Canada - The True Home of Freedom!

[raedyn]

To those who would say "but you're forcing your lifestyle on me":

People fighting for gay rights aren't forcing their private lives on anyone. You don't have to marry a gay person. And your church doesn't have to perform a gay marriage. But people thwarting the long march towards justice ARE trying to force their beliefs and their religion on everyone else. "I don't think it's right, so you shouldn't get to marry". Kinda sounds like applying your values to someone else, no?

To those who would distract the issue talking about phallic symbols on parade:

The appropriateness of these displays can certainly be debated, but it is completely a separate issue than whether gay and lesbian people should be treated the same as their straight friends and family. Those who would participte in such foolishness are a small segment of the queer community. And if you have a problem with that behaviour, fine, but that's not a fair metric to judge all gay and lesbian people with. Just like I know there are straight men who beat their wives or rape women, it's not reflective of the entire community, and I won't dismiss all straight men because of actions I deride in some of them.

To those who would say "but marriage is for having and raising children":

Gay and lesbian people DO have and raise children. Through adoption, in vitro fertilization, or straight relationships prior to 'coming out'. Their families need and deserve the affirmation & protection that marriage can provide. And certainly not every opposite-sex marriage results in offspring. By choice, many couples never have kids. Would you have those couples forced to reproduce? Or denied marriage licences because they're not 'fufilling their duty'?

To those who would say "if you don't like it, get out of our country":

As has been discussed in this thread and elsewhere, some people would rather stay in their own country where their family and friends and history and heart are, and work to improve it. How about everyone who is offended by the advancement of gay rights moves to a country where there are none like, say... Iran? or China? No, you don't want to do that? You don't want to leave your country just because there are people at home that you disagree with? Hmm... I guess probably no one wants to do that.

But don't be fooled, there ARE people who have left the US because they are treated as second class citizens at home. Californian Martha McDevitt-Pugh says "I can take my dog back to the United States but I can't take my wife." That's why she started the Love Exiles Foundation; to support GLBT couples who have chosen or are considering exile in order to be together. Only 16 countries allow their citizens to sponsor their same-sex partner or spouse as legal immigrants: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In the other 176 countries in the world, gay and lesbian citizens have no right to live legally together with their foreign partners. Committed partners are for all intents and purposes legal strangers.

For everyone, I encourage you to see this picture. Nothing lewd, just the faces of 42 Americans. They are different shapes, sizes, ages, races. They're also gay, and they rode that bus from San Fransisco to Washinton DC to voice their demands for equal marriage. First and foremost, they're people. With all the same hopes, loves, dreams, mistakes, and history like you and I. And they want their relationships, their families, and thier lives treated with the same respect as yours. Pretty simple, I'd say.

There are more than 1,049 federal rights that accompany civil marriage, and some additional 300 per state. These are rights that cover medical emergencies, taxes, insurance, inheritance, burial decisions and such trivialities as frequent-flier programs. Even the right not to testify against one's spouse is denied queers. (Source) So a convicted serial killer on death row can write letters to someone they've never met and will never live with, can (as long as they are straight) get access to all this? Britney Spears can get drunk in Vegas and make a 'mistake' on a whim and get access to all this? But a committed partnership of 30 years that has raised children and contributed to their community, they can't get all this? It just doesn't make sense.

 

[shesulsa]

So... uh, its cool to take your kids to see, I dunno, Deep Throat in the XXX theater.

Ahem. No, John. There is just no possible way you could derive my comment into that wrongful statement. Gosh and we usually so do get along.

Personally, *I* could care less about being exposed to a Big Freaking Rubber dong being waved around on the street, or some chicks walking about without their shirts... (the more of the latter, the better, I say) I'm certainly not ashamed, Ive been to my share of Gay Bars in Chicago, and I would never complain about the stuff being done in those clubs... I'm also not opposed to stuff like that on TV, Movies, etc... We have a lot of controll of our veiwing of that... as well as our childrens viewing of it...

But do we really want our young daughters exposed to the Big rubber penises?

My daughter is sandwiched in between two brothers (changed nasty poopy diapers on one of them), so she's seen the real thing. Ideally, no. There would be no humongus penises, vast vulvas, sex shops, painted ladies, boy toys and sex magazines for any of my children to be exposed to until they are the ripe age of ... whatever. But then there's capitalism, right? And the right to free speech? So ... *ahem again* I don't take my children to the gay pride parade! Whew! That was tuff! Nor do I let them watch coverage of it on television. And by the time they actually see these things for themselves, they will have had much preparatory discourse with me (at least).

And for the record, I feel the same way about many of the CRAZY clothing billboards you see, like for Vicky's Secrets and such... is it neccessary to expose our kids to the BLATANT sexuality, regardless of whether its Straight, Gay, Bi, or with Sheep?

I agree that using sex in advertising is the same as using it as a weapon and I talk with my children a lot about this kind of advertising and exposure. More so and more in depth with my older ones. Rather than just say "wait until you're married" we talk about why in the world people have sex if they either don't want to have children or are done having children (yes, I've been asked, and yes, I answered). I have posted before on my feelings of the misuse of sex in marketing; it's not any secret that I oppose it.

If Dr. Drew is to be believed, exposure to these type of things at a young age leads to Intamacy issues and other sorts of sexual "dysfunction" whether it be hypersexuality, predisposition to predatory sex partners or what have you...

Now, If that is actually true, is it REALLY worth it???

As to the first paragraph of the quoted section above, I think it's very true - especially so without proper discussion with parents and role models.

As to your final question - I assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) that your question is asking 'Are allowing gays to be married legally in the U.S. worth exposing our children to deep throating XXX porn?' I won't answer that question because of it's obvious answer AND because it's irrelevant to gay rights in America.

 

[Melissa426]

To those who would say "but you're forcing your lifestyle on in the world,.......
---------- >
....Committed partners are for all intents and purposes ? But a committed partnership of 30 years that has raised children and contributed to their community, they can't get all this? It just doesn't make sense.

I deleted a lot of this in the interest of space, but that is the best post in this thread in my opinion. Logical and insultless and sarcasm-free.These arguments will promote civil discourse and discussion, not name-calling and slamming those who disagree.

Well done, Raedyn.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[Kreth]

There are more than 1,049 federal rights that accompany civil marriage, and some additional 300 per state. These are rights that cover medical emergencies, taxes, insurance, inheritance, burial decisions and such trivialities as frequent-flier programs. Even the right not to testify against one's spouse is denied queers. (Source) So a convicted serial killer on death row can write letters to someone they've never met and will never live with, can (as long as they are straight) get access to all this? Britney Spears can get drunk in Vegas and make a 'mistake' on a whim and get access to all this? But a committed partnership of 30 years that has raised children and contributed to their community, they can't get all this? It just doesn't make sense.

Well, at the risk of going head-to-head with Technopunk (and I believe I've mentioned this elsewhere): there is no argument against same-sex marriage that is not religious in nature. So... since we supposedly have this little thing called "separation of church and state", what's the problem?
On a side note, I agree with Technopunk's distaste for the gay rights activists who feel they have to shove the issue down everyone's throat. Personally, I dislike anyone trying to shove their beliefs down my throat, and I respond accordingly, just ask the Jehovah's Witnesses...

Jeff

 

[rmcrobertson]

So, Melissa, you don't have any answers to the questions of a) why you or anybody should be allowed to tell people who read the Bible and worship differently that they're not allowed to do that, or b) why you're allowed to have your religious beliefs--and only yours--enshrined as State and federal law, or c) why it hurts you in any way that gay people could get married.

 

[shesulsa]

On a side note, I agree with Technopunk's distaste for the gay rights activists who feel they have to shove the issue down everyone's throat. Personally, I dislike anyone trying to shove their beliefs down my throat, and I respond accordingly, just ask the Jehovah's Witnesses...

Jeff

The whole "shoving it down one's throat" analogy with the huge phallus still makes me giggle. Sorry, can't help it. I get a visual with that phrase. Anyway.... I understand the feeling that carrying around an enormous phallus in parades and such can be considered in poor taste and it's certainly not something I would do nor condone.

That said, that kind of action reminds me of reading about massive gatherings where brassieres were tossed upon the bonfire. Do we need our young, innocent boys witnessing the removal and burning of lingerie? Certainly not. Yet this made a very strong statement, no?

And it is interesting to note that it still really hasn't worked - one could compare and contrast the women's movement or the civil rights movement to the gay rights movement with east - bashing, radical protests, symbolic use, etc. While I would not personally carry about a large representation of genitalia, lingerie, or religious symbol I can understand why it is done. If we want to end or quell it, perhaps we need to afford the homosexual community legal access to a basic American right and accept them for the place they do and always have held in society - those of republican-voting, child-rearing, tax-paying citizens just like you and me.

 

[Cryozombie]

[QUOTE = Raedyn] To those who would distract the issue talking about phallic symbols on parade:[/QUOTE]
It's not an attempt to distract the issue... In case I was not clear, I am not opposed to gay marriage... I was however answering the SILLY notion that thier "lifestyle" is not thrown in anyones faces. It most certainly is.

Kreth... Thank you. Its nice to see I am not the only one who can see that they do indeed shove their lifstyle down out throats.

Ahem. No, John. There is just no possible way you could derive my comment into that wrongful statement. Gosh and we usually so do get along.

No, I realize you never said this... my point being more for everyone who feels that type of things is "ok, because they are expressing their repression" ... We do our best to protect our kids from Pornography, blatant sexuality etc, when its Hetero in nature, but not when its gay in nature becuase that would be discriminatory? Please.

I don't take my children to the gay pride parade! Whew! That was tuff!

Tell that to the Parents who live along that parade route, or who are playing with their kids in those parks, etc... I guess they could lock their children in a closet on those days. Then their kids can come out of the closet once the Gay Pride parade is over! Haha... I made a joke... and it wasnt even intentional!

 

[shesulsa]

...everyone who feels that type of things is "ok, because they are expressing their repression" ... We do our best to protect our kids from Pornography, blatant sexuality etc, when its Hetero in nature, but not when its gay in nature becuase that would be discriminatory?

No, again, I *understand* why they do it, I don't *condone* it. But I would sooner get rid of sex in advertising since it is so much more rampant, dangerous and brainwashing in nature than a giant penis floating down Main street.

Tell that to the Parents who live along that parade route, or who are playing with their kids in those parks, etc... I guess they could lock their children in a closet on those days. Then their kids can come out of the closet once the Gay Pride parade is over! Haha... I made a joke... and it wasnt even intentional!

Okay. Parents who live along that route? You might consider taking your children camping or to a local museum, library or other historical landmark outside the city limits on those days.

And your joke is too funny! *runs over and hugs John, depositing a tampon in his pocket*

 

[rmcrobertson]

"...they do indeed shove their lifstyle down out throats."

So do a lot of folks. Cowboy up: you live in a pluralistic, democratic (well, mostly), free society...what's your grudge against that?

Apparently the real issue is that gay people--like them darkies--just don't know their place. Entertainers, dancers, decorators, a wild night in Buenos Aires, fine (odd how the two versions of "Cage of Fools," and "Mrs. Doubtfire," and "Tootsie," and Harvey Fierstein's character in "Independence day," were so popular among the "normal," eh?)--but oh my goodness, walking down the street in broad daylight, not not not.

You can't even claim that the costumes are more outrageous, if you've ever watched the Mummers, or the Tournament of Roses parade, or halftime at the Super Bowl, or Britney Spears...and which of you will be giving up the swimsuit issue of "Sports Illustrated," first?

And now, let's turn to the topic of parapraxes--"shove...lifstyle down out throats?"

Hm. Veeery interesting, as Arte Johnson used to say.

 

[Cryozombie]

and which of you will be giving up the swimsuit issue of "Sports Illustrated," first?

Me. I dont read that tripe.

 

[Cryozombie]

And your joke is too funny! *runs over and hugs John, depositing a tampon in his pocket*

Thanks, just what I have always wanted. :idunno:

 

[shesulsa]

Me. I dont read that tripe.

I don't think he sed you *read* it.
%-}

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah. So neither answers, nor explanations are forthcoming.

One wonders what the problem could be, then.

 

[TonyM.]

I live in Vermont. Ground zero for civil unions. I'm also in the hospitality bussiness. Weddings and civil unions are our bread and butter. My answer to the bumper sticker war, "Take Vermont Back, Share Vermont, ect." is "Take Vermont out to Dinner and buy it Flowers."

 

[Melissa426]

Ah. So neither answers, nor explanations are forthcoming.

One wonders what the problem could be, then.

I am not sure who this is intended for, but if me, all I can say is that I was off line for a few hours. I am about to go off line again and I don't know when I will be on again, so I can't always respond in a timely fashion.

Having said that, I look at your previous post directed at myself and respond accordingly:

a.
" Amendment I



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

"The free exercise thereof;" Hmmm. I think that means I can worship and practice my religious beliefs in the manner of my choice. Guess what, so can everyone else, I am not opposed to that. Or choose not to practice, if that is what they want.

b. When have I brought up federal law? You assume I support a constitutional ban on gay marriage? At the federal or state level? Find my post where I stated that.

c. This gets into a religious argument which has been dealt with on other threads, is not the topic of this thread, and I am not going to address it. I will for the record say I support domestic partner rights, such as same as those that are offered to long term heterosexual couples/families, who aren't married.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[Kreth]

Apparently the real issue is that gay people--like them darkies--just don't know their place.

This is *not* what I was saying. I don't have a problem with any lifestyle choice between consenting adults. However, is a gay pride parade featuring giant penises any more appropriate than a straight man reading Hustler in public?

and which of you will be giving up the swimsuit issue of "Sports Illustrated," first?

I just read it for the articles...

Jeff

 

[rmcrobertson]

In reverse order:

1. Show of hands--please, just hands--how many people have actually ever seen an obnoxious, gay rights parade featuring giant penises? In real life, not on, "the liberal media," that the very people who are worried about this are so often decrying?

2. Show of hands--how many people have ever seen a parade featuring, say, a) images of Puritans that are out-and-out lies, b) images of Indians and others that are patently racist, c) women and girls in skimpy clothing, d) a glorification of violence in one form or another, e) military weapons?

3. Still waiting on an answer explaining exactly why a) it's Constitutionally OK to deny marriage to certain people on religious grounds, b) how exactly it's justifiable to tell other people that they have no right to read the Bible, or to worship, or to marry in their church, because you don't agree with them about their church, their worship, or their reading of the Bible.

4. Still waiting for some sort of proof--or at least explanation--on how the dreaded Giant Penises hurt a living soul. Or is it just the truckloads of gay men driving around your neighborhood, looking for straights to beat up and kill, that offends?

5. And while we're all hot and bothered on THAT topic--hey, kids, anybody besides me ever looked at the New York skyline, or that of any major city? Looked at the enormous...monument...to George Washington, the Father of His Country? (By the way, if you think that's absurd...read the history of such monuments, and think about why exactly the Vietnam War Memorial is placed where it is in relation to the Monument, why it's V-shaped, and why it's a hole in the ground...it was deliberate, not accidental.) Wondered about why it is that boys and men like to go around waving their...toys, from Transformers to trucks to guns and knives?

6. The real offense of these fantasized, TV parades is that they bring out of the closet what passes for, "normalcy."

 

[raedyn]

Techno -
Sorry if you were subjected to that and offened by it at some point. Your issue, then, is about public decency. Fine. Topic for a separate thread. Because Gay pride parades do not always feature giant penises (in fact, I would argue they rarely do), and there is nothing inherently tying Gay and Lesbian people and their fight for equality to said phallus' other than your insistence. Where I live, Pride Parades look like this:

<sarcasm>Shocking.</sarcasm> It is those parades I've been going to since I was a kid, that I've spoken at, and that I take my own child to. I might feel differently if there was questionable content at these events, but where I go it is a family event. On purpose.

Hetero couples show us their sexuality all the time (myself included). Every day is Hetero Pride day. Consider every romantic comedy played in every theatre in North America. Consider straight weddings and the showers and celebrations that go along with them. Consider cuddles in the park and holding hands at the mall (there are few same-sex couples that have the guts to do this, but many won't out of fear).

 

[Kreth]

Gay pride parades do not always feature giant penises...

Guess that would depend on who's marching... (sorry, couldn't resist, no pun intended)...

Jeff

 

[kenpo tiger]

Don't like in-your-face pride parades?

Then don't come to New York. We have:
Italians, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Irish, West Indians, and who knows who else --

oh yes. GAYS!:xtrmshock The Halloween parade in Greenwich Village has costumes and all kinds of *those people* running around and having a good time, bothering no one (usually). And watched by hundreds of straight people.

At least we don't have the KKK marching here (that I know of...)