[Om] Nom Nom

It's all good Taint.  Yourself?

Alright, gehs, front and center.  I want to have a discussion.

"The gay agenda" is a phrase thrown around in a derogatory manner as you well know to scare us straights into believing you are all shirt eating pedophiles.

I have to wonder if there isn't a small bit of truth to an "agenda" when it comes to gay marriage.  I'm not saying a concerted effort from top to bottom(see what I did there?) but that in the upper echelons of the gay political movement an agenda is being pushed forward on this issue that hurts the less "active" amongst you in regards to moving forward with tolerance and acceptance.

Marriage to me is several things.  An institution first and foremost but also a word.

Gay marriage to me is in actuality a fight for civil rights such as "partners" qualifying for insurance benefits and hospital visitation and tax issues that has been severely crippled as a possibility by cloaking it with the word marriage and thus angering and alienating a good majority of Americans.

Compromise would go so far in this instance by agreeing to civil unions for gays that allow the civil protections being sought for with "gay marriage" and allowing churches to decide if they wish to perform same sex ceremonies.  Gays would get their civil rights and would also stop pissing off straights who have less enlightened world views and are integral to your vote needing asses right now.

I know people like to bitch and moan when I bring this up by shouting, "Separate but equal!" but I have a hard time seeing it this way especially in light of how you(the aforementioned word is meant to be applied to the gay movement and not to be taken as a lightning rod at our geh denizens) are pissing off a good deal of people who would otherwise be on your side. 

You want all the civil protections offered by marriage to hetero couples.  They want to cling to a fucking WORD.  Give them their WORD, take your rights and tell people you are married and in a few years the WORD will have been co-opted into the culture to include both traditional and non-traditional marriages.

I voted NO on the referendum in SC because it had a clause specifically outlawing even civil unions as an option.  Refusing to compromise on your part over a word has led to civil unions being removed as an option in my opinion as the other side refuses to compromise as well. 

I believe your "activists" are hurting the "gay movement" as a whole and that the fight for gay marriage has actually erased much progress in other gay "areas".

This isn't as coherent as I would like it to be I think.

I'm of the opinion that marriages cannot be destroyed except from within.

It's just my impression; I've never taken the plunge, myself.

Last edited by jesusluvspegging (2009-04-08 17:22:41)

Dmtdust wrote:

Somehow, after 30 years of marriage the gays have not destroyed ours, and we have a goodly number in the family, friends and Biz associates.  Wow.

Apparently the gay people in your life just aren’t committed hard-core marriage destroyers.  They must not need the toaster ovens and other fabulous prizes that are awarded for destroying heterosexual marriages.

Personally, I'm not FOR "gay marriage," but I stand firm on the rights that it accords straight people, as they should be enjoyed by all Americans. The people in that damnable commercial should all be shot in the face. No one's invading their homes or schools, and different orientations should be taught just as we generally teach our public to respect minorities. Unfortunately, and mostly due to some combination of culture and Judeo-Christian indoctrination, we must always have an "Other." Despite forty years since Stonewall, we're still it?

The reason I am not for gay marriage is simple: It's a heterosexual institution that shouldn't be copied by gays and lesbians just because they either want to legitimize themselves in front of the State, or feel that monogamous pair bonding is the mandatory way of affirming love for one's partner.

However, as a second-class citizen, who doesn't get to enjoy the legal, financial, or viatical benefits of marriage as it is established in this country, I obviously want some form of equality. I don't care what it's called, and I don't think it really needs to be patterned on something so patently hetero, but most of the Constitutional amendments written in this country were about expanding the rights of certain groups, as well as the current majority.

I do not foresee a tremendous furor over church refusals to sanction or perform gay marriages. As a whole, they're deliberately not that progressive...though there are some other choices that are. Not being a particularly religious Jew, I imagine I might want some of the trappings of "ceremony" if I were ever to partake in such a rite, but I could just as easily do it out on a beach somewhere with someone of any denomination who cared to perform it.

It's about second-class citizenship, a lack of protections/benefits. If you don't want a gay marriage, then don't have one, but there's really no more "agenda" to it aside any other natural right afforded to other Americans. Many of the Euros have already done it, and it's obvious their society hasn't fallen to pieces. We get sidetracked by the politicization fomented by people who cheat, diddle their kids, and nudge each other's shoes in airport bathrooms. If they can let people like Britney Spears and Kevin Federline tie the knot, then why on earth shouldn't any one else on the planet? We have just as much right to fuck it up at get a 51% divorce rate as the breeders.

Oh, fine, as the other official High Street Homo®, I'll offer my two cents.

Scotty wrote:

Compromise would go so far in this instance by agreeing to civil unions for gays that allow the civil protections being sought for with "gay marriage" and allowing churches to decide if they wish to perform same sex ceremonies.  Gays would get their civil rights and would also stop pissing off straights who have less enlightened world views and are integral to your vote needing asses right now.

I don't believe the government should be marrying anybody. As long as marriage is perceived as a religious institution - and, obviously, it is by a great many people or we wouldn't be having this boring discussion - then government has no business marrying anyone. If marriage is a civil institution authorized by government as a way to formalize contracts and determine who owns what - then the churches have no business determining who can and who can not marry.

Make every formalized relationship a civil union, and if people want their relationship solemnized in a religious ceremony, let the churches have control over that. I don't believe in gay marriage. I don't believe in straight marriage. Nonetheless, there are plenty of gay tools out there who will want their relationships formalized in some silly-assed MCC ceremony, or by that charming new vicar who just became the priest at St. So-and-so. So be it.

Scotty wrote:

I know people like to bitch and moan when I bring this up by shouting, "Separate but equal!" but I have a hard time seeing it this way especially in light of how you(the aforementioned word is meant to be applied to the gay movement and not to be taken as a lightning rod at our geh denizens) are pissing off a good deal of people who would otherwise be on your side.

I call "bullshit". Separate but equal is not equal. Never has been, never will be. The fact that marriage is somehow perceived by both straight opponents of gay marriage and gays fighting for the right to marry as superior automatically implies an unequal status unless all legalized relationships are categorized as marriage or as civil unions.

If wanting to get married were the only thing that pissed off people who would otherwise be on our side, they would have been on our side ages ago. These are largely the same people who oppose gays serving in the military, and who opposed allowing gays to teach children. These people don't like gay people.

Your premise reminds me of those gay idiots who would insist "You know, it's the drag queens/leather queens/flamers, etc., who are causing the problem. If everyone would just act normal, straight people would like us."

Straight people who honestly believe gays are entitled to the same rights have no problems with drag queens or with gay couples wanting to marry. My butching it up and driving a pickup truck is not going to make me any more attractive to people who hate me because I suck dick. Nothing will, and if there is something that would, I'd refuse to do it because I don't need their approval to be who I am. Whether they like me or grant me equal rights or don't, I will still be homosexual. That doesn't change.

Fixed: