[Please note that I tweaked this post a bit since first publishing it.]
One of my great disappointments in the campaign on California’s Proposition 8* ( has been the absence of serious discussion on the merits of gay marriage. The closest we came was the first ad against the initiative and one line in the the third. Basically we’ve just seen each side focusing on winning the battle rather than engaging the electorate.
Given that it should be the very purpose of a campaign to focus on victory at the ballot box, these strategies make sense. A conversation which advanced the argument for gay marriage may well have backfired politically.
Noting the absence of gay couples in the ads against Prop 8, Jonathan Rauch wrote today in the LA Times, “Whatever the tactical considerations, the absence of gay couples and gay marriages from California’s gay-marriage debate makes for an oddly hollow discussion.” He’s right.
Let us hope that should Prop 8 fail–and even if it succeeds–we can have that conversation. Unfortunately, those in a position to lead that discussion have little understanding of the real meaning of marriage. They seem to feel that all opponents of gay marriage merely hate gay people. They refuse address the point Rick Warren made in endorsing the initiative, “For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion – not just Christianity – has defined marriage as a contract between men and women.”
Yet, most leading advocates of gay marriage (save Jonathan Rauch and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA)) don’t even want to engage social conservative defenders of this ancient institution, as if they’re oblivious to the instiution’s merits, aware only of marriage as another “right” to which we somehow deserve equal access.
It seems that the leaders of the movement for gay marriage including Evan Wolfson, Executive Director of Freedom to Marry (with whom I’ve corresponded) base their understanding of the institution not on studies of its long history, but on reading Hallmark cards and quoting the Loving decision.
Maybe I’m wrong and we don’t need a serious conversation on gay marriage. Maybe our society will just come to accept an expanded definition of this ancient institution.
But, it would be nice if we could do as GLMA did in its recent report and highlight the benefits of the institution. To do that, just like them, we’d do well to cite social conservative defenses of traditional marriage. If we believe gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage, then a defense of traditional marriage would apply to our unions as well.
Alas that the current debate has not allowed us to consider the merits of marriage.
—-
*Which would amend the state’s constitution to include the traditional definition of marriage, thus nullifying the state Supreme Court decision mandating gay marriage.
GPW, every now and then you write a passage I can’t make sense of… there’s one.
To engage the electorate, *is* to “win the battle”, since it is an election. And how do you engage the electorate, for the anti-8 / pro-gay marriage side? Precisely by a conversation that advances the argument for gay marriage.
IOW, there is no strategic dilemma here. There is a straight (haha) path that the “No on 8” or pro-gay marriage campaign should be following: Show the electorate that gay people understand marriage… Show the electorate that gay marriage upholds widely accepted ideals like monogamy, and therefore benefits society as a whole. That would get us to 51%. But, sadly, the pro-gay campaign hasn’t been doing that type of campaign.
Benefits to whom? Benefits to us? Or… benefits to the rest of society?
(the latter being what needs highlighting)
Yet, most advocates of gay marriage don’t even want to engage social conservative defenders of this ancient institution
What conversation with these conservatives did you envision? The social conservative defenders of this institution are busy lying their conservative asses off, GPW, something you failed to address in your latest “how can I criticize the gay left” post. The stalwart Christian right has raised more insane, illogical, impossible futures in this fight to overturn marriage rights for gay people, starting with scare tactics concerning kids, forced gay marriages in churches, removed tax exempt status for churches, a mythical “restoration” of marriage (as if hetero marriage had been somehow harmed or removed by granting marriage rights to gay couples), and so on. The right has conducted an entirely dishonest and shameful campaign, GPW: what type of honest and aboveboard conversation did you see the two sides having?
…those in a position to lead that discussion have little understanding of the real meaning of marriage.
How dare you. You may not like being a political minority in your sexual orientation’s population (I know I never have), but to engage in such blatant self-serving mind-reading, to arrogate to yourself the super-power of knowing what your political enemies believe and don’t believe, to proclaim that they don’t value their hard-fought marriages, that they don’t even know what marriage means (speaking of which, what did you to do to secure marriage rights in California, GPW?) simply is arrogance beyond even this blog’s track record. A true Rove, Bush conservative you are, GPW. Your opponents don’t value marriage like you do, they don’t know your “truth”? Shameful.
GPW, every now and then you write a passage I can’t make sense of… there’s one.
To engage the electorate, *is* to “win the battleâ€, since it is an election. And how do you engage the electorate, for the anti-8 / pro-gay marriage side? Precisely by a conversation that advances the argument for gay marriage.
IOW, there is no strategic dilemma here. There is a straight (haha) path that the “No on 8″ or pro-gay marriage campaign should be following: Show the electorate that gay people understand marriage… Show the electorate that gay marriage upholds widely accepted ideals like monogamy, and therefore benefits society as a whole. That would get us to 51%. But, sadly, the pro-gay campaign hasn’t been doing that type of campaign.
Doing so would probably be the best way to build a stable foundation for lasting same-sex unions as a legal institution. However, it’s not necessarily something that is viable as a quick political strategy. It’s something that will take years to build, and will require that we not only spar with our opponents, but absolutely crush our allies/”advocates” who have more radical views of what homosexuality is supposed to be.
Ultimately, I think the No on Prop 8 folks are afraid of opening the door to ads running those two idiots who took their kids to the Folsom Street Fair under the banner “the Gay View of Marriage.” By taking the focus off gay couples – and especially off the idiots who want their promiscuity legitimized as acceptable/ideal gay behavior – they probably hope to minimize the risk of Prop 8 being a referendum on gays as sex-crazed immoral degenerates.
Then we get to the more cynical sides of me. Part of that says many of the anti-8 people have been fighting so long that they’re really more interested in scoring a point – any kind of point – than they are in making sure our gains are sustainable. If anything, the gay rights “advocates” have a long history of “moral victories” followed by serious blowback.
The even more cynical side of me says the most dedicated anti Prop-8 people are the usual crop of activist gays who do consider monogamy as “heternormative” and “repressive.” They want gay marriage to fight “hetero oppression” and not because they expect (nor desire) gays to follow the straight “rules” for the institution.
Certainly not in the last 8 days before the election, no.
Agreed, and that, in turn, is why this election’s outcome may have been fore-ordained when gay marriage advocates went for the short-cut: having gay marriage imposed by the courts.
I’m simply assuming in all this that Prop 8 will pass (defeating gay marriage). Perhaps I should wait for the election results? But Prop 8 is ahead in the polls.
Basically, I just wish we had a conversation/debate on the merits of marriage. And we’re not seeing that in this campaign.
There, I just provided a synopsis of the entire post.
You make some very good points in so far as the liberal gay elite refuse to address the history of the institution of marriage. Those who oppose Prop 8 are still trying to portray those who support it as bigots. Yet I know many glbt people of faith who don’t believe we should change a societal institution that has been around for thousands of years.
This is where McCain and Palin are so correct. They have gay family and friends and could hardy be called homophobes. Yet they recognize that it is better for a young vulnerable child to have both a mother AND a father. So even parents with gay children don’t necessarily support gay marriage. They love their kids but know the lifestyle is not really healthy for parenting.
The media has almost black-outed the news that McCain has many successful gay staff members. This proves that he respects gay people and shows no anti-gay bias. The issue of gay marriage is about changing society and putting kids at risk. Let’s respect an institution like marriage and clean up our own community (drug use, promiscuity, AIDS, child abuse (eg Catholic Priests)) before we start harping on others for being ‘homophobic’.
The even more cynical side of me says the most dedicated anti Prop-8 people are the usual crop of activist gays who do consider monogamy as “heternormative†and “repressive.†They want gay marriage to fight “hetero oppression†and not because they expect (nor desire) gays to follow the straight “rules†for the institution.
These people are the greatest barrier to the removing the remaining steps towards gay equality.
Why did they define this as a contract between men and women other than the need to continue the species? There are other considerations as to why heterosexuals hold up marriage as the way to unite the sexes. Gay marriage must be held to the same standards, but no one talks about the standards. They talk about rights, never responsibilities. If they set forth a clear message that they were willing to accept the responsibilities, they would have more support for their rights.
Ideally, the only change to this societal institution would be the gender requirements. Everything else would stay the same, as they should. The “slippery slope” to allowing polygamy, incest, bestiality, and pedophilia is a red herring; all those things are illegal and disdained by society. Homosexuality is not.
They love their kids but know the lifestyle is not really healthy for parenting.
The word “lifestyle” is thrown about 100% more often than it needs to be. There is no gay “lifestyle”. There are lifestyles of promiscuous, reckless people who do care more about themselves than others. That is a lifestyle that is unhealthy both for children and adults. A gay couple that is monogamous, selfless, and responsible can provide a good home for a child.
Give me a break, torrent. Did I ever commend the “Yes on 8” campaign’s tactics on this blog? Other gay blogs take them to task. I put my time in offering a perspective which is not offered elsewhere.
You seem to lump all social conservatives together in one heap. Go look at the report I cited, how it borrows social conservative arguments on marriage. Yeah, there nuts in their movement, just as there are nuts on our side. But, by engaging social conservatives, I mean tell them we want the same things they do, the privileges as well as the responsibilities.
How dare I? How dare I? How dare you? I’m not engaging in mind-reading. I’ve read their stuff. It’s you who are engaging in mind-reading. I never said I didn’t value anyone’s marraige. Perhaps, I should have specified by advocates, I meant, heads of gay organiations. So, to clarify the point, I tweaked the post.
In this end, all your comment has become is one angry mean-spirited screed. I guess you just “need” to vent.
If you’ve bothered to read my posts on marriage, instead of assuming what I’ve been saying based on a cursory reading, you’d know I think a lot of gay get marriage. It’s just the leadership I fault. In this post, I’ve said what I’ve said countless times before that we’re not talking about the meaning of marriage. And why it’s good for gay people.
And if you think I go about bashing gay organizations all the time, why do I bother then to cite (favorably) a report by just such an organization? And not just in this post.
Once again, it seems you’d rather insult than engage.
Oh, yeah and you assume the gay groups opposing 8 are my “enemies” or “opponents.” You really haven’t been paying attention to anything I’ve said.
I don’t think being gay means the “lifestyle” isn’t or can’t be good for kids. I know straight coupes whose lifestyles aren’t healthy for kids either. I am friends with a gay couple that has three kids (they are biological children of one of the men who was formerly married to a woman). They actually provide a much more stable home for the kids than his ex wife did.
I think some parents are just terrible parents, but that doesn’t have anything to do with sexuality.
I do think the point that showing gay couples and/or families in the anti prop * ads might open the door to showing pictures from the Folsom street fair, but I am not sure that is a reason to not put a face on gay marriage.
Basically, I just wish we had a conversation/debate on the merits of marriage. And we’re not seeing that in this campaign.
I think this is true-although I think it is hard to have this kind of debate in the midst of a campaign on a proposition. It seems to mostly belong in the legislature.
I do think the debate over why gays want the institution is one worth having. If all that is wanted is tax breaks, hospital visits and the like, then Civil unions meet that need-the real question is why they want marriage as an institution-and I think sometimes the debate gets so caught up in what is fair, that the institution and what it means and why it is desired gets lost.
Dan, once again, you bring up excellent points regarding same sex marriage. But, at this point, I would like to hear your reasons why you support same sex marriage or don’t, and your reasons why you support Prop. 8 or don’t.
[Pat, good point. I have a post planned on my broad view of the campaign and will articulate my opposition to 8 into that. –Dan]
You may have made both of your views known, but I’ve missed it, or forgot. So, if you could, I would be interested in hearing them or your reasons.
I appreciate your point that you don’t like the way both sides have behaved during the campaign. As someone who doesn’t live in California, I haven’t seen all the ugliness that has ensued.
But at this point, you have heard many well-reasoned (and silly) arguments for and against same sex marriage. ILC comes to mind as one who gave well-reasoned arguments for same sex marriage, and Heliotrope gave well-reasoned arguments against same sex marriage. So, if you still haven’t decided, it may help to reread their posts. You seemed to be past the point where you believe that gay people have equality because they can marry one of the opposite sex, and realize how wrong it would be for a gay person to do that to a spouse. On the other hand, you seem to want to cling on a thousands year old tradition. While I agree such traditions shouldn’t arbitrarily thrown away, they shouldn’t arbitrarily be kept either.
As for the campaign, the garbage has to be sifted through, and you have to vote based on the merits of the argument. For example, you believe that McCain/Palin is a much better and clearer choice for Pres/VP. But it seems to me you would hold that belief whether or not you liked the way they conducted their campaign.
There may be little that you can do about how the campaign is being run. You are doing your part by blogging about it, and letting your family, friends, colleagues, etc., know about how you feel about it. But you can also tell your family, friends, colleagues, etc., know what you think about same sex marriage and Prop. 8. If you are against same sex marriage and for Prop. 8 because you don’t like the way many are presenting the pro same sex marriage position, that’s obviously your prerogative. But keep in mind that many people also don’t like the way marriage, as it is right now and before same sex marriage even became a viable option, but never advocated that it should be totally abandoned until all straight people got their act together.
So I respectfully ask you to consider posting your views on these issues and your reasoning (or update it, like you did for this post, if you already expressed your views).
The whining about the absence of gay couples from the No on 8 campaign is an odd point of alignment between the far left and the far right in the gay community.
Those of us who are more pragmatic realize that a campaign to change the hearts and minds of Californians could not realistically have been undertaken in the brief, 6-month window between the court victory and the election. We had to have a stop-gap campaign strategy to rebuff this imminent threat.
The No on 8 forces put together a campaign based on poll testing and focus group analysis, research that told them which arguments might succeed given the need to target such challenging demographics as middle-aged latina women and older white men. That research apparently made clear–not at all surprisingly–that blasting those groups with a bunch of images of two men kissing at an altar would drive UP support for Prop 8! So get real, people, and stop whining about the well-grounded tactical choices of the No on 8 campaign. They are not an effective scapegoat here.
If we wanted to sensitize the California electorate to same-sex marriage, we should have spent years doing that before storming into the state supreme court and demanding instant marriage everywhere in the state. But the ink was barely dry on California’s comprehensive system of domestic partnerships when ideological purists on the left and the right starting attacking the domestic partnerships and demanding immediate marriage. The people of California were entitled to a little time to get accustomed to the domestic partnerships before we tried to shove marriage down their collective throats. We didn’t give it to them, and now we’re paying the price of our fanatical urgency.
I sincerely hope that Prop 8 will fail. But if it succeeds, it will be a testament to the impatience and obsessiveness of those in our movement who think the most important issue confronting our community is the need to scrape the terms “civil union” or “domestic partnership” off our hard won legal statuses in order to substitute the word “marriage.” It is the ultimate in superficial form over substance! I, for one, think that is an utterly insignficant issue that is very low on the list of priorities. When kids are getting bashed in our schools, qualified servicemembers are being kicked out of the military, employees are enduring homophobic work environments, and partners can’t get health insurance, the luxurious aesthetic whining of privileged queers (on the left and the right) about the emotional trauma of being called “partners” instead of “spouses” is absolutely the least of my worries! And I won’t be coerced by their political irresponsibility into diverting tons of contributions to No on 8.
People like, Rob, can bash the Folsom Street Fair folks are they want. But that merely denies the broader truth that images to conservative gay men kissing at an altar is almost just as alienating to moderate voters as the Folsom Street folks. Promiscuous gay men are not the source of your oppression; straight bigots are, and they like you only marginally better than they like them. So cut the intracommunity scapegoating.
Complaints about the absence of gay couples from the No on 8’s ads unites ideologues on the left and right in the gay community. But pragmatists understand that we can’t change deeply held beliefs of uncomfortable Californians in a brief, 6-month campaign. We had to have a stop-gap strategy to rebuff this imminent threat.
The research of No on 8 made clear that blasting middle-aged latina women and older white me–two of the target groups–with images of men kissing at the altar would be disastrous. Get real, people!
If we wanted to sensitize California moderates to same-sex marriage, we should have spent years doing that with an educational campaign before storming into the state supreme court and demanding instant marriage. But we didn’t. We demanded marriage when the ink was barely dry on the state’s domestic partnership system, yet California moderates were entitled to a little time to get accustomed to the domestic partnerships first. We didn’t give them that time and are paying the price now.
And now we see the gay community apologists like Steve trying to spin and divert and attack rather than condemning the behavior of promiscuous gays.
That is the point of this whole post, Steve. You don’t condemn this behavior. You refuse to condemn this behavior. Instead you whine and cry and try to blame straight people for the fact that gay men are taking children dressed as sexual slaves to sex fairs to “show off” in front of naked and semi-naked people masturbating and having public sex as an “educational experience”.
There is nothing wrong with condemning behavior that is wrong. But sick liberal gays and lesbians like yourself and torrentprime think it’s a capital crime to condemn gay people who do things that are just flat-out wrong because it makes you the equivalent of a “race traitor” or “Uncle Tom”. You are so deranged that you are more concerned about condemning “straight bigots” than you are people who take children to a sex fair.
You may not like being a political minority in your sexual orientation’s population (I know I never have), but to engage in such blatant self-serving mind-reading, to arrogate to yourself the super-power of knowing what your political enemies believe and don’t believe, to proclaim that they don’t value their hard-fought marriages, that they don’t even know what marriage means
No mindreading required, torrentprime; only paper reading.
Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, “Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.â€
Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.â€
Meanwhile, if that isn’t enough, we can see even more of what the gay left believes and wants right here.
Personal favorite: granting marriage to “households in which there is more than one conjugal partner”.
Filter, GPW.
Steve, I love the flaming contradiction in your remarks. You have this aggressive endorsement of the “No on 8” campaign:
In the same post as this:
LOL 🙂 As for this remark:
Indeed! My point exactly.
Ah, and the false dichotomies. For the record: A campaign based on “images [of] gay men kissing at an altar” is not what I’ve been proposing. I don’t believe it’s what Rob had in mind, either.
Boy Accidentally Killed by Submachine Gun at Firearms Expo
Father, Instructor Nearby When the 8-Year-Old Fired Micro Uzi
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=6121915&page=1
Well, it is certainly a tragedy, but I would also like those folk who want to bring up Folsom again as ‘inappropriate’ venues for children. I agree there are some places children shouldn’t really be in attendance.
Possibly this gun show is an example that adults make mistakes on both sides of the aisle.
What bullshit, rusty. You don’t care that that child died; you’re just looking for an excuse to avoid condemning the behavior of your fellow liberal gays who dress children up as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs.
You once again exemplify that, when confronted with dangerous and wrong activity, gays like yourself will do nothing other than blame straight people.
rusty, what do gun shows have to do with either heterosexuality or homosexuality?
Why would you assume that the boy was brought to the show by a heterosexual dad, not by gay, bisexual, secretly-gay or secretly-bisexual dad?
And why would you think it answers NDT’s criticisms of Folsom gays? Or my or Rob’s or GPW’s criticisms of the “No on 8” campaign? Why would you think it bears any connection with anything here? What could possibly put gun owners – many of whom are gay – on “the other side of the aisle” (your term) from gays?
I’m still astounded by what must go on in rusty’s head, for his comment to even begin to make sense. Gays put “on one side of the aisle”… Gun owners on the other side. Logic and reality be damned. (Reality – the two groups would of course overlap; Logic – the two issues or behaviors defining the groups would of course have no connection.)
You are so clever ILC, but I guess I was just trying to point out that there are folk, including NDT, who are troubled by the attendance of children at the FSF. And in other posts, both NDT and AE are quick to cricize the FSF for it’s blantant promiscuos (sp) activities and try to frame the GLBT community in the reflection of FSF.
I was just pointing out that a child, 8 years old, died at a gun show, an event that would be just as questionable as a family event. But the parent of the child, (not really sure about his sexual orientation but if your really curious, I am sure you will be able to find out).
The aisles that I am referring to are those folk who want to pigeon hole all LGBT folk as promiscuos, faulty members of society and on the other side, folk who are tired of be berated because they don’t fit the heterosexist norm and are just looking for a piece of the American Pie.
I for one, have never attended the FSF, nor am I waiting for my FSF prize package. I am not interested in attending the FSF or even most Pride events. I guess it may be ‘anti-american’ but I really don’t like parades or large social events.
I am not here to condemn anyone. But if you feel it necessary to condemn, to judge, to cast the first stone. . . please feel free.
This post was initially to discuss the merits of the gay marriage. It will take some time for folk to come to terms that gay marriage is here to stay. It took women from the time of the writing of the declaration of Independence to move from ‘All Men are Create Equal’ to gaining equality and breaking glass ceilings through folk like Hillary and Sarah. But it was a long journey. I guess the remarkable thing, highlighted in the essay by the cute frat boy,Yishai Kabaker, at Stanford, is that Gay Folk have really been moving the Grand Gay Agenda at a remarkable rate. Oh, by the way, if anyone has ever received the Gay Agenda, please let me know, I would like a copy.
Sorry, I still don’t get the connection… unless the connection might be, your holding a stereotype (which I would find false) of gun owners as redneck anti-gays, perhaps clinging bitterly to their guns and religion; and equally, a stereotype of gays as anti-gun.
More stereotyping?
Just click here, then start clicking the sidebar menu items, such as “Racial and Economic Justice”, or “Anti-Gay Industry” which is their euphemism for the particular Christians they want to bash.
Mind you, it’s not *my* gay agenda. It’s a set of left-wing issues and positions whose authors proclaim (and whose readers implicitly accept) as the gay agenda. Notably absent is, as we’ve been saying in this thread, is:
– Anything about cleaning up events such as FSF so children are protected.
– Anything about engaging gay marriage constructively to show them how gay marriage would uphold widely accepted ideals like monogamy, and therefore benefit society as a whole.
I was just pointing out that a child, 8 years old, died at a gun show, an event that would be just as questionable as a family event.
And therein lies the problem; rusty doesn’t understand the difference between taking children to a gun show and a horrible ACCIDENT….versus DELIBERATELY taking children dressed as sexual slaves to an event to “show off” to naked and semi-naked people masturbating and having public sex and calling it an educational experience.
Typo, sorry, “Anything about engaging gay marriage *skeptics* constructively…”
People like, Rob, can bash the Folsom Street Fair folks are they want. But that merely denies the broader truth that images to conservative gay men kissing at an altar is almost just as alienating to moderate voters as the Folsom Street folks. Promiscuous gay men are not the source of your oppression; straight bigots are, and they like you only marginally better than they like them. So cut the intracommunity scapegoating.
You would be surprised, Steve. There are lots of hard core conservative folks out there who have got absolutely no problem with gay guys and gals, and are quite willing to aid and abet us finding guys and gals we can settle down with. It’s this strange concept called friendship. And yeah, they might well be freaked out at the idea of two guys kissing at an altar, but there are plenty of people who’re willing to make the effort and deal with their own discomfort because they value their friendships with us.
But there are plenty of liberal folks who consider public sex, or serial infidelity, or rampant promiscuity as immoral, and certainly unwise. There are plenty of straight “bigots” who disapprove of heterosexual swingers, and the opinion of the heterosexual man or woman who routinely cheat on their significant other (in or out of wedlock) is best described using terms not suitable for polite company. And while America does equate the worth of a man with the number of his conquests, we still do disapprove of the man (and to some extent the woman) who uses others for their own sexual gratification with no real interest in what they want.
However, very few people consider that situation among heterosexuals as the ideal. What the Folsom folks, and the gay “advocates” at large have done, is link being gay (ie, finding the same gender romantically and sexually attractive) with a set of sexual acts and behaviors, and then argue that you must accept all of them as one set package. The end result is a stereotype of the gay man as the amoral effeminate sex-starved slut who defines everything in terms of homosexuality. And we all know more than enough people who do behave that way – and worse, who think that’s what they have to be because they are gay.
To add to the fun, nobody likes the pushy guy trying to shove his beliefs down your throat yet who cannot concede that he is anything but perfect. Any criticism of anything gay is now “homophobia” and our advocates are almost completely unwilling to admit that there might be anything wrong with the community – and indeed, many bemoan the fact that it is less “tight-knit,” more “gentrified,” more “heteronormative.”
“We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it” was necessary twenty years ago; it’s now become obsolete. Not just obsolete, it’s counterproductive. And the end result is that we’re squandering a lot of goodwill that straight men and women are willing to give us. Why have we seen drastic revisions in public (and especially under 30) acceptance of homosexuality? It’s not because we have gay teens marching in skimpy underwear (or less) in pride parades, or lining up to have sex with twenty different people in a bathhouse. It’s because straight people keep seeing more and more gay guys and gals who are exactly like them, except in the gender of whom they find attractive.
Promiscuous gay men may not be the source of our oppression, but by demanding that people accept their behaviors (and not just the gender of those they are attracted to) as perfectly acceptable they certainly are making it much more difficult to convince straight guys and gals that gay men and women are real people with real problems and not just the freak show.
If we wanted to sensitize California moderates to same-sex marriage, we should have spent years doing that with an educational campaign before storming into the state supreme court and demanding instant marriage. But we didn’t. We demanded marriage when the ink was barely dry on the state’s domestic partnership system, yet California moderates were entitled to a little time to get accustomed to the domestic partnerships first. We didn’t give them that time and are paying the price now.
We have to live our lives as examples that gay guys and gals are just normal people with normal problems, not much different from straight guys and straight gals. And part of that means we have to get our own house in order, admit that the community has problems, and deal with them. We have to learn to accept criticism with grace and recognize that concede there are problems and working to fix them makes our position stronger not weaker. That also means we have to learn to give criticism with grace and give the system the benefit of the doubt instead of screaming “discrimination” at every remove.
We’ve made enormous progress over the last thirty-odd years. But it’s time to admit we need new methods and to examine why the people making the greatest strides for gay acceptance are ordinary people who live ordinary lives.
An 8-year-old boy who died after accidentally shooting himself in the head with an Uzi submachine gun while attending a gun show has been identified.
Christopher Bizilj, lost control of the Uzi as he was firing it, forcing the gun upward and back, causing him to shoot himself in the head, police say.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7012809224
I would always want to take young children out to practice with an UZI!
All said and done, I guess I would just point out that everyone has their own ideas of what is appropriate for young children.
And in regards to the cute frat boy, with the wonders of Google Image, you can get a peek of the young writer and his friends.
Again, ILC you’re so clever. But I was hoping for a hard copy of the Agenda. You know the one that all good faggots and dykes get at their coming out parties. Just like the instruction manuals parents get when they have children.
I told you what you wanted to know, rusty. Apparently you are too busy frantically changing the subject away from GAY MARRIAGE to care.
“For 5,000 years, every culture and every religion – not just Christianity – has defined marriage as a contract between men and women.â€
You had me until you quoted this, which is patently NOT true. Any anthropology class is enough to learn that marriage, throughout history and cross culturally today, can only be defined as a union between two legal adults. Virtually every culture has had marriage and there are plenty that have allowed, do allow, and likely will continue to allow same sex marriages. I agree that the benefits of gay marriage need to be brought to the forefront, and that this particular ‘point’ needs to be addressed, but not because it is a valid argument. It needs to be dispelled because it simply isn’t true.
Unless I completely misinterpreted the intent here, and then we probably agree completely.
I’d like to know your thoughts about this line of reasoning, please. The U.S. grants certain rights to all adult citizens. It grants those rights to individual persons — not to pairs of citizens. As a straight man I may marry the person I love, if that person (having the same rights) will marry me. I cannot see why any citizen should be denied that same right. I cannot see that a gay man having that right would in any way diminish my own right — or my marriage. And I cannot see why any gay citizen would submit to anything less than equality under the law. You’re not asking the public to grant you your rights — they’re already yours. You are a full-fledged citizen NOW.
Look back through our history — the Blacks, Jews, Catholics, Japanese, Women, and others have all been suppressed. Don’t stand for it! Not for a minute. Fight with every ounce of strength you have. Be a man in full, a citizen complete. Be an American. And don’t back down.
First, I would like to say I like your website for its news and opinion. Second, marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. It is something that only a man and a woman do. Why should my marriage to my husband be redefined or changed. Why should married people give up something that is still sacred to many people. Gays need to just change the name. Call it Gayrriage or whatever gay people agree on. I think gays should get the same rights as married straights. I don’t care if gays have a sacred institution between the same sex, but don’t call it marriage. And don’t force churches to perform ceremonies unless they choose to. That’s it. Problem solved.
I am kind of with Meg. I think marriage as an institution for a man and a woman should have its definition changed by married people, or else come up with a new name like parriage, because this institution that I signed up for those many years ago was for breeding couples. Now things have changed.
I have a large problem in my heart when people endanger children. Two good, decent, responsible adults raising a child works for me. But an indiscriminate covey of licentious individuals being in charge of children is very bad. And those same people calling me out as a conservative guarantees I won’t vote for what they vote for.