By then, many of the bigots will have done the world a favor and died off. Yay for everyone!
How is this different from when I say take the benefits of civil union -now- and wait for society to grow up before tackling whether homosexuality is genetic?
We can't handle the truth now. If tomorrow it was confirmed that homosexuality is genetic, they'd put all their energy to devising "cures" and you know it.
Just as Bush is "suddenly" pro illegal immigrant (in an election year so he can get more votes) so too would he "suddenly" be pro-stem cell research if it was thought they could "defeat" the "plague of homosexuality"
Do the quotes above clarify the fact that I'm not speaking FOR that viewpoint, Kirkland?
Don't cry bigot. It weakens the charge for when it is used the next time.
I didn't -say- gays would -vote- republican. I said Republicanism tends to attract affluent businesspeople...many of whom are gay. So the concept of Gay Republican isn't the oxymoron it is often depicted as. Period.
It wasn't. It will be.
You can do a lot to a group of people and still get their votes. But once you cross the line into denigrating their equality as human beings, you tend to find a slippery slope. Bush has crossed that line. Gleefully. And the GOP establishment has happily followed suit.
The only gays left in the GOP after Bush makes his big We Hate Gays push will be Uncle Tom and pals.
How is this different from when I say take the benefits of civil union -now- and wait for society to grow up before tackling whether homosexuality is genetic?
Your argument would sound more genuine if you didn't couch it in the language used by the typical anti-gay fundamentalist bigot ?_"preference," "lifestyle," etc. I'm willing to accept that you're on the right side, but its hard when you use such generally hateful terms.
I think political parties are outdated and counterproductive anyway, but the issue looks pretty clear to me. It seems inevitable that we accept that homosexuals exist naturally in human society, because they always have and nothing will change that. We have given them the right to have and raise their own biological or adopted children. If gays can have kids, they need the legal ability to support their children, to take them to the hospital, to give them insurance benefits, everything that straight parents can do for their kids. What you call it is irrelevant.
Either we give homosexual families the ability to fully function legally as families, or we stop allowing homosexual families. And if we think that children can only be raised properly in a traditional household with a male and a female parent, then should we not also outlaw single parenthood? Working mothers and stay-at-home dads? Women wearing pants? You get my point.
It looks like a pretty simple choice to me. Ultimately, either homosexuals will eventually acquire equal rights under the law, or homosexuality will be outlawed and an entire class of American citizens will go back into the closet and continue to live their lives, albeit in secret and without the protection of the law, whether we like it or not. No amount of legislation can change people's minds on either side of the issue. Social conventions and attitudes about homosexuality will change slowly over time, just as they have and still do with every other civil rights issue.
Don't be so radicalized that you don't listen to other viewpoints other than your own.
I do my damnedest to see things from other people's points of view.
Things aren't black and white, and acting as if they are only makes it so.
Don't presume someone that is not from your group is 100% against everything you believe in.
When groups clump together for too long they tend to lose touch with reality outside the group be they gay, hetero, white, black, asian, democrat, republican... etc.
Let people speak and don't presume you know what they mean - and LISTEN. Chances are they will do the same for you.
Don't be so radicalized that you don't listen to other viewpoints other than your own.
So when the topic is MY VERY HUMANITY and whether I deserve equality under the law, I should listen to the filth who would argue that I have none and deserve none?!? I would sooner slit my own throat.
Quote:
Things aren't black and white, and acting as if they are only makes it so.
There is nothing so black and white as the inherent goodness of equality and the inherent evilness of anyone who works against it.
Quote:
Don't presume someone that is not from your group is 100% against everything you believe in.
Your argument would sound more genuine if you didn't couch it in the language used by the typical anti-gay fundamentalist bigot ?_"preference," "lifestyle," etc. I'm willing to accept that you're on the right side, but its hard when you use such generally hateful terms.
Kirk
These are the terms in use in non-gay society. I'm sorry, tell what I'm supposed to call it? What are the official gay-approved? terms?
Don't call it hateful in all contexts for crying out loud.
This is like the merry-go-roud of what to call African Americans. First Negro then colored then black then afro-american, then people of color then african-american. As each originally innocent term is co-opted and abused by bigots, a new one is crafted until it is again co-opted and abused by bigots. Soon "African-American" will be bigotized. At some point, stick to the name and be proud. Jews did it despite having "jew" become a slur amongst bigots.
These are the terms in use in non-gay society. I'm sorry, tell what I'm supposed to call it? What are the official gay-approved? terms?
Homosexuality is an orientation not a preference.
There is no such thing as the homosexual lifestyle. Just as there is no common thread that can be used to lump all heterosexuals into one big group and claim they all have the same "lifestyle," there is no such catch all for gays, either.
So when the topic is MY VERY HUMANITY and whether I deserve equality under the law, I should listen to the filth who would argue that I have none and deserve none?!? I would sooner slit my own throat.
Kirk
Oh, goodness.
Homosexuality is but one -small- facet of who you are as an individual.
Race
Gender
Creed
Religion
Height
Weight
Ethnicity
Nationality
Political affiliation
Sexual orientation
Philosophical outlook
Artistic talent
Occupation
Education
on and on and on...
No one is denying you your humanity. We all have civil laws protecting our basic human rights. It's not legal to hit you, murder you, steal from you, harass you...we all have plenty of protections and we are ALL vulnerable in the imperfection of the law's ability to adequately protect us 100% of the time.
This is what I meant by radicalized: that you see your homosexuality as the defining characteristic above all other things.
My god, I don't define myself by a majority of any of my characteristics. Indeed that's a scary thing to do.
This is why we have Radical Islamic Extremists and had jackbooted National Socialists and murderous so-called Right-to-Life wingnuts like John C. Salvi III...
Never let anything become so overarching that it blots out the rest of one's humanity...
Homosexuality is but one -small- facet of who you are as an individual.
You are probably not a minority. When you're a minority, particularly an oppressed minority, it is that which sets you apart from the majority which defines you.
Plus, sexuality is a core trait, at least as fundamental as gender. Since human beings are sexual beings more than anything else (by nature driven to reproduce or couple), its hard to get more fundamental than who you love.
Race is a social construct. Outside of social theory, it doesn't really exist. Same with nationality.
Religion, weight, hair color, eye color, political affiliation, education level, philosophy, occupation are all transitory traits that can be changed fairly easily. You can even change your height if you are willing to go to some extreme measures.
None are as core as who you love, who you are driven, by biology and uncontrolled orientation, to couple with.
Quote:
No one is denying you your humanity.
To say that my love and my relationship does not deserve the same protection and respect as any other relationship due to the gender of the person whom I love is to deny my humanity. It is to set me up as less equal.
If I were hurting another person, that would be different.
Quote:
This is what I meant by radicalized: that you see your homosexuality as the defining characteristic above all other things.
Because it is a defining, immutable characteristic. You don't get any more basic than sexuality. It is a core facet of one's humanity. You haven't had to grapple with this realization, because your sexuality conforms to the median.
If you were to take away my sexuality, the person I am now would cease to exist.
Race is a social construct. Outside of social theory, it doesn't really exist.
I'm sure that's a comfort to James Byrd Jr.'s family. So the guys that murdered him were, what, anti-social deconstructionalists?
Race doesn't exist, but racism does. Ok.
We are all one race, this I know - human. But 'races' as in arbirary/random/environmentally-induced variations based on historic geographic separation -does- certainly exist and is certainly the basis for much hate (and love in fact - in my case).
Obviously the trash who killed Byrd were racists, but that term is being used under the umbrella of the social construct of "race." In truth, they were just assholes who hated someone because he looked different than them. Nothing can be argued to defend their point of view, and frankly, I find the fact that races don't even really exist makes their actions even more intolerable, all the more detestable.
Homosexuality is but one -small- facet of who you are as an individual.
...that is being used to marginalise a segment of the population
Quote:
It's not legal to hit you, murder you, steal from you, harass you...
No, but it's still legal in enough places to deny me employment and housing, and cartainly to deny my partner any rights that some random woman I decided to may would have to my estate.
Quote:
My god, I don't define myself by a majority of any of my characteristics. Indeed that's a scary thing to do.
I don't either. I don't have to. Our president is doing so by supporting a constitutional amendment making sure that I am. A scary thing indeed.
As for the topic, I cannot understand Gay Republicans. Being a member of a party that will publicly return your donations boggles my mind.
Homosexuality may or may not be genetic, but it is innate and unchosen.
No one chooses to be gay. And being gay is not a "lifestyle." To say that implies that all gays live similar lives, and that is just not so.
Hardly. It'll be years, or decades, before we can a) determine what sort of genetic predisposition towards homosexuality exists and b) can identify that predisposition in developing fetuses.
By then, many of the bigots will have done the world a favor and died off. Yay for everyone!
Kirk
1. Uncalled for.
2. No one's pretending "you" don't exist.
3. Homosexuality is sometimes chosen. It completely is.
4. Being gay is again, SOMETIMES a lifestyle choice. It might not be for you.
And by the way, getting the vast majority of the population in this country to "fully accept" gays is going to be difficult if not impossible and will take many, many years. That's just a fact, whether you agree or disagree with gay marriage.
Perhaps in the past, but Bush will be lucky to get 10% of the gay vote. He got over 20% in 2000. I know members of the Log Cabin Republicans, and they're planning to vote for Kerry.
And the political impact of Bush's new "We Hate Gays" platform goes beyond gays. I have several Republican friends who are now either not going to vote, or are going to vote for Kerry. I think my mother may end up voting for Kerry.
And then there are kids: people under 30 have already come around on this issue. Bush is risking the long term viability of his party if he tries to make hating gays a central Republican value.
Only to a point. Were the We Hate Gays Amendment to pass, I would leave this country immediately and permanently. I've already got preliminary paperwork filed with the Dominion of Canada, just in case.
Kirk [/B]
I'm going to say it one more goddamn time: Being against gay marriage does not automatically mean hating gays. It just doesn't.
Kickland et all, do you really think John Kerry will advanced civil rights for GTBL people? He's flipflopped on gay marriage and seems to say anything to get elected. At best, what you'll get is a maintainence of the status quo--no federally recognized same-sex marriage or anything like that. How is Kerry different from Bush who wants a amendment that can't pass?
Even Kerry's own state of Mass. whose legislature is overwhelming Democratic/moderate Republican is passing an amendment to ban gay marriage. And you have Democrats like Barbara Boxer chastizing Gavin Newsom.
You are probably not a minority. When you're a minority, particularly an oppressed minority, it is that which sets you apart from the majority which defines you.
Kirk
But this sets you up to "only" be "whatever the majority is not". This amputates whatever humanity we all have in common.
You are not defining yourself on your own terms in that case, but focussing only on the differences - just as bad as the bigots that you hate.
Any examples of a people thriving (rather than merely surviving) will clearly show that it was the act of defining themselves that set them apart from the majority that -tried- to define them.
Asian-Americans are a good example of not letting the majority effect their self image or success. Jewish Americans as well. I cannot add many others to that list however.
I'm interested in what will happen in the long run. Many homosexuals do not want marriage because it is not home-grown enough; that is, it is "too-heterosexual" a concept whereas they would prefer a purely homosexual institution/tradition to evolve naturally from within.
Kickland et all, do you really think John Kerry will advanced civil rights for GTBL people? He's flipflopped on gay marriage and seems to say anything to get elected. At best, what you'll get is a maintainence of the status quo--no federally recognized same-sex marriage or anything like that. How is Kerry different from Bush who wants a amendment that can't pass?
Even Kerry's own state of Mass. whose legislature is overwhelming Democratic/moderate Republican is passing an amendment to ban gay marriage. And you have Democrats like Barbara Boxer chastizing Gavin Newsom.
Comments
Originally posted by Kirkland
By then, many of the bigots will have done the world a favor and died off. Yay for everyone!
How is this different from when I say take the benefits of civil union -now- and wait for society to grow up before tackling whether homosexuality is genetic?
We can't handle the truth now. If tomorrow it was confirmed that homosexuality is genetic, they'd put all their energy to devising "cures" and you know it.
Just as Bush is "suddenly" pro illegal immigrant (in an election year so he can get more votes) so too would he "suddenly" be pro-stem cell research if it was thought they could "defeat" the "plague of homosexuality"
Do the quotes above clarify the fact that I'm not speaking FOR that viewpoint, Kirkland?
Don't cry bigot. It weakens the charge for when it is used the next time.
Originally posted by johnq
I didn't -say- gays would -vote- republican. I said Republicanism tends to attract affluent businesspeople...many of whom are gay. So the concept of Gay Republican isn't the oxymoron it is often depicted as. Period.
It wasn't. It will be.
You can do a lot to a group of people and still get their votes. But once you cross the line into denigrating their equality as human beings, you tend to find a slippery slope. Bush has crossed that line. Gleefully. And the GOP establishment has happily followed suit.
The only gays left in the GOP after Bush makes his big We Hate Gays push will be Uncle Tom and pals.
Kirk
Originally posted by johnq
How is this different from when I say take the benefits of civil union -now- and wait for society to grow up before tackling whether homosexuality is genetic?
Your argument would sound more genuine if you didn't couch it in the language used by the typical anti-gay fundamentalist bigot ?_"preference," "lifestyle," etc. I'm willing to accept that you're on the right side, but its hard when you use such generally hateful terms.
Kirk
Either we give homosexual families the ability to fully function legally as families, or we stop allowing homosexual families. And if we think that children can only be raised properly in a traditional household with a male and a female parent, then should we not also outlaw single parenthood? Working mothers and stay-at-home dads? Women wearing pants? You get my point.
It looks like a pretty simple choice to me. Ultimately, either homosexuals will eventually acquire equal rights under the law, or homosexuality will be outlawed and an entire class of American citizens will go back into the closet and continue to live their lives, albeit in secret and without the protection of the law, whether we like it or not. No amount of legislation can change people's minds on either side of the issue. Social conventions and attitudes about homosexuality will change slowly over time, just as they have and still do with every other civil rights issue.
I do my damnedest to see things from other people's points of view.
Things aren't black and white, and acting as if they are only makes it so.
Don't presume someone that is not from your group is 100% against everything you believe in.
When groups clump together for too long they tend to lose touch with reality outside the group be they gay, hetero, white, black, asian, democrat, republican... etc.
Let people speak and don't presume you know what they mean - and LISTEN. Chances are they will do the same for you.
Originally posted by johnq
Don't be so radicalized that you don't listen to other viewpoints other than your own.
So when the topic is MY VERY HUMANITY and whether I deserve equality under the law, I should listen to the filth who would argue that I have none and deserve none?!? I would sooner slit my own throat.
Things aren't black and white, and acting as if they are only makes it so.
There is nothing so black and white as the inherent goodness of equality and the inherent evilness of anyone who works against it.
Don't presume someone that is not from your group is 100% against everything you believe in.
I don't.
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
Your argument would sound more genuine if you didn't couch it in the language used by the typical anti-gay fundamentalist bigot ?_"preference," "lifestyle," etc. I'm willing to accept that you're on the right side, but its hard when you use such generally hateful terms.
Kirk
These are the terms in use in non-gay society. I'm sorry, tell what I'm supposed to call it? What are the official gay-approved? terms?
Don't call it hateful in all contexts for crying out loud.
This is like the merry-go-roud of what to call African Americans. First Negro then colored then black then afro-american, then people of color then african-american. As each originally innocent term is co-opted and abused by bigots, a new one is crafted until it is again co-opted and abused by bigots. Soon "African-American" will be bigotized. At some point, stick to the name and be proud. Jews did it despite having "jew" become a slur amongst bigots.
I digress.
Orientation? Is that ok????
Originally posted by johnq
These are the terms in use in non-gay society. I'm sorry, tell what I'm supposed to call it? What are the official gay-approved? terms?
Homosexuality is an orientation not a preference.
There is no such thing as the homosexual lifestyle. Just as there is no common thread that can be used to lump all heterosexuals into one big group and claim they all have the same "lifestyle," there is no such catch all for gays, either.
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
So when the topic is MY VERY HUMANITY and whether I deserve equality under the law, I should listen to the filth who would argue that I have none and deserve none?!? I would sooner slit my own throat.
Kirk
Oh, goodness.
Homosexuality is but one -small- facet of who you are as an individual.
Race
Gender
Creed
Religion
Height
Weight
Ethnicity
Nationality
Political affiliation
Sexual orientation
Philosophical outlook
Artistic talent
Occupation
Education
on and on and on...
No one is denying you your humanity. We all have civil laws protecting our basic human rights. It's not legal to hit you, murder you, steal from you, harass you...we all have plenty of protections and we are ALL vulnerable in the imperfection of the law's ability to adequately protect us 100% of the time.
This is what I meant by radicalized: that you see your homosexuality as the defining characteristic above all other things.
My god, I don't define myself by a majority of any of my characteristics. Indeed that's a scary thing to do.
This is why we have Radical Islamic Extremists and had jackbooted National Socialists and murderous so-called Right-to-Life wingnuts like John C. Salvi III...
Never let anything become so overarching that it blots out the rest of one's humanity...
Originally posted by johnq
Homosexuality is but one -small- facet of who you are as an individual.
You are probably not a minority. When you're a minority, particularly an oppressed minority, it is that which sets you apart from the majority which defines you.
Plus, sexuality is a core trait, at least as fundamental as gender. Since human beings are sexual beings more than anything else (by nature driven to reproduce or couple), its hard to get more fundamental than who you love.
Race is a social construct. Outside of social theory, it doesn't really exist. Same with nationality.
Religion, weight, hair color, eye color, political affiliation, education level, philosophy, occupation are all transitory traits that can be changed fairly easily. You can even change your height if you are willing to go to some extreme measures.
None are as core as who you love, who you are driven, by biology and uncontrolled orientation, to couple with.
No one is denying you your humanity.
To say that my love and my relationship does not deserve the same protection and respect as any other relationship due to the gender of the person whom I love is to deny my humanity. It is to set me up as less equal.
If I were hurting another person, that would be different.
This is what I meant by radicalized: that you see your homosexuality as the defining characteristic above all other things.
Because it is a defining, immutable characteristic. You don't get any more basic than sexuality. It is a core facet of one's humanity. You haven't had to grapple with this realization, because your sexuality conforms to the median.
If you were to take away my sexuality, the person I am now would cease to exist.
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
Race is a social construct. Outside of social theory, it doesn't really exist.
I'm sure that's a comfort to James Byrd Jr.'s family. So the guys that murdered him were, what, anti-social deconstructionalists?
Race doesn't exist, but racism does. Ok.
We are all one race, this I know - human. But 'races' as in arbirary/random/environmentally-induced variations based on historic geographic separation -does- certainly exist and is certainly the basis for much hate (and love in fact - in my case).
Originally posted by johnq
Homosexuality is but one -small- facet of who you are as an individual.
...that is being used to marginalise a segment of the population
Quote:
It's not legal to hit you, murder you, steal from you, harass you...
No, but it's still legal in enough places to deny me employment and housing, and cartainly to deny my partner any rights that some random woman I decided to may would have to my estate.
Quote:
My god, I don't define myself by a majority of any of my characteristics. Indeed that's a scary thing to do.
I don't either. I don't have to. Our president is doing so by supporting a constitutional amendment making sure that I am. A scary thing indeed.
As for the topic, I cannot understand Gay Republicans. Being a member of a party that will publicly return your donations boggles my mind.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Oh look, another patronizing bigot.
And you can't pretend like we don't exist.
It absolutely is.
Homosexuality may or may not be genetic, but it is innate and unchosen.
No one chooses to be gay. And being gay is not a "lifestyle." To say that implies that all gays live similar lives, and that is just not so.
Hardly. It'll be years, or decades, before we can a) determine what sort of genetic predisposition towards homosexuality exists and b) can identify that predisposition in developing fetuses.
By then, many of the bigots will have done the world a favor and died off. Yay for everyone!
Kirk
1. Uncalled for.
2. No one's pretending "you" don't exist.
3. Homosexuality is sometimes chosen. It completely is.
4. Being gay is again, SOMETIMES a lifestyle choice. It might not be for you.
And by the way, getting the vast majority of the population in this country to "fully accept" gays is going to be difficult if not impossible and will take many, many years. That's just a fact, whether you agree or disagree with gay marriage.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Perhaps in the past, but Bush will be lucky to get 10% of the gay vote. He got over 20% in 2000. I know members of the Log Cabin Republicans, and they're planning to vote for Kerry.
And the political impact of Bush's new "We Hate Gays" platform goes beyond gays. I have several Republican friends who are now either not going to vote, or are going to vote for Kerry. I think my mother may end up voting for Kerry.
And then there are kids: people under 30 have already come around on this issue. Bush is risking the long term viability of his party if he tries to make hating gays a central Republican value.
Only to a point. Were the We Hate Gays Amendment to pass, I would leave this country immediately and permanently. I've already got preliminary paperwork filed with the Dominion of Canada, just in case.
Kirk [/B]
I'm going to say it one more goddamn time: Being against gay marriage does not automatically mean hating gays. It just doesn't.
Even Kerry's own state of Mass. whose legislature is overwhelming Democratic/moderate Republican is passing an amendment to ban gay marriage. And you have Democrats like Barbara Boxer chastizing Gavin Newsom.
www.votenader.org
The only choice for real change is Ralph Nader, not the useless Democrats.
Originally posted by Kirkland
You are probably not a minority. When you're a minority, particularly an oppressed minority, it is that which sets you apart from the majority which defines you.
Kirk
But this sets you up to "only" be "whatever the majority is not". This amputates whatever humanity we all have in common.
You are not defining yourself on your own terms in that case, but focussing only on the differences - just as bad as the bigots that you hate.
Any examples of a people thriving (rather than merely surviving) will clearly show that it was the act of defining themselves that set them apart from the majority that -tried- to define them.
Asian-Americans are a good example of not letting the majority effect their self image or success. Jewish Americans as well. I cannot add many others to that list however.
I'm interested in what will happen in the long run. Many homosexuals do not want marriage because it is not home-grown enough; that is, it is "too-heterosexual" a concept whereas they would prefer a purely homosexual institution/tradition to evolve naturally from within.
Bush wants the FMA... Kerry doesn't. They're the same!
Originally posted by Existence
Kickland et all, do you really think John Kerry will advanced civil rights for GTBL people? He's flipflopped on gay marriage and seems to say anything to get elected. At best, what you'll get is a maintainence of the status quo--no federally recognized same-sex marriage or anything like that. How is Kerry different from Bush who wants a amendment that can't pass?
Even Kerry's own state of Mass. whose legislature is overwhelming Democratic/moderate Republican is passing an amendment to ban gay marriage. And you have Democrats like Barbara Boxer chastizing Gavin Newsom.
www.votenader.org
The only choice for real change is Ralph Nader, not the useless Democrats.
I won't vote for Nadar, but thank you for having the intellectual honesty to point out that Kerry won't do a damn thing for gay rights.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Homosexuality is not a preference.
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle.
Then what is it? Seriously. I'd like to know your views on the topic.
Edit: Nevermind, I just saw your reply to johnq.