Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2

[Irvine511]

I feel for those men.

Then one's at the top, however, all closet cases themselves, those are the ones who are the true bad guys.

And, sadly, the biggest victims.

There are bullies all over the world. It's not surprising to me that gays are mocked, beaten, shamed, and taunted. But being a bully only runs so deep. Jesus will only help you care so much.

To hate gayness so much that you reach out and sell this snake oil called Exodus ... don't tell me for a second that people like Dobson, Reikers, et al, aren't trying to fool themselves first.

Only a gay man could hate another gay man so comprehensively.

 

[martha]

I guess I never think of them as gay themselves. It doesn't occur to me that anyone would think like that. It's hard for me to even articulate thoughts on that. (Especially late, on a phone.)

It's so sad.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

For some, heterosexuality must be endured. Remember, we have 5,000 years of history to live up to.

Oy. *Shakes head*

Sigh. Yeah, I'm with martha on this. It's so fucking depressing and insane that that crap mindset is allowed to spread the way it does. I will never understand how someone can look at the anti-gay mindset and find it reasonable and worth supporting. Ever.

 

[yolland]

To hate gayness so much that you reach out and sell this snake oil called Exodus ... don't tell me for a second that people like Dobson, Reikers, et al, aren't trying to fool themselves first.

Only a gay man could hate another gay man so comprehensively.

Well in Rekers' case there's some pretty suggestive evidence for it, right? The episode where he was photographed with a "travel assistant" hired from a rent boy website, who later told reporters one of his jobs was giving Rekers genital "massages." (Rekers was a founder of the Family Research Council.) Then there were the two Exodus founders who left the group, divorced their wives, and had a commitment ceremony. And the Exodus chairman who was fired after being photographed at a gay bar flirting with other patrons under a fake name. It could almost be funny if it weren't for the damage they'd done to other gay people. And themselves.



Re: the Regnerus study--the one good thing about it is that it's based on national probability sampling, meaning that in principle the findings could be generalized to the population at large. No prior studies of same-sex parenting have attempted that (of course, having huge grants from conservative think tanks--primarily the Witherspoon Institute, from which Lopez's article is taken--helped Regnerus tremendously in this regard, but still it sets a good precedent). The problem, like Irvine said, is that the study isn't in fact about same-sex parenting at all--rather it compares children from intact biological families ("IBFs"), a specific family structure, with children of a parent who had at least one same-sex relationship at some point during their childhoods, regardless of what family structure(s) the children experienced. Only 2 subjects in his study were raised for their entire childhoods by two mothers, and none at all were raised for their entire childhoods by two fathers. Only 23% of the subjects with a mother who'd had a female partner had lived with their mother and said partner for 3 or more years, and only 2% of the subjects with a father who'd had a male partner had lived with their father and said partner for 3 or more years. Etc., etc. ... In the end, if this study could be said to show anything, it's that children of a divorced/single/remarried etc. parent who had at least one same-sex relationship during their childhoods (which according to Lopez is "bisexual parenting," a category Regnerus never mentions) turn out to have remarkably similar outcomes to children of divorced/single/remarried etc. parents who never had any same-sex relationships. Well whaddya know!

 

[Irvine511]

Rekers, yes, there's evidence and photos that he had hired "Lucien" from rentboy.com to help him "carry his bags" on a trip across Europe. and not to pull out the whole "i know people who know people ..." but i do know someone who has done sound for interviews/documentaries in Colorado Springs with Dobson, and said his gay vibe is palpable. but who knows, right?

the Regenerus study is particularly insidious.

it's a hideous thing to attack families in such a way.

 

[Pearl]

During a raid on a porn cinema in Beirut's Bourj Hammoud district on July 28, police arrested dozens of men who were then subjected to invasive anal exams to provide evidence of homosexuality, Lebanon's The Daily Star writes.
The raid sparked fierce criticism from physicians, politicians and in the media. "It's the republic of shame," an anchor of the of the privately-owned Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC) said during the network's nightly broadcast on July 31.
According to the BBC, the anchor's protest was picked up and quickly echoed via social networking sites.

Lebanon's 'Homosexuality Exams' Come Under Fire

Sad that gay people are being treated like this in some parts of the world. Although on a bright note, its good to see gay groups daring to be so public in a very conservative region. Even though they can be arrested, I think its really brave of them to be who they are and be so public about it.

 

[financeguy]

, and said his gay vibe is palpable.

How dare you!

Catherine Tate - Derek Faye 2 Gay Pride - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5-Z1fTNd2Q&feature=related

 

[yolland]

I don't know what exactly went on in this man's mind, but I think we can all agree it's a sad day for everyone when someone attempts mass murder under some delusion of serving social justice.

I doubt this thread is the place for extended discussion of this incident (which there may be no need for, since thanks to a heroic security guard no one was gravely injured or killed) but it ought to be acknowledged here IMO.

 

[Irvine511]

the FRC is blaming this incident on the SPLC for calling them a "hate group."

he also had 15 Chik-fil-a sandwiches in his backpack.

 

[yolland]

Par for the course, SPLC's not a gay rights group so they're the perfect target for a slippery-slope 'culture of hate' argument. Like blaming the Catholic Church for an abortion clinic shooting, and about as productive.

I'd guess the sandwiches were part of some sick intended 'delivery' conceit, but I don't think authorities have commented on that yet.

 

[martha]

Southern
Poverty
Law
Center?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

the FRC is blaming this incident on the SPLC for calling them a "hate group."

he also had 15 Chik-fil-a sandwiches in his backpack.

Well, I do think the FRC is a hate group, but still, sounds to me like it was a typical "nutcase with a gun" scenario. From the stuff I've read I don't get how they'd connect the shooter to the SPLC to begin with.

Anywho, good on the security guard for stopping him. I'm glad nobody was seriously hurt or killed.

 

[Irvine511]

Southern
Poverty
Law
Center?

yes.

here was their statement:

Perkins’ accusation is outrageous. The SPLC has listed the FRC as a hate group since 2010 because it has knowingly spread false and denigrating propaganda about LGBT people — not, as some claim, because it opposes same-sex marriage. The FRC and its allies on the religious right are saying, in effect, that offering legitimate and fact-based criticism in a democratic society is tantamount to suggesting that the objects of criticism should be the targets of criminal violence.
…
Perkins and his allies, seeing an opportunity to score points, are using the attack on their offices to pose a false equivalency between the SPLC’s criticisms of the FRC and the FRC’s criticisms of LGBT people. The FRC routinely pushes out demonizing claims that gay people are child molesters and worse — claims that are provably false. It should stop the demonization and affirm the dignity of all people.

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/#ixzz23lAwZ9KZ

 

[martha]

But isn't the SPLC pretty much the source for hate groups and the like?

I'd say above reproach even.

 

[INDY500]

Governments have marriage definitions, yes. Can we agree that governments also change their laws from time to time on various issues?


Originally Posted by INDY500
Next, do you think men and women have innate qualities other than the naughty bits being different?

There are some trends, but not uniformly, no.

Why does this matter in this discussion, though?

1) I was trying to see if we could agree on the premise that limitations on marriage have always existed and arose for reasons other than "hate" or some phobia.

2) I was attempting to illustrate that if, on aggregate, the marriage of a man and a woman can provide an asset to children that a marriage between two members of the same sex cannot provide, there is a compelling reason for society (and thus the government in a republic) to hold up that union as the ideal.

Many proponents of same-sex marriage are sincere in their desire to marry or, if not gay, sincere in their desire for equality. I acknowledge this, but there is also a movement on the Left to remove the distinctions between female and male. Case in point, the recent edition of the New York Times magazine.

Unfortunately, most same-sex advocates have bought in to this nonsense just as they've bought into the notion that defending tradition marriage = hate.

 

[Irvine511]

did you even read that article?

because i did. and i don't think it says what you think it says.

 

[martha]

but there is also a movement on the Left to remove the distinctions between female and male. Case in point, the recent edition of the New York Times magazine.

You will believe anything. Can you think of a group of people who love old-fashioned man/woman fornication MORE than the Left?

Spoiler

With the exception of right-wing Christian ministers, of course.

 

[INDY500]

Anytime.


My town has a balanced budget, keeps its parks tidy, fills its potholes, has a police force that doesn't shoot unarmed citizens, and respects the citizens who are still learning English, thanks for asking.

Pardon me for noticing that your state is broke and towns are beginning to declare bankruptcy.

But I would absolutely NOT support any city official who tried to stop a business from opening in my city simply because he didn't like the business's political views.

Then you should have been at Chick-fil-a, the mayors' statements were the catylyst for the outpouring of support.

Expressing a view, and acting on that view, are two different things. A business owner can have all the Biblical views he wants. Hell, he can even believe in the Biblical edict that the rape victim must marry the rapist. Acting on those beliefs, trying to legislate the lives of strangers based on those beliefs is a whole different story. So, no, my state is not a theocracy; there is no basis for legislating based on Biblical principles.

Personally, I feel that same way. An individual can believe whatever Biblical principals he wants, and I can choose not to be friends with a person who thinks that his Bible trumps my Constitution.

Your constitution does not prohibit the worship of religion, it prohibits the "free exercise" of religion. An important distinction. It means one can indeed "act on those beliefs" as you say.

A personal question for you, INDY; your aside about the solvency of my town, along with other little remarks you've made, and the manner in which they were made, males me wonder. Do you affect this nastiness as an internet persona, or are you that nasty in person as well? And please don't blame the liberals for this. We have nothing to do with your word choice or sentence structure.

I've never questioned the motives of anyone on this forum posting on this subject. But here's what I get in return:

"You're really just taking the piss, aren't you?"

"Hiding your bigoted beliefs behind frivolous reasons doesn't make you any less of a bigot."

"(Indy) Do you believe homosexuals to be human beings?"

"we can't feel like we're better than other people anymore if gay marriage becomes legal!"

"forces who seek my total social destruction?"

I'm a big boy, I can take it but your outrage at "word choice" seems a bit selective.

 

[martha]

Acting on those beliefs, trying to legislate the lives of strangers based on those beliefs is a whole different story. So, no, my state is not a theocracy; there is no basis for legislating based on Biblical principles.

Your constitution does not prohibit the worship of religion, it prohibits the "free exercise" of religion. An important distinction. It means one can indeed "act on those beliefs" as you say.

Good gravy INDY, why do I even bother.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Many proponents of same-sex marriage are sincere in their desire to marry or, if not gay, sincere in their desire for equality. I acknowledge this, but there is also a movement on the Left to remove the distinctions between female and male. Case in point, the recent edition of the New York Times magazine.

Unfortunately, most same-sex advocates have bought in to this nonsense just as they've bought into the notion that defending tradition marriage = hate.

A guy wearing a dress automatically equates to destroying the differences between men and women?

That's funny, 'cause my dad dressed up in a cheerleader outfit for some radio thing once and yet despite that, last I checked, he still embodied all the "typical" male characteristics.

And nobody has said that defending traditional marriage is equal to hate. I support marriage between men and women, too. All for it. Would like to get married someday myself, should the right guy come along.

No, it's the whole denying that civil right to same sex couples and suggesting their marriages aren't on equal footing and that considering them to be just as traditional as straight marriages is suddenly akin to some horrific definition change ('cause we straight people OWN the word "marriage", damnit!) that causes people to make such an equation.

 

[PhilsFan]

1) I was trying to see if we could agree on the premise that limitations on marriage have always existed and arose for reasons other than "hate" or some phobia.

2) I was attempting to illustrate that if, on aggregate, the marriage of a man and a woman can provide an asset to children that a marriage between two members of the same sex cannot provide, there is a compelling reason for society (and thus the government in a republic) to hold up that union as the ideal.

Many proponents of same-sex marriage are sincere in their desire to marry or, if not gay, sincere in their desire for equality. I acknowledge this, but there is also a movement on the Left to remove the distinctions between female and male. Case in point, the recent edition of the New York Times magazine.


Unfortunately, most same-sex advocates have bought in to this nonsense just as they've bought into the notion that defending tradition marriage = hate.

Can we discuss this issue without bringing up this "movement"? Because I honestly do not care about that movement at all, and plenty of others don't care either. That movement is beside the point. It entering in the discussion, to me, feels like a crutch, some background noise to distract from the heart of the issue.

Also, of course there are limitations. Of course they exist for reasons beyond hate. But, again, I don't think many of the other "limitations" that are brought up in this debate are comparable to the issue of same-sex marriage. Again, it feels like a distraction, like something to keep you from discussing the heart of what we are talking about.

The bottom line here I think falls in this statement, and basically sums up what I've been trying to glean from your posts for a while:

if, on aggregate, the marriage of a man and a woman can provide an asset to children that a marriage between two members of the same sex cannot provide, there is a compelling reason for society (and thus the government in a republic) to hold up that union as the ideal.

I want to respond to this because it is directly related to the issue, unlike all of that other stuff. My two responses are a statement I hope that you will heed, and a question:

1. As it's been said many times, people are not required to have children to marry, so this line of logic is already treading on very thin ice.

2. Can you describe what exactly this "asset" is? I really hope this isn't some intangible, or some generality or vague statement about "gender roles."

 

[Irvine511]

what is this movement? i'm totally confused. not bi-curious even, just confused. homosexuality and gender identity are very different things.

all i can do is post this:

The Magnetic Fields - Andrew in Drag - YouTube

 

[INDY500]

what is this movement? i'm totally confused. not bi-curious even, just confused.

I'll ask you, not to get sidetracked from the main topic as I've made my only point, but why the T in LGBT? What do "transgenders" have to do with gay rights?

Is preventing a man from getting fired for wearing a dress to work really on the same level as marriage equality for the LGBT community? All I can assume is that you must believe that gender doesn't matter.

 

[PhilsFan]

I'll ask you, not to get sidetracked from the main topic as I've made my only point, but why the T in LGBT? What do "transgenders" have to do with gay rights?

Is preventing a man from getting fired for wearing a dress to work really on the same level as marriage equality for the LGBT community? All I can assume is that you must believe that gender doesn't matter.

I imagine the response to this is that many don't understand the difference between gender and sex.

 

[INDY500]

I want to respond to this because it is directly related to the issue, unlike all of that other stuff. My two responses are a statement I hope that you will heed, and a question:

1. As it's been said many times, people are not required to have children to marry, so this line of logic is already treading on very thin ice.

Not relevant to any point I've made. We're talking about "apart from the naughty bits."

2. Can you describe what exactly this "asset" is? I really hope this isn't some intangible, or some generality or vague statement about "gender roles."

It's simple. Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give, and vice versa, that a father brings unique contributions that no mother can?

Again, you can agree with that premise but judge equality and fairness a greater consideration and thus support same-sex marriage. And I would understand that. What I have a hard time respecting are those that can't or won't admit what most of us instinctively understand to be true.

Unfortunately, if one admits that men and women are not interchangeable they must also admit a reason (other than fear or hate of homosexuals) exists for defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

And some people don't want to admit that.

 

[Irvine511]

I'll ask you, not to get sidetracked from the main topic as I've made my only point, but why the T in LGBT? What do "transgenders" have to do with gay rights?

lots of people --- including myself -- are a bit uncomfortable with the LGBT grouping. i have much more in common with straight men (because we're men) and straight women (because we like men) than i do with even Lesbians and the Transgendered. i love and support the TG community, but their struggle is quite different from mine.

however.

what we do share is a common enemy: homophobia, which is more accurately understood as misogyny.

the people who bash and murder TG folks -- and, believe me, it can be a *very* dangerous world for TG folk -- are motivated by the same forces who would bash and murder me.

would you allow, say, a post-op TS female (her penis has been reconstructed into a vagina) to marry a biological male? it's all penises and vaginas. it's opposite marriage. is that ok?

Is preventing a man from getting fired for wearing a dress to work really on the same level as marriage equality for the LGBT community? All I can assume is that you must believe that gender doesn't matter.

well, you know what happens when you assume, right?

it's not that gender doesn't matter, it's that gender shouldn't be used as a tool for discrimination or limitation. you know, like Susan B. Anthony or Sally Ride taught us.

do you think you should be able to fire someone if they were once the opposite gender from what they are now?

again, did you read the article? or are you just assuming that some hippie NYT readers are buying their boys dresses and proclaiming that it's all the same?

because if you read the article you'd find out a lot more.

Raising My Rainbow | Adventures in raising a fabulously gender creative son.

 

[PhilsFan]

There's nothing wrong with admitting that there are general trends of what makes someone male and what makes someone female. There is something wrong with pidgeon-holing the two and trying to legislate based off of that type of narrow minded stereotyping. What you are proposing is, essentially, a statement to gay men that they are strange and not the ideal for children if they do not fill the stereotypical father role for a family, and the same for lesbian women who do not fill the stereotypical mother role for a family. I'm not even sure what you are trying to define those two roles as, but you're creating an awfully narrow minded precedent for establishing a family, and what's worse, you're justifying laws based upon that precedent.

 

[Irvine511]

It's simple. Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give, and vice versa, that a father brings unique contributions that no mother can?

are people required to procreate in Indiana in order to get married?

but setting that aside ... i would argue that gender is no more important than any other myriad qualities a parent might have. sure, gender is a large part of who we are as people, but is it all we are? furthermore, is the lack of one gender actually harmful for a child? the evidence suggests that the children of lesbians do best, and perhaps we could also make an argument (thinking about Qantas) that maybe it's best to keep children away from men, including their fathers, since men are much, much more likely to sexually abuse their children.

because gender matters.

or does that strike you as not quite right?

Unfortunately, if one admits that men and women are not interchangeable they must also admit a reason (other than fear or hate of homosexuals) exists for defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

And some people don't want to admit that.

could you name for me 10 qualities a father has that no mother will ever have, and 10 qualities a mother will have that no father will ever have.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Unfortunately, if one admits that men and women are not interchangeable they must also admit a reason (other than fear or hate of homosexuals) exists for defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

And some people don't want to admit that.

Maybe my reading comprehension skills are failing me tonight or something, but...huh???? I'm failing to see what you're saying here.

 

[Irvine511]

Memphis is very nurturing. and i'm practically a breast.

but i'll never be a mother. like this woman.

or this one.

a child needs that.

in conclusion, i support opposite marriage.