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.
So you think that men always come up in the arguments because opponents of GLBTQ rights are using gay men because people react more negatively to them and it helps their cause?
I think all of these things are at work in some way. I remember hearing in the Holocaust course I took that lesbians were rarely taken to concentration or death camps, while gay men were quite often. I understand there's some evidence that the government felt that it would be easy to use women for reproduction even if they were lesbians, whereas gay men were considered useless. You could take a lot from that--gay men are considered more repulsive, women in general are seen as more receptive to manipulation, lesbianism wasn't even thought to be something real, women weren't worth bothering with/punishing for lesbianism, yet somehow male homosexual relationships were seen as harmful to society, etc.
I agree. It could be all of those things.
Another probability: Since hetero men have historically been in control of governments (including the police), it's easy to see why there's been a lot more persecution of gay men than gay women.
Hey the Bible says women are NOT to wear men's clothes..
Uh-oh... I'm wearing jeans and a button-down shirt right now, along with some very un-feminine clogs. Guess I'm going to hell, but at least I'll be comfortable in the meantime! You'll get me to wear dresses & heels to work the day a pig flies over my house...
If they are bi, they have a choice. Who are you to look down on them for perusing a female relationship?
How did you get that from my post? Who said I was looking down on anyone? I only said that EX-gay is fictitious, because no matter who you are currently with, the gay tendencies will always be there... if you're actually bisexual, then you are always bisexual, whether you're with a man or woman. Never said I had a problem with any of this, just pointing out the obvious. And I'll second the comment about assuming gays are men - if we're talking about a lesbian, then obviously I wouldn't judge her for "perusing a female relationship."
I'm politically dead center, single and straight. I went to college in San Francisco in the early 80's, lived at the very end of Castro Street (around 26TH, if I remember correctly) and even had a gay roommate. I'm telling you all this just so you know have an idea of who I am before I go on.
The way I see it, the far left already support same sex marriage (and always will) and the far right oppose it (and always will). The majority of the voters are in the middle (like my self) and are the ones that will eventually legalize same sex marriage (that's what I think any way....it's just a matter of when).
In my opinion (and this is only my opinion) what has and will continue to postpone it, is the attitude the gay community is taking towards making this become a reality. Protests only agitate the far right (which in turn agitates the far left) but, also isolates everyone in the middle (which are the ones that are going to make the difference). The reason being is that the attitude comes across (to me at least) as, "If you're not for us, you're against us".
I think when the city of San Francisco, jumped the gun and just started marrying same sex couples (and everyone lined up to get married), was the worst thing that could have happened for same sex marriage becoming legal.....the entire cause took two GIANT steps backwards when the city did that. It showed everyone, a disregard and lack of respect for the country it's laws, rather than showing the country that marriage needs to be a part of same sex couples, just like it is for opposite sex couples (which hopefully was the intention). I think it's also what motivated the religious right to protest so strongly....in a way San Francisco drew first blood for the gay community when it did that.
I live in AZ now and didn't have to vote for any issue like prop 8....I don't know where I would have stood on it (and kind of glad I don't need to decide...yet) but, I think the protests right now are sending the wrong message. Instead of making a statement (or an awareness) on an issue the gay community needs "others" to support and understand, it's being seen as a demand for the support and understanding that the community needs from "others".....among those "others" are many who already see the gay community as a group that wants acceptance but, is often not willing to give the same back in return.
Referring to marriage as a basic civil right, only creates another argument and points out yet another area of disagreement to argue over. I think some may see it as an effort to redirect the issue. The same could be said about the advocates of prop 8 bringing up the issue of children and insurance benefits.....it may be viewed as an attempt to manipulate (especially by talking about children). I have no idea what that was actually in reference to and I'm an insurance broker that only does health insurance......if someone familiar with prop 8, feels like telling what that part was all about, I'd appreciate it.
In my opinion (and this is only my opinion) what has and will continue to postpone it, is the attitude the gay community is taking towards making this become a reality. Protests only agitate the far right (which in turn agitates the far left) but, also isolates everyone in the middle (which are the ones that are going to make the difference). The reason being is that the attitude comes across (to me at least) as, "If you're not for us, you're against us".
I strongly agree with you. (And I am gay.) I'm sure you know this already, but I just want to reiterate that not everyone who is gay is an activist and protester. So, when people say "the gay community", I like to speak up and point out that gay people don't all march in lockstep together - far from it.
Quote:
I think when the city of San Francisco, jumped the gun and just started marrying same sex couples (and everyone lined up to get married), was the worst thing that could have happened for same sex marriage becoming legal.....the entire cause took two GIANT steps backwards when the city did that. It showed everyone, a disregard and lack of respect for the country it's laws, rather than showing the country that marriage needs to be a part of same sex couples, just like it is for opposite sex couples (which hopefully was the intention). I think it's also what motivated the religious right to protest so strongly....in a way San Francisco drew first blood for the gay community when it did that.
Yeah, I was excited when it happened, but I couldn't help but think that it was wrong to just start allowing same-sex marriages like that. The issue was already working its way through the legal system, and the winds of change were blowing in our direction. It was just really unnecessary to cause the uproar. Gavin Newsom made a bad move, although I think he meant well.
Quote:
I live in AZ now and didn't have to vote for any issue like prop 8....I don't know where I would have stood on it (and kind of glad I don't need to decide...yet)
But you have had two ballot initiatives related to same-sex marriage in Arizona. How did you vote? (I promise I won't go crazy if you say you voted on the conservative side.)
Quote:
but, I think the protests right now are sending the wrong message. Instead of making a statement (or an awareness) on an issue the gay community needs "others" to support and understand, it's being seen as a demand for the support and understanding that the community needs from "others".....among those "others" are many who already see the gay community as a group that wants acceptance but, is often not willing to give the same back in return.
Very well said. I know a lot of gays don't like to acknowledge this, but the truth is that the opinions of the hetero/majority population matter. Antagonizing them isn't good at all. Honestly, I feel embarrassed just thinking about how this has all played out since Election Day. I'm not embarrassed to be gay, but I am embarrassed by some of the images that have been presented and the impressions that have been left on the majority population.
Quote:
Referring to marriage as a basic civil right, only creates another argument and points out yet another area of disagreement to argue over. I think some may see it as an effort to redirect the issue.
Well, on this, I have to point out that it was the California Supreme Court that said marriage is a "basic civil right". So, I think that's where it comes from. Maybe the court will be proven wrong someday, but for now, I'm taking their word for it, and I think it's a valid statement.
Thank you for your very eloquent thoughts. It's wonderful that we have people here like you who can express themselves so clearly, and do it in a compassionate way.
I'm politically dead center, single and straight. I went to college in San Francisco in the early 80's, lived at the very end of Castro Street (around 26TH, if I remember correctly) and even had a gay roommate. I'm telling you all this just so you know have an idea of who I am before I go on.
The way I see it, the far left already support same sex marriage (and always will) and the far right oppose it (and always will). The majority of the voters are in the middle (like my self) and are the ones that will eventually legalize same sex marriage (that's what I think any way....it's just a matter of when).
In my opinion (and this is only my opinion) what has and will continue to postpone it, is the attitude the gay community is taking towards making this become a reality. Protests only agitate the far right (which in turn agitates the far left) but, also isolates everyone in the middle (which are the ones that are going to make the difference). The reason being is that the attitude comes across (to me at least) as, "If you're not for us, you're against us".
I think when the city of San Francisco, jumped the gun and just started marrying same sex couples (and everyone lined up to get married), was the worst thing that could have happened for same sex marriage becoming legal.....the entire cause took two GIANT steps backwards when the city did that. It showed everyone, a disregard and lack of respect for the country it's laws, rather than showing the country that marriage needs to be a part of same sex couples, just like it is for opposite sex couples (which hopefully was the intention). I think it's also what motivated the religious right to protest so strongly....in a way San Francisco drew first blood for the gay community when it did that.
I live in AZ now and didn't have to vote for any issue like prop 8....I don't know where I would have stood on it (and kind of glad I don't need to decide...yet) but, I think the protests right now are sending the wrong message. Instead of making a statement (or an awareness) on an issue the gay community needs "others" to support and understand, it's being seen as a demand for the support and understanding that the community needs from "others".....among those "others" are many who already see the gay community as a group that wants acceptance but, is often not willing to give the same back in return.
Referring to marriage as a basic civil right, only creates another argument and points out yet another area of disagreement to argue over. I think some may see it as an effort to redirect the issue. The same could be said about the advocates of prop 8 bringing up the issue of children and insurance benefits.....it may be viewed as an attempt to manipulate (especially by talking about children). I have no idea what that was actually in reference to and I'm an insurance broker that only does health insurance......if someone familiar with prop 8, feels like telling what that part was all about, I'd appreciate it.
I respectfully disagree. The right will disagree ALWAYS w/gay marriage, there's no way to ease into it for any attempt will be blocked. This is 2008, it is time that action was made for this, no more pussyfooting around this. How much longer are gays supposed to wait for people to warm up to the idea? It's not up to others to decide if they can get married or not, it's up to the gay couples to decide. After all, it's their decision that affects them, no one else. These people are pissed, rightly so, as their ability to get married was given to them & then snatched away. No doubt about it, if this happened to any one of you out there, you'd be pissed too & would be aggressive in your fight to get it back.
Exactly, it never should have been a prop on the ballot.
You're right. Nobody is being denied anything with or without voting on it. I fully support a gay person's right to marry as the state currently regulates it.
The states should be able to make their own laws regulating it, and shouldn't need a state constitutional amendment.
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.
I only said that EX-gay is fictitious, because no matter who you are currently with, the gay tendencies will always be there... if you're actually bisexual, then you are always bisexual, whether you're with a man or woman. Never said I had a problem with any of this, just pointing out the obvious. And I'll second the comment about assuming gays are men - if we're talking about a lesbian, then obviously I wouldn't judge her for "perusing a female relationship." 
