But I have ____ friends

[Solstis]

Let's be blunt here.

No you don't.

They haven't figured out a nice way of getting rid of you yet. If your gay friends are really busy ever since you told them that you were voting for Proposition 8, there may be something going on there. Buy them a really nice bottle of wine and they might let you back in to their lives, but they'll hold that grudge for a long time.

Racist dude? You don't have Black (or insert ethnicity) friends. You know Black people that tolerate you because you're fun to be around or they have to work with you, but you're not friends.

So just remember, as you promote tolerance instead of acceptance, it goes two ways.

***

Here I will attempt to circumvent counter-arguments.

-No, this does not apply to everyone.
-Yes, your gay friends really do like you. Most of the time.
-Yes, there are probably gay people that voted for Proposition 8.
-Yes, your Black associates find your Chapelle imitations to be slightly amusing.
--No, not that sketch. Dude, what were you thinking.
-Yes, your Asian friends think it's cute that you like Sushi

Part 2:

-Yes, I do have intense feelings of dislike towards some groups.
--No, that does not make me more of hypocrite than you. Exactly so, yes.
-tl:dr

[Xaeris]

-Yes, there are probably gay people that voted for Proposition 8.


I know what the law of averages says, but I think I'd need to see an example of this before I believed it.

[drizzle]

lol, tolerance and acceptance. More like apathy.

[UnderscoreX]

I always thought the people who say that are the ones who don't actually like said minority, and more or less tolerate them for the sake of being able to use that line. Like, a closet homophobe who will occasionally talk to a gay guy but will never actually want to hang out with him.

Also like Xaeris said, I really can't see that happening. A self hating bigot ? Kinda contradictory.

[Solstis]

Given the sheer amount of people that voted, someone was either (as underscore pointed out) a closeted bigot or voted "yes" on accident.

Anyway, tolerance is a step, not the end of the discussion.

[Kylie]

I don't see skin color and definitely not sexual orientation in my friends, and it seems like you're stereotyping minorities more than you are defending them by implying that they all think the same way. I also don't think someone should be considered a bigot because of what they vote for. To be honest though, I'm not sure what you're referencing to exactly.

EDIT: Okay, I googled what proposition 8 was (I kind of already knew), and I honestly would have probably voted for it. I don't think that's bigotry because it's looking after faith-based groups, and it really has nothing to do with my feelings on homosexuality. I mean, marriage is something religion based, so I think the better path would be to improve civil unions with the rights to adopt, apply for insurance together, and gain other spouse-related benefits.

Gay marriage was never going to stand up to a public vote in California. Both sides of aisle oppose it--Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, etc. I've even heard many gays saying they'd rather keep marriage the same as long as they got the same rights and benefits. I think there was a vote in my neighboring state, Arkansas, that banned homosexual couples from adopting children, which I found a lot more homophobic than proposition 8.

Also, I think being friends with *insert minority* people is a decent argument sometimes. I wanted to say it a few times in this post, but I didn't because I knew someone would question that, which isn't right because you don't know. I think a lot of times people just use it to show that they've been around the issue and are familiar with it. Although, some people do confuse being friends with someone with knowing someone, so I see your side as well.

[Vanzazikon]

-Yes, your Asian friends think it's cute that you like SushiHey, hey! I don't think people are cute just because they like sushi... I think they are an abomination! :wacko: Who the hell eat those stuff and is satisfied with it. :barf: And besides, I don't know of any asians who think that others are cute just because they like sushi. What kind of asians are you meeting? I suggest you break all communications and connection with them... unless you are an abominable being!

[Aisha379]

I've had asian friends...in the past. We lost contact after a long time >_>


Although I do admit I've never had black friends, but know quite a few black people...


I generally try to not defend myself from remarks of racism. I mean really, if someone thinks your racist, they're going to find their own "proof" of it regardless.

I agree with Kylie on proposition 8 though. I certainly don't think it makes you a homophobe (God I hate that word).


Fact is, there are black / asian / gay people I like, and black / asian / gay people I don't like. As far as I'm concerned, a racist is someone who treats everyone of a minority the same, so if some people think I don't like them because of something that insignificant, then I probably don't want them to be my friends anyways.

[funnymatt]

I know what the law of averages says, but I think I'd need to see an example of this before I believed it.

I'm sure there are some gay men and women that were getting pressured to get married and didn't want to. Voting for prop 8 would be a far easier way to avoid the issue than have to tell someone you've dated for a long time that you don't want to get married.

[Solstis]

I don't see skin color and definitely not sexual orientation in my friends, and it seems like you're stereotyping minorities more than you are defending them by implying that they all think the same way.

What? How do you not see things in your friends? Are you so privileged as to get to choose to be blind to the differences of those you know and care for?

I can't see how people can claim to "not see race" unless they just assume everyone has the same interests and background.

"Hey, want to get some Indian food?"

"Don't be a jerk man. I don't see race."

Of course I'm over-exaggerating, but I try to be aware of where my friends have come from and what sorts of cultural interests they have. How can you not see skin color? Minorities are perfectly aware of their color of their skin. Some people feel shame and try to avoid it, others embrace it. Extremes in both camps.

Once you deny cultural identities in an attempt to create harmony, you're losing a lot of what makes people and places like New York City so wonderful.

(Also, the counter-arguments were jokes. I also only picked on identities I belong to, so good luck trying to make me seem offensive)

[Kylie]

Not only are you over-exaggerating, but you're overreacting and looking too much into what I said. If someone is of a different race or lifestyle, of course I see their aesthetic differences and know that they do stuff different from me, but a friend to me is a friend. If I like someone, I like them, and our differences aren't apart of the equation at all. Someone that takes stuff like that into consideration to pick their friends is the true bigot. And I was nicer about it before, but saying that everyone that voted against gay marriage is a bigot is just downright ignorant (if you were being serious).

It's like if I called everyone that didn't vote for Hillary in the primaries sexist. :roll:

[Kent]

I'm up for some Indian food! What? No, it's food that originated in India, what the hell does race have to do with it? >_>

...

Proposition 8 doesn't protect anyone. From my understanding, it's actually a proposition to discriminate against people of a specific sexual orientation.

In other words, it doesn't actually affect you unless you're a homosexual looking to get married. Therefore, unless out of spite or hatred, you have no reason to vote yes to it.

[Kylie]

In other words, it doesn't actually affect you unless you're a homosexual looking to get married. Therefore, unless out of spite or hatred, you have no reason to vote yes to it.
Nor am I a Christian, but I think it has more to do with a faith-based tradition than it does homosexuality. However, let's see who agrees with me since not supporting it means you're either spiteful or hateful...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofq-N-8WAjY

Uh oh!

[Outrider]

Why exactly should the government be concerned with faith-based tradition?

And nobody ever claimed the new president elect and his VP choice are infallible.

[Kylie]

Why exactly should the government be concerned with faith-based tradition?
They are no matter what side you're on. They're either taking the tradition and redefining it for another group, or they're deciding to leave the decision to the faith-based groups and offer equal rights through improved civil unions. Personally, I think the latter is the better way to go (it's actually less government interference), and that's because I don't see what the difference is. Actually, wait, I do. The difference is recognition by the church.

And nobody ever claimed the new president elect and his VP choice are infallible.All I was saying was that if I'm hateful or spiteful for not supporting it, they are too. I wasn't saying that it's right simply because they say it is; that much I decided on my own long before I supported them.

[Solstis]

Not only are you over-exaggerating, but you're overreacting and looking too much into what I said. If someone is of a different race or lifestyle, of course I see their aesthetic differences and know that they do stuff different from me, but a friend to me is a friend. If I like someone, I like them, and our differences aren't apart of the equation at all. Someone that takes stuff like that into consideration to pick their friends is the true bigot. And I was nicer about it before, but saying that everyone that voted against gay marriage is a bigot is just downright ignorant (if you were being serious).

It's like if I called everyone that didn't vote for Hillary in the primaries sexist. :roll:

I don't recall stating that supporters of Proposition 8 are bigots. Please point out where I did so.

I merely suggested that their gay associates are probably upset at them. You don't have to be nice about it. Be correct and honest.

People have reasons for voting the ways that they do. I tolerate their excuses, but I do not accept them as legitimate.

[Kylie]

Given the sheer amount of people that voted, someone was either (as underscore pointed out) a closeted bigot or voted "yes" on accident.

Anyway, tolerance is a step, not the end of the discussion.
I took that as, "It only passed because some people were either closeted bigots or voted for it on accident." Again, I'm not sure if you were joking or not, so let me know if you were. I'd actually like to believe you wouldn't think that.

[Solstis]

I took that as, "It only passed because some people were either closeted bigots or voted for it on accident." Again, I'm not sure if you were joking or not, or let me know if you meant something else.

We were referring to gay people that may have voted for Proposition 8. I do not believe that many homosexuals voted "yes" on it, unless they have an interesting conflict of beliefs going on. An evangelical homosexual may have done so, probably with a healthy dose of self-loathing. I cannot account for all variations or reasons, some may have done it out of a sense of justice or somesuch.

So, I was referring to a small populace as bigots (which may have been an error in judgement), but not everyone that voted for Proposition 8.

This is pretty far off the topic, though.

[Kylie]

Well, okay. :-P I can admit wrongs like a big girl, so I apologize for misunderstanding. I still stand by what I said though as it pertains to Kent's and Outrider's comments. It is getting pretty off-topic though, so I'll leave it at that.

[Outrider]

They are no matter what side you're on. They're either taking the tradition and redefining it for another group, or they're deciding to leave the decision to the faith-based groups and offer equal rights through improved civil unions. Personally, I think the latter is the better way to go (it's actually less government interference), and that's because I don't see what the difference is. Actually, wait, I do. The difference is recognition by the church.

I mean, to play devil's advocate again:

I was asking WHY it should matter to the government, not whether it does or not. The government shouldn't care whether or not the church recognizes homosexual civil unions or not - aside from the very obvious hypocrisy in our country regarding separation of church and state, there is still supposed to be a clear divide.

Governmental marriage is not religious marriage. I can go and get married by a judge if I want. There's no reason for the church's opinion to decide whether or not the government can decide on the civil union of marriage versus the church's union of marriage.

[Shadowpawn]

I mean, to play devil's advocate again:

I was asking WHY it should matter to the government, not whether it does or not. The government shouldn't care whether or not the church recognizes homosexual civil unions or not - aside from the very obvious hypocrisy in our country regarding separation of church and state, there is still supposed to be a clear divide.

Governmental marriage is not religious marriage. I can go and get married by a judge if I want. There's no reason for the church's opinion to decide whether or not the government can decide on the civil union of marriage versus the church's union of marriage.

Although there isn't a reason for government to get involved with something as trivial as marriage we still have to remember that our government is filled with people, most of them not very logical either. Most of them have a deep fear that allowing homosexually to be openly accepted will encourage their offspring to do the same (be homosexual, that is.)

It's not a justification to ban marriage for a certain sub set of people at all but that's how politics work in this country. It's very petty.

[Kent]

Nor am I a Christian, but I think it has more to do with a faith-based tradition than it does homosexuality. However, let's see who agrees with me since not supporting it means you're either spiteful or hateful...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofq-N-8WAjY

Uh oh!
Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich.

More reason not to vote for either side.

Not to mention, that these are politicians we're talking about. You know, people that will lie their asses off to secure a vote or two. It stands to reason that if you're trying to get elected to an office, you'll do whatever you can to appeal to the most people - and if that means appealing to the hatred/spite of a minority, I don't think politicians are above that sort of thing - especially considering that, in the grand scheme of things, they're somewhere between a nematode and a fashion victim.

[Solstis]

Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich.

More reason not to vote for either side.

Not to mention, that these are politicians we're talking about. You know, people that will lie their asses off to secure a vote or two. It stands to reason that if you're trying to get elected to an office, you'll do whatever you can to appeal to the most people - and if that means appealing to the hatred/spite of a minority, I don't think politicians are above that sort of thing - especially considering that, in the grand scheme of things, they're somewhere between a nematode and a fashion victim.

Yes yes, intellectual apathy is very nice, but not quite the conversation I was looking for.

Maybe it was the one I should have expected.

[Nai_Calus]

I can't say anything specific to pretty much anyone in this thread that won't get me banned.

Hi. I'm a Californian.
Hi. I'm homosexual. (Bi actually, but.)
Hi. Half my state just told me and everyone else like me that I am not worthy of having the same basic human rights as they are.
Hi. It's possible to not be in favour of something... And to still support it anyway, on the grounds that you have no right to dictate to others how they are allowed to live. It's possible to look at something and say 'You know, the idea of what they do in bed disgusts me and my church says it's wrong, but it isn't any business of mine to judge. That's God's job, not mine. Judge not lest ye be judged, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, love thy neighbour as thyself.' You can be against something and still support the rights of others to have that something. I hate guns. They're disgusting. I'll never own one. I hate when people feel the need to own them. I would never for even half a second consider even TRYING to get them taken away from people. It is not my place to judge. I am not the moral arbitrator of the world.

Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions are not the same. They will never be the same. "This is my domestic partner" will never carry the same meaning and weight that "This is my husband/wife" does. If you think it does, then I suggest that you, with all your glorious straight priviledge: If you're married, get a divorce. Then go get a DP. If you're engaged, call off the marriage, get a DP instead. Meet the man/woman of your dreams? Hey, a DP is the same thing, right? Propose one of those. You never will, will you? You wouldn't even consider it, it's not a marriage.

You know what it is? You know what Proposition 8 is?

It's a front door that says whites only and food handed out a window in the back to the undesireables.
It's laws against women voting. It's laws against blacks and whites marrying.
It's seperate drinking fountains, with a sign on the nice one that says 'white' and a sign over the bare-bones crappy one that says 'colored'.
It's seperate schools.
It's saying to each and every gay person that they are less than a straight person.
It is hate.
It is segregation.
It is discrimination.
Trying to claim anything else is sheer, utter blindness.
Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Conneticutt, Canada, several other places. Traditional values have not shattered. The institution of marriage has not been destroyed. Nobody has caught teh gay. This only affects you at all... If you yourself are gay. And if you are? Yeah, I'm sorry, a bunch of bigots just told you you're not worth anything. That you're not the same. That you're less. That they are so insecure with themselves that they think that allowing you happiness will take away from your own.

There are already at least three lawsuits. The basis of at least one is that this, being a fundamental change to the state constitution to take away the rights of a minority, should never have been allowed on the ballot without passing through the state legislature.

This is not an issue of 'my religion says you aren't worthy'. This is an issue of civil rights and of equality. No children would have had to be taught that gay marriage is awesome. Parents have the right to review all material relating to any kind of sexual education and to have their kids kept from being exposed to it if they so wish. No church would have been forced to marry gays against its will. Traditional values, whatever those are supposed to be these days, would not have crumbled. Just as nothing at all has changed for anyone who isn't gay since Prop 22 was overturned, nothing at all would have continued to change.

But lies and hatred won. And those drinking fountains have new signs now.

http://www.iankunx.net/segfountain1.jpg

I can assure that anyone who voted, or would have voted, to spit in my face and tell me I'm unworthy, is no friend at all of mine. No, you don't have gay friends. You have gay enemies.

And each and every person who opposes gay marriage, and voted 'No' on Prop. 8 anyway, because you realised that the happiness of others does not take away from your own? I know you're out there. I've heard of you. You are awesome. Each and every one of you. I don't know you or anything about you, but I love you. Thank you. If only we'd had 500,000 more of you.

This will not stand. This will come up time and time again and the numbers will go down and one day the last vestiges of this sanctioned bigotry and hate and discrimination will vanish forever.

This is not over. This is only just beginning.

[Ranmaru]

I voted no for Prop 8. Its a shame it passed. I thought america was supposed to have "equal opportunities". We are seperated from chuch and state, but this shit is still a problem. Leave the gay men and women be, and let them lead happy lives. (mostly the old people who voted, most young people voted no).

[Kylie]

Gays can vote. Gays can go to the same schools as straight people. Gays can sit in the front of the bus. Gays can go to the same doctors. Gays can become politicians. Gays can drink out of the same fountain. Gays get equal pay (for the most part). Gays can date and kiss straight people (technically) without going to jail. Gays can eat in the same restaurants. The list goes on.

This really doesn't compare to segregation or the civil rights fight that black people went through, Ian. There are some rights as couples that you don't have that you should, but improving civil unions and making sure that gay couples can adopt children, can visit each other in the hospital, etc. would fix all that. The only differences are in the name, and civil unions don't have to be recognized by the church. Hell, just call it marriage and call your spouse your husband; it's the same thing.

[Aisha379]

I laugh every time I see that fountain picture.

Yes, gay people are treated unfairly by some groups, but everyone is treated unfairly by someone, and like Kylie said, comparing the struggles of blacks to gay people is incredibly overblown.


I don't care if gay people want to have the same benefits of married people, just don't call it marriage. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman - think of it almost as a scientific classification in a way - I think gay couples should have the same general benefits as a married couple (even though I personally do not condone homosexuality at all, though I still respect their lifestyle) just make it go by a separate classification name.


If you're going to act different, prepare to be treated different. This goes for everyone anywhere. As an example, black people and white people are different from each other by the pigmentation of their skin, don't lie to yourself, it IS a difference (in purely cosmetic terms) but those titles of "black" and "white" don't have to mean anything outside of pointing out the obvious, it doesn't mean you should treat people any better / worse.

[Xaeris]

This really doesn't compare to segregation or the civil rights fight that black people went through, Ian. There are some rights as couples that you don't have that you should, but improving civil unions and making sure that gay couples can adopt children, can visit each other in the hospital, etc. would fix all that. The only differences are in the name, and civil unions don't have to be recognized by the church. Hell, just call it marriage and call your spouse your husband; it's the same thing.

So segregation of institutions is all right, so long as they have equivalent privileges. Yes, yes, this "separate, but equal" thing sounds like a terrific compromise! ...If only. History has already proven that notion to be a load of garbage and SCOTUS saw fit to kick it to the curb in Brown v. Board of Ed. It flies in the face of judicial precedent to decide it's fine now.

This isn't an issue of whether it's a good idea or not; it simply cannot happen without rewriting one of the landmark cases of the 20th century. Besides, it's a hell of a lot less paperwork to just declare marriage for all.


I don't care if gay people want to have the same benefits of married people, just don't call it marriage. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman - think of it almost as a scientific classification in a way - I think gay couples should have the same general benefits as a married couple (even though I personally do not condone homosexuality at all, though I still respect their lifestyle) just make it go by a separate classification name.

Uh huh. Because nothing changes. Ever. I hope my future father in law gets me a kickass dowry when I take his daughter as my property.

[Ranmaru]

I laugh every time I see that fountain picture.

Yes, gay people are treated unfairly by some groups, but everyone is treated unfairly by someone, and like Kylie said, comparing the struggles of blacks to gay people is incredibly overblown.


I don't care if gay people want to have the same benefits of married people, just don't call it marriage. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman - think of it almost as a scientific classification in a way - I think gay couples should have the same general benefits as a married couple (even though I personally do not condone homosexuality at all, though I still respect their lifestyle) just make it go by a separate classification name.


If you're going to act different, prepare to be treated different. This goes for everyone anywhere. As an example, black people and white people are different from each other by the pigmentation of their skin, don't lie to yourself, it IS a difference (in purely cosmetic terms) but those titles of "black" and "white" don't have to mean anything outside of pointing out the obvious, it doesn't mean you should treat people any better / worse.

Guess what? Its not up to you. It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be up to me. Gays have the right to be able to call their union a marriege.

Act different? IN the country that says its people are equal? People shouldn't be treated better or worse than anyone else, for ANY difference. All people should be treated equal. Fuck all those religious people who read the bible and believe it word by word.

[Sekani]

You can choose to not be gay (somewhat debatable, another story). You can't choose to not be black.

There is NO comparison.



As for the actual issue of gay marriage and Prop 8, probably the biggest problem is that marriage is both a religious AND civil institution; in other words, the supposed separation of church and state that should exist suddenly doesn't when it comes to marriage. There's going to have to be a disconnect all-around before any further progress can be made on this front.

[Toadthroat]

What about black gays?

[Ranmaru]

Well I disagree, with you there, Sekani. I'm straight, and if I wanted a guy, you think I can instantly get a hard on and then have sex with one? I know that can't happen, because I'm only attracted to women.

Saying one can choose not to be gay, is also saying one who is NOT gay can choose to be gay. One is only born gay, I believe. Do I know how a gay person feels? No, I don't. I guess I could be slighty biased without knowing, since I'm not gay, what can I do, eh?

some random quote I will enlighten you with:


The bible also says such crap as my best friend will never inherit the kingdom of god, and neither will his children for years to come because he was born out of wedlock. It also says that rebelious children need to be sent to the town elders to be stoned to death. If a woman is raped she should be sold to her rapist. Homosexuals should be killed. Women should be silent property ALWAYS submissive to their obviously superior husbands and that it's perfectly okay to commit genocide against your enemies in the name of the lord... and I'm sure I missed some stuff.

The fact is, the load of that is utter bollucks. The Bible teaches, above all, peace, forgiveness and love. But it also teaches of equality in the eyes of the lord. Now, I may be a little hazy on the details here, but if you were to listen to all the little things in the bible like that, wouldn't you be completely violating the big picture? The fact is, there's nothing wrong with my lifestyle. if you were gay you'd understand that we can't change who we are, and God isn't so cruel as to create a child who is doomed to ****ation. I appreciate that you think you are doing what is right by God, but you are violating one of his core teachings to follow a silly little add on. Even the best theologans/ethical philosophers agree that you CANNOT take the Bible word for word when it comes to what is right and wrong. It contradicts itself far too much so you could argue for both sides. No, you need to look at the big picture.

And since I'm not violating any of the important precepts of the bible, well then, I'm pretty sure I'm fine by God. Those who persecute and demean us however, I cannot say that they would be.

[Leviathan]

I get what Ian is saying.
He's comparing it to how African-Americans, &women each had their own struggle.
But to a lesser extent.
There will be a time where homosexuals will get their rights.

I mean what's the point of living in a free country if you can't call someone you love no matter what gender your spouse.

[Aisha379]

Uh huh. Because nothing changes. Ever. I hope my future father in law gets me a kickass dowry when I take his daughter as my property.

Obviously the way marriages have been celebrated have changed, or even arranged and forced marraiges, I'm talking about the definition here, not the time / cultural differences.



Guess what? Its not up to you.

Uh oh.


It shouldn't be.

Thats mean ='(


It shouldn't be up to me.

Okay.


Gays have the right to be able to call their union a marriege.

Wait what? *rewind*


It shouldn't be up to me.

So my opinion doesn't matter because I'm against it, but you can contradict yourself by saying your opinion also doesn't matter, and yet you proceed to say it is a right. Uh huh.

Like I thought was obvious, my posts are just my opinions, and while superior opinions they may be most of the time, opinions that shall sadly remain.

Like you just so elegantly pointed out, its not up to you, and its not up to me, so arguing over it probably won't make a big difference in the long run.

No wait, I take that back, actually, it IS up to us, because we could have voted on it. And since the majority of people agree with my take on it, well, I guess your sore outta luck.



Act different? IN the country that says its people are equal?

Why do people keep saying this? No one is treated truly equal, ever. It is childish and foolish to believe so.

Life aint fuckin fair, deal with it



People shouldn't be treated better or worse than anyone else, for ANY difference. All people should be treated equal.

Okay, now I'm sure you obviously didn't even read what the hell I said and your just pulling stuff outta your ass, allow me to point it out to you, and read it niiiice and slooooow:



I think gay couples should have the same general benefits as a married couple (even though I personally do not condone homosexuality at all, though I still respect their lifestyle) just make it go by a separate classification name.

[Vanzazikon]

I remember a classmate saying the reason he voted for prop 8 was because he didn't want his children to learn about gay marriages. He doesn't even have kids, so he can't relate to that scenario just yet. I don't see anything wrong with a kid only learning that a man can marry another man (or women with another women) if they have sexual and intimate feelings for each other. There were no ads on those who opposed prop 8 so I believe it was unfair to only hear one side of the argument.

[Ranmaru]

@ Aisha

When I say it shouldn't be either up to me or you, I mean that we shouldn't be voting on something that doesn't effect us. Of course, I voted no, I'm not a jerk who would approve of taking someone's rights away. I'm not contradicting myself, sure you are entitled to your opponion and so am I. I believe we shouldn't have to vote on something that does not affect us, it doesn't hurt US if gays get married. But for some reason the option WAS THERE.


just make it go by a separate classification name

as I said, they have a right to call their union a marriege.


No wait, I take that back, actually, it IS up to us, because we could have voted on YES it. And since the majority of people agree with my take on it, well, I guess your sore outta luck.

I voted on it, but it shouldn't be up to us at all. Only when it effects us. Sure, mostly the older age base. Most young people voted no on it, sadly it was a whopping %20 percent.

I'm glad you wouldn't mind them having a union, but I believe they can call it marriege if they want. ;3

[Kylie]

So segregation of institutions is all right, so long as they have equivalent privileges. Yes, yes, this "separate, but equal" thing sounds like a terrific compromise! ...If only.
First of all, there was nothing equal about those separate facilities, and blacks were treated as second class citizens back then--they couldn't vote, go to decent schools, get equal pay, etc. Secondly, that had to do with race. Sexual orientation and, yes, even gender are completely different subjects. I can't use the same restroom facilities as men, but I do get something that caters to my needs as a woman on an equal level (sometimes greater :wacko:). The same logic can apply with civil unions if they have equal rights attached. And for the record, I respect homosexuality. In fact, I'd say it's as right as being a heterosexual because they didn't choose it, but nor did I choose to be a woman. Yet I still have to do a few things differently from my male counterparts.

[Xaeris]

Fine, let's talk about the "definition." What makes "a union between a man and a woman" the right one? Look at different cultures throughout the ages and even through just the present time and you'll find that marriage has been defined in many different ways, placing restrictions on just who could get married (nobility), how many people could get married (polygamy) and so on.

The United States Government and its states are (ideally) separate entities from any organized religion. Just because some religions define marriage a certain way does not necessitate that the governments must as well. Especially considering some religions actually do marry gay couples. Now, the US gov't could choose to adopt the same definition of marriage as Christianty, but the problem is that the current law on the books precludes it.

Simply put, the current judicial precedent prevents constructing two different institutions of union, even if you could somehow make them equal. It is just a matter of one of the civil cases in the works now going to SCOTUS and them smacking the legislature with the writing on the wall. 'Cause it's always been on them to drag us into the modern era, kicking and screaming if need be.

[astuarlen]

If only I were in the mood for a Rush concert right now.


Instead, just a quick thought...

If marriage within same-sex couples cannot be allowed by the state because marriage is a religious institution and the state may not interfere with religion, marriage within opposite-sex couples cannot be allowed by the state.

Behold, Proposition 8B:
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. No marriage is valid or recognized in California.

[TheOneHero]

First: I've read hardly any of the posts, I'm just throwing this out there.

Lots of people have been brought up the choosing to be gay is wrong and a sin.

"Oh but TOH! Some people are born with genes that make them gay."

Yes, yes. I know. However, we are what we choose to be. You can choose to act on those impulses or not.

Back to what I was talking about earlier: people being raised that being gay is sinful.

These people are also raised to believe that:

First, we reject sin.
Second, we tolerate it.
Lastly, we embrace it.

These people don't want to set things in motion that would create tolerance and to embrace; by what they believe.

That's all. :)

Edit: I had to add this:


Fuck all those religious people who read the bible and believe it word by word.

Since when did believing the bible make you against gays? People have their own beliefs and interpretations of the bible. Being religious does not always make you anti-(insert whatever here).

[Nai_Calus]

Gist of this thread: Piss off, gay people, you haven't suffered enough yet. Come back when you get fired/not hired for being gay(Oh wait), get beaten in the streets(oh wait), have thousands of years of being repressed and hated by everyone behind you(oh WAIT), etc etc etc and then maybe us and our straight priviledge will throw you a bone and pretend to care.

If you think gay people have the same exact rights as everyone else and that we don't get discrimination from everywhere on everything, you need to get out of your cave.

And yeah, like toadthroat said, what about the black/asian/hispanic/etc gays? Yeah those guys don't suffer enough either, sorry guys, come back when you're even more repressed.

That big ugly dark closet we've all been hiding in for so long is still here. Many of us are still in it, terrified to come out of it because of what it will mean for us when people find out. So we have our false ludicrous hetero marriages and we fake it, fake it, fake it so nobody finds out and we don't lose everything, and we're miserable every minute of our lives pretending to be something we're not.

Do not sit there from your position of priviledge and power and tell me what I and those around me have and have not suffered. You don't know. You can't know.

But please, mastah, feel free to tell me when I've suffered enough for you to consider it 'valid'.

[raikomaru40]

I don't think anyone should get special treatment, but they shouldn't be knocked for how they choose to live their lives. Just try to tolerate them until they figure out they're not special. Everyone should be treated equally (I'll avoid qouting the bible).

[astuarlen]

I don't think anyone should get special treatment, but they shouldn't be knocked for how they choose to live their lives. Just try to tolerate them until they figure out they're not special. Everyone should be treated equally (I'll avoid qouting the bible).

The people who need to "figure out they're not special" are the people whose fortune it is to be the so-called norm, the majority, the ones with priviledges (which we are largely oblivious to--hey, that's a big priviledge) that should be rights.

[Outrider]

Yes, yes. I know. However, we are what we choose to be. You can choose to act on those impulses or not.

Now, TOH, you know I like you, but you seem to be subtly implying that it might not be so bad for gays and lesbians to just ignore the gender that they're attracted to.

So let's reverse it:

How do you think it would feel if you had to keep telling yourself that you needed to be interested in men? Every day you had to keep saying that you were interested in men, that you wanted to be intimate with them, etc. Do you think that would be easy? Do you even think you could do it?

Telling someone who is homosexual that they can suppress their interest in their own gender is like telling people that are heterosexuals that they can suppress interest in the opposite gender. Sure, it might be possible, but it's not beneficial to anybody involved and in the end would only hurt them.

Now, I understand that a lot of people feel this way because of their upbringing and their beliefs. For a lot of people, this is natural and in some ways, it's not really their faults. But that doesn't make it right. I know people who have racist tendencies because of their parents who in turn have them because of their parents. Does that make it right for these people to act racist? Of course not. I might have more of an understanding as to how it might be more difficult for them, but it's not right and they can't use that as an excuse for continuing to act and think that way. To turn this around, just because somebody was raised to think that homosexuality is a sin or is something wrong (either through parenting or religion) doesn't mean that it's okay for them to think that.

That being said, I imagine a lot of the people who have been chiming in to argue for separate but equal rights and whatnot have probably inherited these views from those that raised them. Maybe they're more tolerant than their parents, but it probably came from there. I'm not saying this is true for everybody who's been stopping by the thread, but judging by the age-range of most people on the site and the relative lack of in-depth responses, I imagine it's the case for a good number of people.

[TheOneHero]

I do apologize Outrider, I wasn't trying to imply it's easy.

I'm not gay by choice or genes so I don't know what it's like, but I'm conflicted daily with something I can hardly control. (I'm not going to throw the details out on the internet, it's very personal.) I'm in pain because of it and probably always will be, but I'm a fighter. I won't stop till I've regained control of my body or it's the end of the line. I'm putting this out there that while I'm sure it's nowhere near as hard for gays to fight against those impulses, I'm not saying it's easy.


To turn this around, just because somebody was raised to think that homosexuality is a sin or is something wrong (either through parenting or religion) doesn't mean that it's okay for them to think that.

That's correct, though couldn't the same be said of all things? :???: I suppose we'll never know till we die and see what's there. This is more of just continuing the discussion, not exactly my thoughts. Feel free to PM me if your reply will go off topic. > Everybody.

[Sidney]

I also agree with Kylie, 110%, in that it's very hard to compare what happened to Black-Americans to Gay-Americans. Apples and Oranges. Gays have all the same rights as a straight individual, they just cannot get married. Gays can go to school with straight people. Gays can use the same water-fountains. Gays can vote and have a voice for themselves in the government. Gays can sit anywhere they want on the bus. Gays have the same job opportunities. Don't oppress yourselves more than need be. Gays do have their challenges as a group, but I think that comparison is kinda overdoing it.

Plus, the main difference between being black and gay? Being gay is an invisible thing, while being black is always visible. Gay appearance stereotypes aside (which don't apply to 90% of gay people anyway), there is no way for your employer to look at you and know you are gay, unless you tell him/her. (Information about your sexuality/relationships, homosexual or heterosexual, should not even be discussed in the workplace to begin with, unless you are prepared for it to be used against you, IMHO.)

My beliefs? Gays should be able to be married. The government should recognize it just as much as a heterosexual marriage. The catch? The church should NOT be obligated to do so. But as long as the government supports you and wants to defend your rights, that's what matters. I don't think it's right for gays to ask the Church to do so, because that is the Church's religion, their set of personal beliefs, and it's not a homosexual's job or right to re-write the Church's faith for them. I of course believe it's wrong for religious people to discriminate against gay people. As they say, "He who has not sinned may cast the first stone". But, at the same time, if a religious person believes that homosexuality is wrong and do not harass or carry prejudice against homosexuals, as a good Christian should, then I don't see the problem with that belief.

[Weeaboolits]

Behold, Proposition 8B:
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. No marriage is valid or recognized in California.Quick tag this on the next ticket.

[Ranmaru]

I am voting YES. GTFO YOU STRAIGHT PEOPLE. OH WAIT

[Nai_Calus]

Nobody is saying anywhere that the church should be obligated to perform any kind of of marriage of anybody.

Proposition 8 was an entirely civil issue. It had NOTHING to do with religion, other than the bigotry and hatred pushed by radical religious groups.

Civil and religious marriage are entirely seperate things. You can go to a courthouse and get married by a judge without bringing religion into it at all. Many do, especially those who aren't religious. You can be married in the church without actually legally being married.

If anything, this shits on the religious freedoms of the churches who WILL perform gay marriages. You're willing to officiate at a ceremony to marry gays? Too bad, gays can't get married.

This is stupid.

I say again, you don't really know what's going on with the issues unless you're gay yourself. Of course you think it's not so bad. You don't have to put up with it.

And oh yes, gayness is totally invisible, just like straightness, right?

I mean, nobody ever sees you walking down the street holding hands with your boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse, right? You never dart them a kiss in public, you never go to romantic dinners with them, you never tell them you love them, you never send them flowers or love notes, you don't put a photo of the two of you on your desk, you never show any outward public sign of your affection for them at all, right? That person next to you, for all anyone can tell, you've never met them before, right? If you're married/engaged you proposed alone in the dark so nobody saw, and then didn't ever tell anyone from the time of the engagement up through the wedding until the present day, right?

I don't fucking think so. I see straight couples doing all those things all the time, openly, without fear. The INSTANT a gay couple tries to do these things... Eww, that's gross. Cut it out, you f*gs. Some redneck moron tries to beat you up. Oh, and you deserved it for 'flaunting' your gayness. The 'flaunting' you did by trying to engage in the same exact cultural priviledges straight people don't even think about having because they're just there.

[AlexCraig]

I don't think this will get any better. Some are taking this a little too personal for comfort and discussion. I'll lock this. Simmer down and take a breather.