Gay Marriage Garners Full Support of Senate Republicans (living, law)

[Hollytree]

Originally Posted by pennyone

Read your news carefully. The Committee rejected moving this question to a public referendum, which I agree. It also allowed it to move to the RI Senate floor so that the Senate can vote on it. The proponents are confident but still making lots of calls. The vote may take place by this week's end. RI may be welcomed into the "club of the enlightened" as its 10th member very soon!

This makes 30 bigoted states versus 10 enlightened ones..with another 10 on the fence. The Great Cultural War is on.

Finally, RI has rejoined New England. Now, if we could just move these legislators to do something else the majority of the people need and want - their votes swing pretty fluidly on occasion.

[thenewtexan]

Originally Posted by tijlover

Let's make sure when this becomes law it cannot be reversed in any way! Years down the road, just stick some earplugs into your ears if you hear the cries all over Rhode Island:

"I'm Gay, supported Gay marriage, and I never realized this was going to be such a nightmare for me! In my blindness, I overlooked way too many things that could go wrong!"

"There's got to be a way we can undue this damage we inflicted on ourselves!"

Oscar Wilde said it too well: When God wishes to punish you, he answers your prayers!

I'm Gay, opposed to all marriages, and to get me to any altar will take more than a tow truck!

That's your choice, but are you not more comfortable making the decision for yourself, than having our bigoted government making the decision for you?

[Oleg Bach]

Originally Posted by pennyone

"all I get from them is resentment - envy - harassment and a overly entitled mindset that they are my superiors."...

How do you know this? Do you think they envoy your age? children? old school-ness? sensitive much? Maybe they just dont think you are cool....

There are arses of every kind, creed, race and sexual orientation running around everywhere. This does not make it ok to treat a whole group as second class citizens.

In the end, the "I dont care.." attitude is just human nature. So what? What does this have to do with gay marriage?

After giving it a little thought...It is not that I am not "cool". I am very cool and have never clung to a past era. When I mentioned "old school" it might be better to say I am a small c conservative. I mentioned this when I first met these guys and just the mention of conservatism seemed to set off an attitude that I am some sort of enemy. The difficulty came about from a noise complaint. My son and I had a recording area in the front where there were also some loud jam sessions with a number of my son's fellow musicians.

I got the young guys to bring it down and stick to agreed hours to make music. Prior to this we had no problems because the sound did not bother the previous merchant. Once the first complaint took place it turned into complaining about everyday living such as walking across a floor...everyday cleaning. Then it was the sound of my dog who barks if the door bell goes off..then it was the flushing of a toilet..then cops arriving on Easter Sunday when we were having a family dinner..it got very trivial.


Even if I maintained a more respectful and compromised approach they were not satisfied. Finally I figured out what was bothering the owner of the business. It was common jealousy and envy. The guys partner always treated me kindly when I went to pick up my mail, which is delivered to the shop. The boss is this short bald frumpy man. I found out later that his "partner" was attracted to me..I am old but simply better looking than the complainant. Gays can be petty...I am resented because I am a handsome older man and he is not...It is really a very basic human defect...envy. AND the fact that I have my own views - I am civil and avoid conflict..I do my best to co-exist. As I said being petty seems to be a cultural trait.

As for gay marriage...I believe that it is not important and it is also a petty political debate.

[AlfieBoy]

Originally Posted by Oleg Bach

So it gets down to a contest. Who has more honor. Who has more loyalty and dignity. The heterosexual populace or the non-heteros? As for the art - it's a myth that some how gay people are more profound or talented. It's a stereotypical idea that gays are all creative..They may be more whimsical but whimsy does not constitute creative power.

I disagree, and many experts support my claim, for a variety of reasons. A compelling cite from a gay journal in which a gay psychiatrist is interviewed:

Q. Right off I want to discuss findings put forward by yourself and co-author Ed Lowe about the link between homosexuality and creativity.

A. I think that because gay men live in a society that is hostile to them, because they are oppressed, have few role models, and in most cases have no legal rights or institutions that support and honor us we became extraordinarily inventive in the ways we live our lives. The process of become gay, of accepting one's sexuality, is a process of living an extremely original life. The apparatus of a creative life begins early, when we feel we are different in some way but have no language to explain the difference. Young gay boys feel that almost always and consequently they often isolate themselves or are isolated by the outside world. Isolation presents a creative world. Sometimes in fantasy we deal with separation by becoming highly productive - drawing, writing, creating. Usually this stays with the person the rest of their life and is only enhanced by the challenges they meet later on.

Yes heteros have corrupted and damaged and broken the sacred bond and trust...I really don't think that gays will do better. The need for marriage in gays seems to be driven by a want and deep desire to be like heteros once were.

This is in direct conflict with your initial post. You posted:

Originally Posted by Oleg Bach

Governments all over the world are embracing the idea of same sex marriage. Governments all over the world are becoming more and more corrupt...it only makes sense that the corruption of marriage is now normal...corruption is the norm.

Can't have it both ways.

Being older and spending time in Toronto as a young person. I saw horrible behavior among straight people and if you were to view gay culture in the city which was a novelty to be observed. I also saw extremely bad and selfish behavior. I really can not agree that they are any more civilized that the rest of us.

Social betterment? I live on the trendy and newly gentrified Queen Street East in Toronto..I have a nice large old apartment above a shop. A year ago the shop was renovated and a company of gays set up their business. They know I am old school. An artist and musician - a straight man with four adult children...all I get from them is resentment - envy - harassment and a overly entitled mindset that they are my superiors. They would run me out of my own home if they could...so if these sophisticates are so into social betterment...there are no signs of that....quote..."I don't care about anyone other than my dog and my partner" _ These are anti-social human beings...so I don't buy your premise that this new forming culture is any better than the old hetero one.

Sounds like there are individual social dynamics at play in your life that do not relate to the topic of this thread, which, of course, is gay marriage in Rhode Island.

[Oleg Bach]

One gay writer admits that marriage has become corrupt. I mentioned that governments have also become corrupt. The trend in leadership these days is not about service and true care of citizens. It is rule by poll. Governments are more interested in maintaining power and ensuring re- election than in real service. Government will give the public what ever they want in order to ensure positive voting. They will tell them what ever they want to hear. This thread is about full support of Republican senators for gay marriage. If these guys thought that granting full support to ANYTHING - whether it be good for the future or society or bad for the future...They will grant what ever it takes to maintain their positions of power. They key word here is not rule by poll but rule by PANDER.

[pennyone]

Oleg;

It seems to me that your analysis and conclusion themselves are a bit "petty" too. Perhaps they complain because indeed you should NOT be having a "jam session" anywhere indoors. Those sessions can be very loud, and the fact that you allowed this to take place can be viewed as inconsiderate. I personally have very little patience with rude people, and so onec that is set with me, I no longer feel the obligation to be nice on my end. Frankly, if you lived or worked above me, and you had a "jam session" over my head, you will find that I will be very difficult to deal with too.

Regardless, your take on relative good looks just seem funny to me. But again, how does the "petty" jealousy of one old and "ugly" gay man equate to the whole groups's lack of common civil marriage right and benefit? It seems you allow something very petty to cloud your sense of basic fairness.

[AlfieBoy]

Oleg, I don't think legislating equality for gays is "pandering" any more than legislating civil rights (equality) for non-whites was "pandering." Nor do I think granting women the right to vote was "pandering." These are actions that fulfill our destiny. Let us recall the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Filling in the gaps -- tossing out old prejudices, in this case gay inequality -- in order to create a society where "all men are created equal" is not pandering: it is the pursuit of "a more perfect Union."

[Montguy]

Originally Posted by massnative71

How are these senators brave in any sense of the word? In this part of the country it does not matter whether it is the Democrat or Republican party, they all tend to cave to the social liberals and their extreme agenda. Right next door to this state, a US Senate primary is going on between three Republicans. Two of them have hopped on the "marriage can mean anything you want it to", "the unborn are disposable objects", "gun owners are criminals", etc. bandwagon. The third guy (Michael Sullivan) has stuck to his beliefs, is proud of and has no need to apologize for them. Predictably, the press has been out to hang him. It is people like him who have the real courage, and perhaps even more so Paiva-Weed who is going against the grain of her own party in addition to the local political climate and what the "trendy" and "PC" stance to take is.

For now, I will maintain my Independent political status until the major parties decide to grow a pair of b&(*s.

Actually, if you refer to my first comment on this thread, you'll clearly notice that I was mocking these senators as being disingenuous creeps who demonstrate willingness to legislate in favor of civil rights one day, yet apparently intend to eviscerate them for a different societal segment in the near future (I'm of course referring to the RI legislature's current intentions to implement punitive legislation against the 2A rights of RI's citizens).

But, moving on, I find myself in agreement with AlfieBoy--extending equal marriage rights to same-sex couples isn't indicative of an "extreme agenda," but is, rather, indicative of a growing social acceptance of homosexual marriage rights, plain and simple.

It's hard to imagine, frankly, that any member of RI's state legislature, regardless of party affiliation, is going to suffer electorally for voting in favor of this legislation, but if you disagree, then please do share--I'm not very familiar with the state's political dynamics beyond the general knowledge that it tends to be a very left-leaning (if not solidly left-wing) state.

[9162]

Originally Posted by Oleg Bach

So it gets down to a contest. Who has more honor. Who has more loyalty and dignity. The heterosexual populace or the non-heteros? As for the art - it's a myth that some how gay people are more profound or talented. It's a stereotypical idea that gays are all creative..They may be more whimsical but whimsy does not constitute creative power.

It's not a contest. It's just well known that gays usually harbor more of a creative, decorative talent than straight men. Years ago the entire south end of Boston was a slum, the only people that considered investing in it were gay guys. They came in and gentrified the neighborhoods here, it also caused a major increase in property values, crime also went down. In general, gay guys are not as likely to engage in violent crimes as straight men, compared with other cultures in the cities.

Originally Posted by Oleg Bach

Social betterment? I live on the trendy and newly gentrified Queen Street East in Toronto..I have a nice large old apartment above a shop. A year ago the shop was renovated and a company of gays set up their business. They know I am old school. An artist and musician - a straight man with four adult children...all I get from them is resentment - envy - harassment and a overly entitled mindset that they are my superiors. They would run me out of my own home if they could...so if these sophisticates are so into social betterment...there are no signs of that....quote..."I don't care about anyone other than my dog and my partner" _ These are anti-social human beings...so I don't buy your premise that this new forming culture is any better than the old hetero one.

Did you consider trying to make friends? This is how minds are opened.

[pennyone]

"Did you consider trying to make friends"...

Jamming over other people's head wont win any friends anytime soon.