(Amendment One) (insurance, crimes, high school)

[netbrad]

Originally Posted by garnetpalmetto

As I can't exactly tell who wrote the first article (quoting a magazine on the whole is rather problematic. Most magazines employ writers from a multitude of viewpoints), let's look at some of these. I think you've succeeded in picking up the points of the most radical LGBT writers. You understand that there isn't one unified "gay agenda" as some like to posit, but that, like in anything, there's a political spectrum, right? Just as I doubt you fall in line with what radical Christian fundamentalists espouse, you have to understand that the majority of the LGBT community doesn't listen to the likes of Conrad and Gessen. None of these peoples are leaders in the LGBT community writ large, but exist on the fringes. To give them the amount of credibility that you do is disingenuous at best. Might they have their followers? Sure, but in the way that Malcolm X or Huey Newton had followers but not nearly the following that, say, King had. Yet you would quote Malcolm X or Carmichael or Newton and paint all civil rights activists with the same brush using your logic.

Let's look at some in your cast of characters here: Conrad writes for Against Equality that criticizes mainstream LGBT thought. Gessen is a frequently quoted voice but she has very little weight in the mainstream LGBT community. Google the quote and you see it bandied about by those on the right but it has zero, zilch, nada, nope, negatory traction with any mainstream LGBT/marriage equality groups. Clearly she has just tons of supporters, right? The National Conference on Organized Resistance? Hasn't met in 6 years. Why? Not enough interest at American University. Clearly a marginal/fringe group. Paula Ettelbrick's been dead for three years. She represented one side in a continuing debate/dialogue on whether same-sex marriage would be a benefit in that it might potentially bind other relationships that fall outside the marital relationship. Her own friend Nancy Polikoff mentions this:

Sure Ettelbrick has her adherents, but again, the LGBT movement has its own submovements - that doesn't mean her views can be ascribed to the movement writ large. Similarly, as for the Kohn quote - as provocative as the title of her piece might be, it fails to be what you think it is when the whole cloth is examined. Let's look at the next paragraphs following what you've quoted. Emphasis mine:

Not so radical at all - in fact, this is the point some conservatives are making now when asking "Why is government in the marriage business?"

I'm sorry but if you've ever seen the literature passed out at gay pride festivals you would know this is not extreme or fringe. And I've seen nothing from the LGBT community disowning their statements. Sally Kohn's own statement that you bolded shows they want to redefine family and relationships.

[garnetpalmetto]

Originally Posted by netbrad

If I had privilege I'd be a millionaire and a boss but I don't so I'm not. I've earned everything I have through hard work and sacrifice. I've had multiple bosses as minorities and have worked at companies where senior level executives as minorities (sexual and racial) so that privilege garbage doesn't fly. I should not have to feel guilty for my successes. I never said I disliked gays, I just don't agree with their lifestyle. You folks make it sound like I would punch one in the face if I ever met them.

Speaking of privilege, don't forget about hate crime laws. If you or I get killed its a local PD issue. If a gay gets killed the full weight and power of the federal government is brought to bear. Doesn't that sound like and advantage to you?

Y'know Brad, those protect all people, yes, even you, so long as the crime was based on any of the protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or disability. So let's say a pack of radical Buddhists kneecap you while screaming "DEATH TO THE CHRISTIAN PIG." Guess what, Braddy boy...hate crime!

Originally Posted by netbrad

I have yet to see anyone in the LGBT community disown their statements. Sally Kohn, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and OUT magazine are hardly radical. They are mainstream leaders/publications for the LGBT movement.

Y'know for somebody who "disagrees" with the LGBT community, you sure seem to purport to know an awful lot about it. Any confessions to make here, Braddykins? Beyond that, I've addressed the Kohn piece and Ettelbrick. I did a little research - the OUT piece was written by Michelangelo Signorile, who no longer works at OUT after having a tiff with the new editor of the magazine over Signorile's activist stances. Beyond that, Signorile has clarified and discussed his position further:

Out of that 11,000-word story, TVC lifted less than 50 words, taken from here and there, and which represented only one of many points of view articulated in the piece...

In the Out story, which can be found in any library that stocks back issues (December, 1993/January, 1994), toward the end of the piece, I discussed the varying points of view in the gay community on same-sex marriage at the time. I quoted those who saw marriage as an oppressive institution - one that has not treated women and children well in the past - and who believed that we should not mimic it or want access to it. I also quoted those who saw marriage as a way to "civilize" gay men and their sexual urges.

Both of these positions, I found, were pretty extreme. I looked at still other points of view, and I also proposed what "might" be a compromise - I didn't even say whether I agreed with it or not - stating that redefining the institution of marriage to change its negative aspects while demanding marriage rights was one way to go.

And actually, I think most gay people have now, ten years later, found that middle ground, as marriage is and always has been an evolving institution shaped by the people and issues of the day. Many gay people want the rights and benefits of marriage, but no, they don't want its past oppressive trappings. At the same time, they don't want marriage to somehow make them straight or to "civilize" them. That's an offensive notion for me and many other gay and lesbian folks-even though, yes, I'm sure there are some gay people who hold this opinion.

We simply want complete equality with straights.

[arbyunc]

Originally Posted by netbrad

I'm sorry but if you've ever seen the literature passed out at gay pride festivals you would know this is not extreme or fringe. And I've seen nothing from the LGBT community disowning their statements. Sally Kohn's own statement that you bolded shows they want to redefine family and relationships.

I've never been to a gay pride festival. Did you have fun?

[southbound_295]

Originally Posted by netbrad

I never implied that neighborhoods are going to hell because of gay couples and I haven't read Fox in years but you won't believe me so it doesn't matter.

OK Brad, I'll bite. Are you deaf? Fox news is on TV, so if you haven't read it for years that would imply that you're deaf.

[WaldoKitty]

Originally Posted by netbrad

If I had privilege I'd be a millionaire and a boss but I don't so I'm not. I've earned everything I have through hard work and sacrifice. I've had multiple bosses as minorities and have worked at companies where senior level executives as minorities (sexual and racial) so that privilege garbage doesn't fly. I should not have to feel guilty for my successes. I never said I disliked gays, I just don't agree with their lifestyle. You folks make it sound like I would punch one in the face if I ever met them.....

Lawd. Nobody Cares.

I think you give yourself too much credit that anyone would be trying to sway your opinion of anything. Furthermore it's completely irrelevant to the subject of this topic. Legalizing Gay & Lesbian marriage isn't about you unless you are Gay or Lesbian.

Furthermore, the more someone has to tell us they are good, honest, and a symbol of the American way, the less likely that any of it is to be true.

If it is overturned in NC it won't affect you by any means so I don't see why you are going on these diatribes especially when you have completely failed to put for any legal or logical argument for why it shouldn't be approved.

[MrBojangles]

Originally Posted by netbrad

There is not enough research to determine if it is a choice or natural. Perhaps culture would have been a better choice of words.

So when did you decide you weren't gay? Or are you saying the "culture" you happened to be around is the only thing keeping you from being gay?

Do you really think someone could experience gay culture and turn gay? Or someone could decide they want to be gay?

[MrBojangles]

Originally Posted by netbrad

I'm sorry but if you've ever seen the literature passed out at gay pride festivals you would know this is not extreme or fringe. And I've seen nothing from the LGBT community disowning their statements. Sally Kohn's own statement that you bolded shows they want to redefine family and relationships.

I've never been to a gay pride parade, so I'll take your word for it. Since you had to obviously see that first hand.

But I HAVE been to other parades that celebrate cultural events. One parade I went to celebrates farm/country life. There were also KKK members passing out flyers. So I guess everyone who attended the parade, including myself, are also Klan members.

[arbyunc]

Brad, please tell us about this "gay lifestyle" of which you disapprove. Is it the part where gay couples hold steady jobs, buy houses, raise kids in loving homes, and go on vacations just like the rest of us? Is it the part where they pay taxes, volunteer for local charities, and help their neighbors in times of need? These are all things that most gay people I know do, and for the life of me I can't see where any of that should warrant your disapproval. Can you help us out here?

[Francois]

Originally Posted by netbrad

. Opposition is not allowed since it goes against progressive groupthink as demonstrated on this board. Failure to support gay marriage results in the loss of your job, bullying by LGBTQ supporters and government agencies and trips to a re-education camp (sensitivity training).

Documentation for a SINGLE instance of this, please? The case of the tech CEO who was fired recently was actually NOT brought about by any GLBT groups.

And please give the address of a single "re-education camp"?

[Francois]

Originally Posted by netbrad

That was Massachusetts. Polygamists don't have a following there. They do in Utah which is where the issue is currently working its way through the courts. Once the first state goes the rest will follow as we have seen with gay marriage.

You know someone's lost an argument when all they can cite is "SLIPPERLY SLOPE"!!!

First of all regarding the Loving case a person cannot choose their race. It is still up for debate whether or not they can choose their orientation.

No, it is not up for debate. People cna change behavior, and repress orientation, but a person who is attracted to men cannot by any method lose that attraction and gain an attraction to women. If you think sexuality is so fluid, "I encourage you to "decide" for a sociological experiment that you are no longer attracted to the opposite sex, in no way whatsoever, and that you suddenly woke up and "chose" to find members of your own gender sexy. Can't do it, eh? Never mind the fact that nobody would CHOOSE to be a member of a demographic that (histrically) brings them so much hatred, sterepotyping, and discrimination.

Don't you think that if being gay were a choice you could just wake up one day and switch, that people who wanted to get married would just "switch" so they could be in a heterosexual marriage? Your argument doesn't even hold any logical water. Who would deliberately "choose" to have a dating pool only 5% the size of what it could be if they were like everyone else?