equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

So people who favor Gay Civil Unions but also favor traditional marriage are similar to David Duke-bigots?
And what do you call folks who oppose both Gay Marriage and Gay Civil Unions?

<>

You're still not getting it, and I'm convinced by now you're purposely being obtuse.

I agree with Barney, DO NOT call people bigots based purely on the fact that they disagree with you. But there are true bigots and they should be pointed out. If you can't handle this, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Originally Posted by financeguy

Indeed. And that's the main problem with the left. If one holds certain points of view, one is automatically, de facto, a bigot.

FALSE.

Originally Posted by diamond

Yeah, but I'm with Barney Frank here, I don't think one should do that.

It's too bad many on the left in FYM didn't get the same memo Barney got.

<>

What part do you not get?

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by AEON

Martha, you seem rather upset most of the time. Perhaps it just the way you express yourself in this forum. I'm not making a value judgment, you can be angry - it just makes it more challenging to have a dialogue with you.

She thinks I disagree with her because I hate feminism, or hate progress, or hate women, or hate equal rights, or hate 'the gays', or 'the blacks', or anyone that isn't part of our great 'white guy' oppressive patriarchical system. Actually, I just disagree with certain points of view. In point of fact, I've disagreed with right wing posters - such as Strongbow, or the late, lamented NBCrusader - at least as vehemently, probably more so, than I ever disagreed with Martha or any of the other liberal leaning posters on here.

I'll take the far left seriously when they take seriously issues such as, for example, why it is that male suicide is so common. Until then, I'll continue calling them out on their double standards.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Diemen

The way you addressed it bothers me.

Diemen, for clarification - is it the manner in which it was addressed that bothers you, or the content? From the rest of your post – I am going to guess content (please let me know if I’m mistaken).

Imagine if someone told you this:

"AEON, it is not wrong to be heterosexual. In fact, God made you that way, so it can't be wrong. But if you decide to act on it, if you decide to pursue someone you're interested in, fall in love with that person and want to spend the rest of your life with that person, you are actively choosing to live in sin.

Since I guess you are deciding to depart the secular portion of the question, I will speak to this. I think there are indeed examples of heterosexual desires and relationships that are “sinful” to act out.

So rather than try and find happiness in the companionship of a partner like most of us do, you must live the rest of your life resisting any urges to express your sexuality the way the rest of us do, because your sexuality may not be a sin, but expressing it is."

Does that not, on any level at all, register to you as extremely irrational? As extremely unfair?

I believe I answered this:

Originally Posted by AEON

It has been my observation - that over time - God's wisdom prevails both personally, and socially

Originally Posted by Diemen

Now imagine if someone used that justification to bar you from getting the same protections under the law for a committed, monogamous union between you and the love of your life.

Diemen, I also believed I addressed this as well…

Originally Posted by AEON

…I do realize that my opinion is only one in a sea of opinions. And more often than not, when we are discussing activity between two consenting adults, my opinions end where their freedom begins. Because of this, among other things, I have taken a rather libertarian view that the state should no longer be involved in the marriage process.

Originally Posted by Diemen

Now imagine if you did not believe in God and people still used that justification to deny you legal rights.

Again, with all sincerity, my answer as posted from above…

Originally Posted by AEON

I have taken a rather libertarian view that the state should no longer be involved in the marriage process

[AEON]

Originally Posted by BVS

You brought it up.

Strange, I thought I expressed a desire to not bring it up:

However, out of respect for those that have called for a "secular" discussion - and the fact it has been covered already by both sides of the argument - I would like to table my personal opinion

[Diemen]

nevermind. Out of respect for AEON's wishes to keep his personal opinions and beliefs out of this, I'll refrain (frustrating as that may be...).

[diamond]

Originally Posted by BVS

What part do you not get?

Why you label people bigots when they are not.

<>

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Diemen

nevermind. Out of respect for AEON's wishes to keep his personal opinions and beliefs out of this, I'll refrain (frustrating as that may be...).

Thank you, Diemen.

I am quite certain at some point in time another debate on the Biblical passages regarding homosexuality will emerge...you'll get your chance at the "red meat"

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

Why you label people bigots when they are not.

<>

I haven't, and this is the last post I will respond to of yours on this subject.

[phillyfan26]

Keep the Bible out of my government. Please. It's just some book some people wrote one day.

[martha]

Originally Posted by AEON

Martha, you seem rather upset most of the time. Perhaps it just the way you express yourself in this forum. I'm not making a value judgment, you can be angry - it just makes it more challenging to have a dialogue with you.

I keep my posts in FYM limited to threads which mean something to me. This topic does mean something to me--a great deal. And it pisses me off when people can be so calm and smug about denying rights to people. In other parts of the forum, where I post much more, I'm actually pleasant. Of course, no one's there advocating destroying marriage in order to keep the homos from doing it.

How would you propose I have a dialogue with someone who thinks that certain members of our society, who have committed no crime, are inferior to others? That they're doing something "wrong" when they express their love. How does one do that?

[martha]

Originally Posted by AEON

I think I addressed this...

Originally Posted by AEON

Additionally, like most human activities, sexual acts are choices and I don't view "orientation" differently than any individual's battle to lead a moral life. We all have burdens and inclinations, some have more - some have less.

And you wonder why people sound angry.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

Keep the Bible out of my government. Please. It's just some book some people wrote one day.

Well, the same could be said about any book. But I see your point.

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by AEON

Well, the same could be said about any book.

Well, not really. I mean, the day they start creating laws based on what's found in Twilight, I am totally and seriously for real moving to Canada.

[diamond]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

Well, not really. I mean, the day they start creating laws based on what's found in Twilight, I am totally and seriously for real moving to Canada.

Well Stephanie Meyer is Mormon so cut her some slack.


<>

[AEON]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

Well, not really. I mean, the day they start creating laws based on what's found in Twilight, I am totally and seriously for real moving to Canada.

Can we allow laws based on the Federalist Papers, Constitution, and Enlightenment philosophers? I hope so - or we probably wouldn't have Western democracy - which, I believe, includes Canada

However, in essence I agree with you...

[corianderstem]

She gets no slack from me for writing something so heinous.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by martha

How would you propose I have a dialogue with someone who thinks that certain members of our society, who have committed no crime, are inferior to others? That they're doing something "wrong" when they express their love. How does one do that?

Well, let me ask you this - why are you in a forum like this? Is it only to offer us your sharp socio-political insights? Or is it also to learn from those that perhaps take a different position?

If you only want to share your opinion - then I guess you should simply post the same way you have been.

[indra]

Originally Posted by financeguy

I'll take the far left seriously when they take seriously issues such as, for example, why it is that male suicide is so common. Until then, I'll continue calling them out on their double standards.

This article might shed some light. According to it, women attempt suicide three times more often then men, but men succeed four times as often as women. Why? The simple answer seems to be that men use far more immediately lethal methods than do women. Women most often take overdoses, men most often use a gun.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by deep

The best way to win an argument? Is to frame it in away most likely to win!

Once 'unions' are law. Gays will be able to get married and have all the same rights and benefits of 'marriage' as everyone else.

i think, politically speaking, perhaps this is the way to go. the second-class citizenship. "we straights marry, we allow you gays to get a civil union." if there were corresponding federal rights to go along with a civil union, then it would be more palatable to me. the important things, as i have argued, are twofold: 1) some kind of a "goal" for sex/dating for gay people (for straights this is marriage) would be very good for gay people and very good for society, 2) it's wrong to deny anyone the right to protect their relationship and, especially, their children, on the basis of sexual orientation.

we do keep forgetting that 1/3rd of all lesbians and 1/4th of all gay men have children, and those numbers will continue to rise as there are more marriage-type rights and unions available for gay people. further, since most gay couples have to struggle to have children, they tend to be very, very good parents. having more available couples to adopt children and to take in foster children can only be a good thing for society, and those children deserve to have their parents and their families every bit as protected.

if, for now, the only way to get their is civil unions, with federal benefits, then perhaps this is the choice that remains until the older voters -- who turn out, because election day is freaking held on a Tuesday when most people have to work -- die off.

Originally Posted by AEON

For example, there was a time in this thread where I thought Irvine was indicating there was no difference whatsoever between homosexual couples and heterosexual ones. Pointing out there is at minimum a biological difference seems elemental, but somehow it was not being conceded. Therefore, it was necessary to demonstrate this difference before we could go on to the comparison portion of the question.

what i was indicating, AEON, is that there is no difference in the worth of a heterosexual couple over a homosexual couple. or, at the very least, there's no difference in the worth of a heterosexual couple who does not have their own biologically distinct children over a homosexual couple.

Originally Posted by AEON

Another question floating around is about choice - whether human beings have the choice to be homosexual or engage in homosexual acts. I think I've made it obvious that I subscribe to a translation of the Bible that indicates that homosexual acts are immoral (i.e., bad choices). Combined with my interpretation of natural law, biology, and physical health - I have sufficient cause to think that homosexual acts are "wrong". Additionally, like most human activities, sexual acts are choices and I don't view "orientation" differently than any individual's battle to lead a moral life.

i understand that this is just a viewpoint, but tell me, what is a gay person supposed to do with his or her life? remain celibate? never form any loving adult relationship with another person? what would you tell your son if he came to you and said that he was gay? would you say, "well, that's sinful, so you can't do anything about it."

there's a reason why there are Gay Pride parades. and that's because of the strong sense of shame that society inculcates in gay people. that people tell you you're wrong, that you're feelings are wrong, that they're gross, that they're sinful, that they're less-than. so many, many gays have a very stunted growing-up process, and this is also why substance abuse is such a problem within the gay community. when you're constantly told you're shit, you treat yourself with the respect that people accord you.

so, AEON, what is a person to do? you've just reduced us to a serious of acts again. how are they wrong? if you want to talk about health, the healthiest sex to have is lesbian sex. no HIV there. it seems to me that when we graft the discussion of HIV and other STDs onto gay sex, social conservatives think that they have a point to make about the "naturalness" or "unnaturalness" of homosexuality. now, putting aside the perversity of viewing the most deadly plague since the Black Death as some kind of political point to be scored, and putting aside the fact that, outside of the West, AIDS is mostly heterosexual, we still have to wonder why gay men make up such a disproportionate amount of HIV infections. they're about 5% or so of the population, yet make up about 45% of yearly HIV infections. we can first say that it's not that gay sex "creates" HIV, it's that unsafe sex transmits the virus (or any STD). the presence of a virus or STD in *any* sex act, gay or straight, is what causes transmission, not the act itself. yes, anal sex is slightly more risky than vaginal sex, but straights have anal sex. so why, then, are gay men still so disproportionately affected?

that comes down to the fact that STDs are spread through networks of people, and you also see this mirrored in the African-American community, where HIV is probably even more of a threat than in the gay community. certain people infect a circle of people, and that's because the pool of sexual partners is so much drastically smaller. the HIV becomes diluted when you have a wide amount of available partners; when you're on the outskirts of society, and your only available partners are in those outskirts too, the virus can be easily passed around within members of that specific group.

so all this is to say that there's nothing inherently more deadly or dirty about gay sex than straight sex. again, the safest sex there is happens between lesbians. and a monogamous gay couple is no more or less at risk than a monogamous straight couple.

the other point here is that it was the tremendous social isolation and stigma of being gay 30 years ago that increased the spread of the virus. 30 years ago, gay sexuality had no structure, meaning, or purpose, and so it really was a free-for-all in certain areas of certain cities. we shouldn't take the libertarian sexuality of NYC, SF, and LA of the 70s and 80s as a totalizing narrative for all gay people in those days, but i think the wildness of that era becomes, for me, a great big argument for creating ways for gay people -- who aren't going anywhere -- to create stable relationships for themselves.

i'm not going to say that my relationship with Memphis "saved" me, i've been in other relationships, but i will say that i came out in the post-2000 era when civil unions in VT were a possibility, and then we've seen the explosion of rights over the past 10 years. it makes an enormous difference in your self-perception, and self-esteem.

Originally Posted by diamond

So people who favor Gay Civil Unions but also favor traditional marriage are similar to David Duke-bigots?
And what do you call folks who oppose both Gay Marriage and Gay Civil Unions?

<>

the need to make a distinction between a gay relationship and a straight relationship, the need to delegate gays to a "lesser-than" station (civil unions), is the very definition of separate but equal, and i don't think that we can argue that the motivations behind separate but equal were absolutely bigoted.

i ask you, <>, how do you think the citizens of Alabama would have voted if they put the desegregation of the University of Alabama up for a vote? remember, they had to call in the National Guard to protect the black students and allow them to enter the University.

Originally Posted by Diemen

"AEON, it is not wrong to be heterosexual. In fact, God made you that way, so it can't be wrong. But if you decide to act on it, if you decide to pursue someone you're interested in, fall in love with that person and want to spend the rest of your life with that person, you are actively choosing to live in sin. So rather than try and find happiness in the companionship of a partner like most of us do, you must live the rest of your life resisting any urges to express your sexuality the way the rest of us do, because your sexuality may not be a sin, but expressing it is."

Originally Posted by AEON

Since I guess you are deciding to depart the secular portion of the question, I will speak to this. I think there are indeed examples of heterosexual desires and relationships that are “sinful” to act out.

could you expound on this?

Originally Posted by martha

How would you propose I have a dialogue with someone who thinks that certain members of our society, who have committed no crime, are inferior to others? That they're doing something "wrong" when they express their love. How does one do that?

this does get to the heart of it.

we can agree that there are biological distinctions between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. and i think there are some gender distinctions -- gays and lesbians probably have less in common with one another than gays do with heterosexuals and lesbians with heterosexuals. but that's all due to gender, and not homosexuality.

why is a heterosexual couple *worth* more than a gay one?

Originally Posted by corianderstem

She gets no slack from me for writing something so heinous.

yes, but she gave us a movie with these guys in it:





so i guess that's why god invented the Mute button.

[martha]

AEON, are you planning a civil divorce from your wife? That way you could really take a stand against civil marriage. Of course, you wouldn't reap the benefits of civil marriage, but there must be sacrifices made to make a point, right?