DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
what I meant was... none of them know they're gay... yet ?
Report: NHL Actually Has Had Hundreds Of Openly Gay Players For Years - The Onion - America's Finest News Source
what I meant was... none of them know they're gay... yet ?
This is actually something I have been wondering about: do you think that, as LGBT rights become more mainstream both socially and politically, that the culture will be homogenized to some extent? And is that a problem if it is?
I think there's a lot to be said for the community not to have just settled with "civil unions" back when that was being shoved down all our throats (no pun intended ) in the name of "compromise". I admire your (our?) tenacity in standing up for legit, honest equality. Why the fuck did it take so long?
I'm no expert on gay culture, but I'd say I'm pretty familiar with it for several reasons, one of which being that I have a gay sibling, and it seems to me that a good deal of gay culture was/is rooted in embracing the otherness, for lack of a better term, and making a statement out of the way that particular community was viewed. A gay person coming of age now in the United States is going to have a different experience - sometimes radically different - than someone coming of age 20 years ago. I imagine that has to have some ramifications for the culture as a whole.
I don't understand what you're saying. People have had courthouse marriages for decades (centuries?) without having a religious ceremony. Did you want a marriage to be exclusively a religious construct? And straight couples who opted for a civil ceremony to not have a marriage?
That article got really offensive when it said that CLAUDE Lemieux was just as gay as Wayne Gretzky and Patrick Roy.
When I was a kid, I was basically raised with the idea that the civil marriages in court houses didn't "count" the way ones in churches did. They weren't in the site of God, so they weren't ordained by God, basically. They were still totally legal though in the eyes of the state, and it was kinda just frowned upon because, hell, at least it was a man and woman, right? (Tongue in cheek here). When I was in high school and the idea of Civil Unions for Same Sex couples was introduced to me, I thought that was a perfect solution. Over the course of time in posting in this thread, this hypocritical situation was pointed out to me, and I have, in time, come to the realization that, yeah, it would have to be one or the other. And there's no way in hell straight couples were going to be made to settle for Civil Unions, because white privilege and straight privilege are a lot alike. So, in some fantastical dream world I had at one point, I'd have liked to have seen a separation between the two, where marriage stayed a religious entity and civil unions were the exact same standing in the eyes of the government, but were not conducted in churches. Of course there are a MILLION problems with that, the first being that many religious branches (of Christianity especially) have no problem officiating same sex marriages. So what of that? Basically it wouldn't work, so I'm just, honestly, really relieved this happened. It's not the first step, but it's HUGE one on the path to people just treating each other as equal human beings. I keep trying to write off other things I've said in the past because I feel like posters in here who have seen me post in here before are going to think I'm being a hypocrite for being glad this happened, so, I'm gonna shut up about past stuff and the CU word, because it's irrelevant at this point.
Of course I thought that was absurd.
Who could forget Game 6 of the '93 Finals? The way those two were just lost in their own universe of perfect gay harmony late in the third period was the finest example of athleticism in sport since the ancient Greeks.
EDIT: Although one could argue for the beautiful gay ballet that was the 87 Canada Cup - the way MARIO and Wayne kept going back and forth with each other, getting the rhythm just so, and with such soft hands - the best passers in the game.
Yeah, I think we're in agreement, I meant that while there will always be cultural differences, it won't be as obviously pronounced.
When I was a kid, I was basically raised with the idea that the civil marriages in court houses didn't "count" the way ones in churches did. They weren't in the site of God, so they weren't ordained by God, basically. They were still totally legal though in the eyes of the state, and it was kinda just frowned upon because, hell, at least it was a man and woman, right? (Tongue in cheek here). When I was in high school and the idea of Civil Unions for Same Sex couples was introduced to me, I thought that was a perfect solution. Over the course of time in posting in this thread, this hypocritical situation was pointed out to me, and I have, in time, come to the realization that, yeah, it would have to be one or the other. And there's no way in hell straight couples were going to be made to settle for Civil Unions, because white privilege and straight privilege are a lot alike. So, in some fantastical dream world I had at one point, I'd have liked to have seen a separation between the two, where marriage stayed a religious entity and civil unions were the exact same standing in the eyes of the government, but were not conducted in churches. Of course there are a MILLION problems with that, the first being that many religious branches (of Christianity especially) have no problem officiating same sex marriages. So what of that? Basically it wouldn't work, so I'm just, honestly, really relieved this happened. It's not the first step, but it's HUGE one on the path to people just treating each other as equal human beings. I keep trying to write off other things I've said in the past because I feel like posters in here who have seen me post in here before are going to think I'm being a hypocrite for being glad this happened, so, I'm gonna shut up about past stuff and the CU word, because it's irrelevant at this point.
Now I think I should start watching hockey.
Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
Only downside to the whole thing? Keep hearing that horrible Macklemore track on the radio all day.
... he was referring to the ACA decision. He had no idea what this morning's ruling was when he said it.
Yes exactly that one. Same Love I think it's titled.
Yeesh.
A new gay anthem is needed ASAP.
Only straight people think that's the gay anthem. ;-)
When I was a kid, I was basically raised with the idea that the civil marriages in court houses didn't "count" the way ones in churches did. They weren't in the site of God, so they weren't ordained by God, basically. They were still totally legal though in the eyes of the state, and it was kinda just frowned upon because, hell, at least it was a man and woman, right? (Tongue in cheek here).
Only straight people think that's the gay anthem. ;-)
I'll say this about civil unions: I really wish a federal version were available so that an option for a binding relationship existed in purely secular terms. As someone considering making that type of commitment, I would strongly prefer it not to be mired in thousands of years of social and religious context that I find distasteful at best. I have to imagine there are gay people who feel the same way.
Only straight people think that's the gay anthem. ;-)