Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Arguing that those law are not discriminatory is ludicrous. Would you argue that bans on interracial marriage were not discriminatory? I mean, it's not that a black person could not get married - they could always marry someone of the proper (same) race.
Actually, anti-miscegenation laws affected who whites could marry. To my understanding, it was whites who were forbidden from marrying outside their race. Blacks didn't have to marry someone within their race; whites did.
Quote:
No, I still don't see the lie. Those law made it illegal for homosexuals to have homosexual sex. Please, enlighten me as to how that is a lie. (Spell it out for me, apparently I'm to dense to see what you're pointing out).
The law made it illegal for two men to have anal sex, and in some instances, it banned oral sex which obviously could've included lesbians. But the majority of them applied to everyone and applied to the act itself, not the self-realized orientation of its participants.
What if I were married to a man (several states allow it)? How do I answer the follow up questions like "what's her name?", "can i see a picture?"
How about the question like - "What kind of girls do you like"
I couldn't very well answer the honest way "The kind with penises"
Not simple at all[/quote]
So then lie. I mean, whatever. You're not really doing yourself any favors by willingly outing yourself to your, more-than-likely mostly straight comrades.
I'm insulted because I KNOW blacks have gone through more than gays, and I hate the blithe and cavalier way people make comparisons to the two like that's really going to make anyone sympathetic to gay issues.
Oh boy, here we go... blacks playing the victim card.
It's not about whether or not gays have suffered as much as the blacks in America, it's about being FAIR. So if the gays can somehow suffer more, will they then be eligible for civil right movement coverage? I'd think that being locked up in the Nazi concentration camps was enough pain and suffering for them as a whole, but apparently not. Geez...
Anyway, it was interested to find out that there are African-Iraqis, that Africans were brought to Iraq against their will and forced to be slaves.
AFRICAN HERITAGE EXTENDS ACROSS THE ARAB WORLD (http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/arab.html - broken link)
How about the right to be MARRIED to whom they love? Domestic partnerships are legal for gay couples in some states, but not all - and even in the states where it's legal, they still don't offer all the benefits of marriage. Many states won't even let a domestic partner visit their loved one in the hospital, simply because they aren't MARRIED. Not to mention, the adoption agencies are still excluding gays, which is connected to the marriage fight.
First of all, "love" is about as convincing that we need gay marriage as "religion" is to those who want to ban it. That's not a legally viable argument. Please show me one statute that says it's perfectly fine to deny someone access to see someone in the hospital. All one needs is a health care proxy, a living will, or even if that's their "In Case of Emergency" person, to tie up any loose-ends, and even those may not be necessary.
Adoption agencies who are religiously based might deny gay couples, because they wouldn't feel right in putting children with same-sex couples. If they're private agencies, that's their right to do so.
Quote:
Finally, as a Black person, you should be ashamed of using the argument "these rights have never existed." Women never had the right to vote prior to the 1920s, and Blacks didn't have that right either - so just because it had always been so, was that a good reason to continue the oppression?
Except that freedom for blacks and women's suffrage were actually rights that were cut based on the idea that we were lesser than white, land-owning men. Those rights have always existed. Just not for us. Now, can you prove that the traditional composition of marriage was ever meant to include two men or two women, and that reluctance to include them in it is oppressive in the same way?
Quote:
Nope, that isn't true, and the parallels don't really make any sense... because most people who voted YES on 8 had only the reasons listed earlier (primarily religious), whereas those who voted had logical reasons. I could give you probably 20+ reasons why gay marriage should be legal, but those who oppose usually only have one or two - first one being religious beliefs, second usually being something like "it's gross." Not once have I heard a logical argument against gay marriage, while the majority of pro arguments actually make sense.
The primary ad the Yes on 8 used talked about the impropriety of the state supreme court overturning Prop 22 in the first place and the hubris of Gavin Newsom saying it's going to be legal whether we like it or not. Conversely, one of the main ads No on 8 used was two men in Mormon outfits going into a lesbian couples house, ripping up their marriage certificate, and being like, "job well done." But...it's us using religion as a way to denigrate gay people? Yeah right.
The primary concern with religion in Prop 8 was the idea that religious organizations would be afffected by gay marriage being legal. People think those concerns were about church's being force to solemnize gay marriages, but it was more nuanced than that. People say how the gay lobby and the biased supreme court and the biased state politicians (Feinstein, Newsom, AG Jerry Brown) were actively campaigning against not only Prop 8, but their vote in 2000. So they probably got scared and figured what's to stop them from infringing on churches and religion next? Both then and now, the gay community has given the religious community (which cross-sections with many minorities) that they care at all about religious persecution, religious freedom, or that they would stand up for them should a gay couple take a church to court for not supporting homosexuality or gay marriage in the future. So, they were looking out for their own backs, and frankly, I don't blame them.
I think that was his point, which you obviously missed... people talk about the "gay lifestyle" when really they're just feeding into stereotypes. Get it?
I missed it because it was a bad play on what I said. I said who you date, sleep with, marry, live with, etc (be it a man or woman, be YOU gay or straight) is a lifestyle choice. I wasn't talking about men wearing pink and tight clothes, or female lumberjacks or something stereotypical.
He isn't lying, and it happens all the time... I live in San Francisco, and even here it can be uncomfortable/awkward at times for gay folks. Try pretending to be gay for a day, and see how often this kind of thing comes up - you'd be surprised!
So, do you think they SHOULD lie? If so, that would probably anger the religious right too.
If it comes up, I really wouldn't care how they dealt with it. If I was gay and in a situation where I know that's kind of taboo, and where I'm around a bunch of people who aren't gay and might be homophobic, I'd lie if it was my only way out, and just not bring it up. I'd do a cost-benefit analysis and ask myself what would I stand to gain or lose by telling them the truth? Being the odd one out? Someone ratting me out? Loss of a "friend" (though I understand this term isn't completely apt if they would diss you for being gay)? Is it worth it?
And the thing is, even if it was totally cool to be out and gay in the military, this would still be my thought process.
But sexual orientation is an "innate biological characteristic that doesn't reflect on the character or quality of the person" right?
MMMkay
Those are two specific examples. I didn't say "there exists no biological characteristic that doesn't reflect on the character of quality of the person."
Spare me your fabrications. There's never been a golden age of gay oppression.
Oh really? I can think of two distinct ones - first the Holocaust, where (as I mentioned earlier) the homosexuals were gathered & murdered along with the Jews and other groups they hated. Then you had the 1970s Stonewall riots, Milk/Moscone murder, etc. Have you seen the movie Milk yet? It might explain a little about the history of gay rights to you, so I'd suggest you check it out.
Quote:
Any other group can say that they have been "murdered for thousands of years", so whatever.
Huh?? I don't think that is true, by any stretch of the imagination... but whatever.
You think that these articles mean anything whatsoever? Wow, some people who are gay are racist! Stop the presses!
It's a FACT, however, that the gay community as a whole (exceptions exist -Log Cabin Republicans, etc.) more likely to vote and support progressive and democratic candidates.
Besides, from your own link, with its laughably small list of "racist incidents" that include a white gay guy calling a Mexican woman a "*******" (oh my god, systemic racism!!!!!):
Because the LGBT community spans all ethnicities, races, and cultures, it is realistically improbable for racism to be entirely absent therein. The importance of racial tolerance and diversity, especially in a community which already receives so much discrimination from homophobia, has been publicly stressed by many LGBT celebrities.
You missed it, man. The incidents in the article point to a much larger phenomenon that many a gay rights activist would just love to deny and sweep under the rug (like Dan Savage for one) - the pervasive racism extant in the mainstream gay/LGBT community. I would even submit that racism in this arena tends to be much more pronounced and destructive than that in its broader heterosexual counterpart, probably for the reason you stated in bold above. Why would the importance of tolerance and diversity even have to be stressed to those who claim to be the ideological paragons of it in the first place? My sense is that all the hate GLBT's have to endure tends to be too much to process and bear, so adopting behavior consistent with their oppressors becomes a rationalized pathway to maintaining some sort of footing in the overall struggle for acceptance and power, even if it means alienating those very minorities within their community whose complete involvement in the struggle would provide much-needed benefit and legitimacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
you say can be turned right back around to blacks. That many blacks only look to argue for the precepts of civil rights when it suits to further THEIR OWN cause.
That may very well be true. But then again I ask, why should blacks extend their support for other causes when many of those championing those very causes could really give a rat's behind about the import of the primary cause they're piggy-backing in the first place?
First of all, "love" is about as convincing that we need gay marriage as "religion" is to those who want to ban it. That's not a legally viable argument. Please show me one statute that says it's perfectly fine to deny someone access to see someone in the hospital. All one needs is a health care proxy, a living will, or even if that's their "In Case of Emergency" person, to tie up any loose-ends, and even those may not be necessary.
Those don't always hold up, especially in an emergency situation where you might not be able to get the paperwork... I'll have to research specific examples for you, which would probably take a while.
Quote:
Adoption agencies who are religiously based might deny gay couples, because they wouldn't feel right in putting children with same-sex couples. If they're private agencies, that's their right to do so.
I never argued whether it was their right to do so... just using that as an example of the rights they are denied. And some states (such as Florida) have passed state-wide bans on gay adoption, so you can't use the "they're a private institution" excuse for all of them.
Quote:
Except that freedom for blacks and women's suffrage were actually rights that were cut based on the idea that we were lesser than white, land-owning men. Those rights have always existed. Just not for us. Now, can you prove that the traditional composition of marriage was ever meant to include two men or two women, and that reluctance to include them in it is oppressive in the same way?
The original definition of marriage was related to ownership of women and land - so it's already been changed so much, I'd have a hard time breaking down each step of change in marriage laws/beliefs. Most logical people define marriage as a union between loving, consenting adults - and to exclude a certain gender combination is discriminatory, no matter how you slice it.
And to correct your line of thinking, this is actually an EXCLUSION in most cases, since it was never technically illegal to marry gay couples... California figured that one out, which is how we issued marriage licenses until the passing of Prop 8. So this was clearly a case of taking rights away, or they wouldn't have had to pass a law against it - right? I mean, that seems fairly logical to me.
Quote:
The primary ad the Yes on 8 used talked about the impropriety of the state supreme court overturning Prop 22 in the first place and the hubris of Gavin Newsom saying it's going to be legal whether we like it or not.
Which, FYI, was taken out of context to push their propaganda... I live in San Francisco, and Gavin Newsom would never force anything on anyone (as they implied). Do you have the entire transcript of that speech, and the video to see it in context? I haven't seen/read the whole thing, but have seen enough to know it was a horribly misleading sound byte.
Quote:
Conversely, one of the main ads No on 8 used was two men in Mormon outfits going into a lesbian couples house, ripping up their marriage certificate, and being like, "job well done." But...it's us using religion as a way to denigrate gay people? Yeah right.
Strange - I never saw that ad here in San Francisco, and you claim it was one of their "main ads?" Do you have a link to video of that? Because most of the No on 8 ads I saw were very respectful, mostly just with notable supporters (Feinstein, celebrities, etc) stating the reasons why it shouldn't be passed... and then there were a few in response to Yes ads, where they debated the incorrect & hateful points made in them. Sorry, but I'm calling BS on your comments here.
If it comes up, I really wouldn't care how they dealt with it. If I was gay and in a situation where I know that's kind of taboo, and where I'm around a bunch of people who aren't gay and might be homophobic, I'd lie if it was my only way out, and just not bring it up. I'd do a cost-benefit analysis and ask myself what would I stand to gain or lose by telling them the truth? Being the odd one out? Someone ratting me out? Loss of a "friend" (though I understand this term isn't completely apt if they would diss you for being gay)? Is it worth it?
And the thing is, even if it was totally cool to be out and gay in the military, this would still be my thought process.
If that was really your attitude (which I doubt it would be if you were ACTUALLY gay), I would tell you to gain some self-confidence and self-worth... because anyone who would lie first, before even trying to take a stand, must think very little of themselves. It's sad that this would even be an issue, and also sad that you can't see how this is oppressive. What if you had to lie about dating a white woman, just to avoid "offending" a racist? Would you sit back quietly and take that kind of treatment?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
