equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[martha]

I think I addressed this...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

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?

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?

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?

 

[diamond]

we can agree that there are biological distinctions between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.
.

And that's what it's all about.

Here's an analogy:

Tibet is in China, and we all know Tibetans are different group than Chinese but not less then Chinese. I want the Tibetans to have the same rights as the Chinese.

That doesn't make me a bigot for understanding and distinguishing the differences of these 2 groups.

One shouldn't throw derogatory words around like, bigot, sexist, racist lightly, the same way people shouldn't use words like faggot and ****** and other derogatory terms.



<>

 

[Irvine511]

And that's what it's all about.

Here's an analogy:

Tibet is in China, and we all know Tibetans are different group than Chinese but not less then Chinese. I want the Tibetans to have the same rights as the Chinese.

That doesn't make me a bigot for understanding and distinguishing the differences of these 2 groups.

what's the difference between a straight couple that does not have children and a gay couple that does?

the "difference," <>, is irrelevant when it comes to the value of a particular relationship.

 

[diamond]

the "difference," <>, is irrelevant when it comes to the value of a particular relationship.

The point is no one is placing a value of those relationships, only acknowledging they're equal and but different.

<>

 

[BVS]

The point is no one is placing a value of those relationships,

Um, yes actually many are...

 

[diamond]

Um, yes actually many are...

Not the people here, who you inferred are bigots.

<>

 

[BVS]

Keep trying <>, you'll never get it...

 

[diamond]

I prefer clarity to confusion.

<>

 

[BVS]

That's a good goal

 

[Jive Turkey]

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.

 

[Irvine511]

Not the people here, who you inferred are bigots.

<>

you think that i'm not worthy of the status of marriage, that there needs to be a separate category because straights are better than not gays -- you see the need to distinguish yourself from me on the basis of our different (so you claim) sexual orientations.

 

[diamond]

you think that i'm not worthy of the status of marriage, that there needs to be a separate category because straights are better than not gays -- you see the need to distinguish yourself from me on the basis of our different (so you claim) sexual orientations.

I think you're worthy to have the same status as marriage, however as we both know gays and straights are not the same only different; no group is superior-just as Tibetans and Chinese are different with neither group superior to each other, they happen to be not the same.

Therefore, since you are unique and have a partner of the same uniqueness that you want to share your life with, you should celebrate that union with a ceremony-symbolizing that commitment, similar and equal to marriage.

I think all straight people should be tolerant of this view point.

<>

 

[Irvine511]

I think you're worthy to have the same status as marriage, however as we both know gays and straights are not the same only different; no group is superior-just as Tibetans and Chinese are different with neither group superior to each other, they happen to be not the same.

Therefore, since you are unique and have a partner of the same uniqueness that you want to share your life with, you should celebrate that union with a ceremony-symbolizing that commitment, similar and equal to marriage.

I think all straight people should be tolerant of this view point.





<>

indeed, separate but equal.

and thanks for tolerating me. i understand that it's big of straight people to put up with gay people.

 

[martha]

Therefore, since you are unique and have a partner of the same uniqueness that you want to share your life with, you should celebrate that union with a ceremony-symbolizing that commitment, similar and equal to marriage.

Separate, but equal.

 

[diamond]

Separate, but equal.

Not quite.

I would say:

Separate and equally beautiful, only different.

 

[diamond]

indeed, separate but equal.

and thanks for tolerating me.

you're welcome snuggles.

you're much easier than some self proclaimed straights here.



<>

 

[martha]

Separate and equal

Now you've got it!

 

[Jive Turkey]

i understand that this is just a viewpoint, but tell me, what is a gay person supposed to do with his or her life?

I just wanted to say that, as a third party spectator to this conversation, this sentence really jumped out at me. I've never quite heard the argument phrased in this way. Theres a humanity here that should really reach people at the most basic of levels. Its at the same time profound and heart wrenching. If someone cant empathize with this, then there is something inherently wrong with them (not directed at any one of you). Anyway, I have nothing else to add. I just thought it was a beautifully sad statement.

as you were

 

[deep]

separate but equal.

How is the Washington State ballot that just passed any way similar to
segregation and jim crow laws?

 

[nathan1977]

We're one, but we're not the same?

 

[BVS]

I think you're worthy to have the same status as marriage, however as we both know gays and straights are not the same only different; no group is superior-just as Tibetans and Chinese are different with neither group superior to each other, they happen to be not the same.

Therefore, since you are unique and have a partner of the same uniqueness that you want to share your life with, you should celebrate that union with a ceremony-symbolizing that commitment, similar and equal to marriage.

I think all straight people should be tolerant of this view point.

<>

I'll say it again, one good thing that has come out of these debates, just like that of healthcare is that it has brought many conservatives at least closer to being right. Let's admit it, two or three years ago even the more "tolerant" conservatives were pushing for civil unions that were not even equal to that of marriage as far as rights go.

The world is moving forward, some are just slower than others...