

[quote]
On 2005-06-22 13:20, roygbiv wrote:
yeah but there are still a lot of people who equate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality...
[quote]

Of course. Of Course. Not denying that. I thought it was more about gay marriage that you are talking about.

Anything that isn't "natural" to them, so to speak is in the same category.

[Zelutos]

Everyone should be allowed to get married no matter what sex they marry x.x

[Skorpius]

Homosexual couples cannot get married by definition.


mar?riage Audio pronunciation of "marriage" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

However, there are legal unions that give equal benifits to that of marriage to homosexual couples, even though there is much opposition.

[booRAD]

who cares. there are a few rules in conversation:

-no religion discussion
-no political discussion
-no gay

[navci]

On 2005-06-22 23:38, Skorpius wrote:
Homosexual couples cannot get married by definition.


mar?riage Audio pronunciation of "marriage" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

However, there are legal unions that give equal benifits to that of marriage to homosexual couples, even though there is much opposition.



The whole point of that whole controversy was whether or not we get to update/redefine the definition of "marriage". As I said, sure, just for benefits' sake, a "legal union" is probably sufficient. But since when getting married is all about getting your rights and benefits? People who actually want their union to be a "marriage" and hence all the fighting for it.

Now. That being said, I am not the kind that fusses over whether it is a "legal union" or "marriage". So long I get to be with whom I want to be with, it is all good and dandy. But I do know of people where this is very important to them, and I really don't see why not. It is the affair of two people, and so be it.

I do have a feeling that this conversation has been repeated multiple times, hence I am going to just leave it here.

[roygbiv]

Actually the point of posting the article and what not was not really to drag out the whole conversation on gay marriage again, but rather to look at the perspective differences between the liberals and conservatives on these sort of issues. (you did read the article right?)

Both feel like they are having their lifestyle threatened and so they are waging an out-an-out battle to try to gain as much ground as possible.

But for the most part, people don't really care much about this issue. While sure there are a lot of gay people supporting gay marriage you would be suprised to see that it isn't 100%. A lot of liberals also don't really care too much about the issue because they view it differently than civil rights issues, and because it doesn't really effect them.

Likewise most people don't care about the whole issue because it doesn't effect them. But for the people who it does effect... its literally a life changing issue on both sides of the spectrum.

From my perspective at this point it doesn't seem like any compromise will ever be possible. Its just becomes an issue which riles people up and divides and alienates people.

In some ways I think its sad. Because for the most part it brings a lot of ill will into an pretty stable situation.

What I thought was nice about the article was the fact that it made an effort to really understand the conservative side of the whole issue. And although I obviously don't share that same way of thinking, it offers a look at the problems that people will face in order to come to any sort of resolution.

[Zelutos]

On 2005-06-22 23:38, Skorpius wrote:
Homosexual couples cannot get married by definition.


mar?riage Audio pronunciation of "marriage" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

However, there are legal unions that give equal benifits to that of marriage to homosexual couples, even though there is much opposition.



I don't think it would feel the same way if it wasn't called marriage. I dunno, i just don't think it would as special x.x

[booRAD]

ive never been exposed to too many homosexuals in my life, but tv makes it seem like they change special friends more than they change their oil. i dont like that. im an avid watcher of the show will and grace, and they make it seem like homosexuals are like giddy 14 year old girls. i think, "how could these ppl ever get in a long term relationship?" i would like to see some concrete proof of their allegiance to each other. saw off their right big toe. for every additional marriage they decide to have, they should saw off another toe on their foot. 5 marriage limit. it'd symbolize their undying devotion to the person, and for the ones that decide to marry more, they'd be fucked if they wore sandals

[Saiffy]

That is called "stereotyping"...

[EphekZ]

On 2005-06-23 18:14, booRAD wrote:
ive never been exposed to too many homosexuals in my life, but tv makes it seem like they change special friends more than they change their oil. i dont like that. im an avid watcher of the show will and grace, and they make it seem like homosexuals are like giddy 14 year old girls. i think, "how could these ppl ever get in a long term relationship?" i would like to see some concrete proof of their allegiance to each other. saw off their right big toe. for every additional marriage they decide to have, they should saw off another toe on their foot. 5 marriage limit. it'd symbolize their undying devotion to the person, and for the ones that decide to marry more, they'd be fucked if they wore sandals



you watch too much tv ._.

[Solstis]

Pretty much anyone "in the know" realizes that Will and Grace is a piece-of-shit that only servers to further stereotypes... but... hell, it's the only show we've got!

.__.

Yes, that's called stereotyping. Yes, I hope that you re-read that post and think: "whoops."

[roygbiv]

So there is this stereotyp... and the media has chosen to christen all of gay males with that stereotype. And in all honesty it sucks, you have to deal with people making the most asinine judgements about you just because they know you are gay. But you know what? Its an entertaining stereotype... the efiminate man who sleeps around with 5 billion lovers has always been a source of a quick chuckle, and the media seems to stick with what works... It however is shit and people should take that junk off the air, but thats just my 2 cents.

[navci]

On 2005-06-23 18:14, booRAD wrote:
ive never been exposed to too many homosexuals in my life, but tv makes it seem like they change special friends more than they change their oil.


I sincerely hope you are not basing all your facts on the world from ONE tv show. Or any tv-shows for that matter.

[Mixfortune]

On 2005-06-23 18:14, booRAD wrote:
ive never been exposed to too many homosexuals in my life, but tv makes it seem like they change special friends more than they change their oil. i dont like that. im an avid watcher of the show will and grace, and they make it seem like homosexuals are like giddy 14 year old girls. i think, "how could these ppl ever get in a long term relationship?" i would like to see some concrete proof of their allegiance to each other. saw off their right big toe. for every additional marriage they decide to have, they should saw off another toe on their foot. 5 marriage limit. it'd symbolize their undying devotion to the person, and for the ones that decide to marry more, they'd be fucked if they wore sandals



1. You'd have to saw off toes also.
2. Most people I know seem to have 10 toes, not 5.
3. TV also says you can fall from cliffs and survive, or can get wished back to life, or tons of other things. Really, now.

[ABDUR101]

Nevermind everyone, he's just a retard from three years ago that got banned. As can be shown, it's no surprise why he was banned anyway. Rejoice!