Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: The religious right promises more amendments, do we have a plan? Previous entry: First Draft of Obama Acceptance Speech Revealed

Ballot initiatives provide a wake up call to the LGBT community about race

General ElectionLGBTRace

I didn’t think this would happen in my lifetime. We did it - we jettisoned the right-wing and its failed policies out into deep space and made history in the process. We did it with a diverse coalition of citizens - people who look like the America of the future, not the past. It will be a joy to see the Obama family restore dignity to the White House.

But it is a bittersweet moment. While we have crossed one threshold, marriage amendments in Arizona, Florida and California have passed. In Arkansas, voters decided to ban the ability of gay and lesbian couples to adopt a child. To put things in perspective, voters in California handily approved another measure to improve the health and well-being of livestock - “Standards for Confining Farm Animals,” but were content to eliminate the existing right of gays and lesbians to marry.

It makes it quite clear that equality is in the eye of the beholder, and we must reconcile the fact that some of the same people who marked that ballot for Barack Obama did not see fit to vote to prevent discrimination against gay and lesbian couples. 

And now I feel that a giant

snowball

of blame game is about to roll over and crush me on this front. Who voted for Yes on 8 is clear now, as exit polls show 70% of blacks, (with black women at 74%) voted for the amendment. That’s about 20 points higher than any other racial group. But the blame needs to be put into perspective - blacks represent only 6.2% of California’s population and they were about 10% of those who voted.  One reader noted this decision in the Sunshine State:

That was certainly the case in Florida in the passage of Amendment 2. One of the groups fighting it made it very clear that they were going to do no outreach whatsoever to the black community. I fear this was a fatal flaw.

...I believe by failing to deal with the elephant in the room, so to speak, we missed the opportunity to not only move the black community but also engage them in a dialog that is much needed and position ourselves to improve understanding between our two communities.

For those of us who are black and gay, a group too often marginalized within a marginalized community, I see this as a clear signal to the LGBT advocacy community. There hasn’t been enough outreach to those groups who voted against us. We haven’t reached them; there hasn’t been enough effort expended.

I’ve been blogging for years about the need to discuss race in regards to LGBT issues. I hope that this is now the wakeup call for our “professional gays” out there who represent us to come out of their comfort zones and help bridge this concrete education gap. The belief that white=gay is big part of the problem, and as long as black LGBTs are invisible in their own communities and there is a dearth of color in the public face of LGBT leadership, the socially conservative black community can remain in denial that I exist as a black lesbian.
But the losses are about more than these racial hurdles. I thank Darkrose for her diary “Blame the Brown People = Recipe for Failure.” It puts the defeats in perspective. A snippet:

It seems like the frame for the passage of Prop 8 is going to be “It’s because Obama’s candidacy caused increased black turnout, and the black community is homophobic.” Never mind that it was voters 65 and over who put Prop 8 over the top, or that one of the whitest institutions in America—the Mormon Church—funnelled millions of dollars from Utah to California to make sure that 8 passed. The parts of the state that went solid for 8 were the inland areas, which are overwhelmingly white.

...It wasn’t a black group that put Prop 8 on the ballot, and paid the signature-gatherers and bankrolled the ads. Nor is it fair to say that Obama’s have-it-both-ways position meant that black voters were going to march sheeplike to the polls and vote as Obama dictated.

Writing off an entire race as hopelessly unenlightened isn’t going to help.

There have been immediate defensive reactions and confused interpretation of my post’s point at my pad that don’t surprise me. They read it somehow as an attack rather than a call for a collective focus on the issue. My reply to one reader:

“Who is blaming whites for homophobia in the black community? No one caused the homophobia, but it is the responsibility of all of us to do that outreach to change hearts and minds.

My point is that the discomfort that many whites have about race (little exposure to and no deep personal relationships with any POC) has an impact on dealing with communities of color when it comes to outreach. That results in a failure to educate. That’s not an indictment of whites or dropping the “racist bomb”, it simply partially explains why you see few POC at the head of LGBT organizations (or even populating those staffs). 

It’s much the same as straight people are more comfortable with LGBTs—and our issues—if they know someone who is LGBT. The discomfort melts away. “

There is a lot of work to do, and we have to be willing to accept this challenge to communicate and bridge these gaps. All of us. I added this comment in response to another knee-jerk reaction:

“My comments—and your reaction—are what keep the discussion about the lack of communication between white (dominated LGBT) establishment and communities of color that leads to less information being disseminated. This can be addressed if people own up to the fact that unexamined white privilege and black defensiveness plays a role in the silence. We can do something about that if we want to.  We all have biases. It doesn’t make anyone evil, it only needs to be named and accounted for so we can all move forward.

Too often the reaction to my raising this to run to see the extreme rather than a request that we stop hiding from hurdles we have on these issues.

Who is supposed to educate the (socially conservative) religious black community - is it seen as only a “black problem” to be dealt with by the LGBT blacks already underrepresented in our orgs? That’s my fear. As a community we stress the support we need from allies. It’s sad that when it comes to this scenario, everyone runs for cover. It’s time to talk, not retreat to corners.”

We all must do outreach as we do with other constituencies. I don’t pretend to have an answer to this, mind you, I’m asking that we open up a dialogue about the hurdles that exist but we rarely discuss.

After all, I am a non-practicing Episcopalian. I have views and life experience that differs from the “churched.” Just because I am black doesn’t give me any special power to communicate to the social conservative black religious community. But we obviously have let this community remain off of the education radar because of assumptions and discomfort with engaging those who are different, then it creates a vicious cycle.

In fact, you could say that a white/Latino, etc. person of faith might have a better chance at breaking through this barrier than an unchurched person of color, but maybe not. Perhaps the best conduit is through members of the LGBT black religious community.

The bottom line is that we need to have those strategic discussions instead of writing them off completely. If we truly believe every vote counts (and the black community is otherwise mostly politically aligned with progressive views), then to avoid a group out of discomfort makes no sense. 

Perhaps with a fresh administration, and new players in the mix, we will all be forced to challenge ourselves to really communicate on a host of challenging issues of this kind.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 03:23 PM • (388) Comments

I don’t blame black voters for proposition 8, I blame highly religous voters.  They were McCain’s pillar of support, too.  Obama won or was competitive in all categories of people except evangelicals, who McCain won by like 70-30. 

And yet in the voting results you link to above, there are breakdowns by income, race, education, etc.  Everything except religion.  It’s almost like they’re hiding something.

Comment #1: Notorious P.A.T.  on  11/05  at  03:50 PM

I’m obviously an idiot, because I never really believed that California would do it—that they’d pass the gay marriage ban.  I mean, how many thousands have been married already?  My God, why do all these people care so badly about other people’s marriages?  So, I feel stupid, and also a little hopeless—as you say, every other vote out there made a huge statement about liberalism—Obama elected president, big majorities in both Congressional houses, anti-choice measures stomped.  Why is this one the one that stuck in people’s craw?  I really don’t understand and given the powerful trend on all other issues, I REALLY don’t understand it.  How do you change people?

Comment #2: Lisa KS  on  11/05  at  03:53 PM

Pam, thank you.  I’m going to link this and flog it widely.

Comment #3: Watermelontail  on  11/05  at  03:54 PM

Here’s my drop of honesty on this one:

I am Black and a Woman…. but, I am pretty sure I am atypical:

-I do not go to church
-I am selfish (I LOVE myself more than I love other people…I do not sacrifice myself on the alter of womanhood and motherdom)
-I have dated more White men than Black men
-I do not espouse the status quo or the Patriarchy and I do not shy away from the word “feminist”


Here’s the thing though—->

When presented with the question about whether homosexuals should be able to marry and adopt, my answer is NO.

Furthermore: When people start waxing on about how anti gay marriage laws are reminiscent of anti miscegination laws and / or making comparisons between racism and anti homosexual sentiments, my hearing gets turned off.

There you have it.

Comment #4: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  04:03 PM

Pam, thanks for this. I know in California there was a lot of outreach - and at the last BALIF dinner the keynote speaker was Alice Huffman, the leader of the California NAACP, who busted her ass to get support for LGBT rights and who pointed out that we all need to “lock arms” on civil-rights issues. Obviously we need to do more.

But I’m hesitant to lay this at the feet of the black community; there are also very conservative Hispanic and Asian communities in CA, and plenty of right-wing white folks. I don’t want white LGBTs to use this as a reason to fan racial resentment.

Comment #5: mythago  on  11/05  at  04:04 PM

Nichelle Nichols called; she wants her name back.

Comment #6: Mr. Merle  on  11/05  at  04:05 PM

When presented with the question about whether homosexuals should be able to marry and adopt, my answer is NO.

Why?

Comment #7: Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on  11/05  at  04:06 PM

California is supposed to be better than that.  Next time some Californian smugly tells me how much more open and progressive Californians are, I’m going to tell them to stuff it.

Comment #8: Ron O.  on  11/05  at  04:06 PM

As for the numbers, even if you assume that 100% of McCain voters voted for discrimination with Prop 8 (and it’s safe to say that’s probably close enough), you’d still need another 12-15% of the electorate to get it to the total it was (52-53%).

If African-Americans are 10% of the vote and there was a 65-point differential in their support for Obama (95-5) and opposition to Prop 8 (30-70), that’s 6.5% of the total. If Latinos are one-third of the vote and their differential in support was 20 points (70-30 and 50-50), that’s another 6.5%.

Comment #9: Mr. Merle  on  11/05  at  04:10 PM

Doug,

I really have a hard time expressing exactly why, and I would love to be converted to the other side of the argument.

Random thoughts:

-No one knows why some people are homosexuals and others are not.

-I don’t think that children should be raised by homosexuals.

-My idea of a functional “family” is a mother, father, and kidlets.

Comment #10: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  04:16 PM

Lisa KS, I also felt in my heart that when given the choice, Californians would vote for equality over discrimination. I felt sick last night. Like I had let so many of my friends down because I must have done something wrong to cause it to pass.

Comment #11: Mark  on  11/05  at  04:22 PM

I really have a hard time expressing exactly why, and I would love to be converted to the other side of the argument.

That’s funny. A lot of white people had a hard time expressing exactly why they were uncomfortable with a black man as president.

When people start waxing on about how anti gay marriage laws are reminiscent of anti miscegination laws and / or making comparisons between racism and anti homosexual sentiments, my hearing gets turned off.

Says about it all.

I couldn’t be happy about Obama’s victory last night until I heard the news out of California. I’m really saddened by this, Pam, et al, and I’m straight. Really very, very sorry.

Comment #12: Seebach  on  11/05  at  04:23 PM

1)No one knows why some people are homosexuals and others are not.

2)I don’t think that children should be raised by homosexuals.

3)My idea of a functional “family” is a mother, father, and kidlets.

1) And?

2) Why?

and 3) You have very, VERY limited view of “functional.” I’m not talking about your demographics, I’m talking about your use of the word functional with no qualifiers regarding interpersonal relationships, power balances, outcomes, etc.

Comment #13: Auguste  on  11/05  at  04:24 PM

“I would love to be converted to the other side of the argument.”

Equal rights not a good enough argument?

Comment #14: Mark  on  11/05  at  04:26 PM

F#$king ignorant, fundie idiots.

A recent ‘USA Today’ article showed a ‘normal’ CA married couple and told of their support for Prop Hate- the man was white, the woman Asian…not too many years ago they’d have been tarred with the same brush the gays are today.

I hope people that voted ‘H8’ get what they wish for…all of it.

Comment #15: don  on  11/05  at  04:26 PM

That’s funny. A lot of white people had a hard time expressing exactly why they were uncomfortable with a black man as president. 

Predictable much - LOL!


Next, you’ll envoke Hitler and this whole discussion will be rendered null and void.


Special Request:

Can someone PLEASE come up with a logical argument…. not based on the similarity between homosexuality and race… in favor of marriage and adoption rights for homosexuals so that I can switch sides?

Thanks!

Comment #16: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  04:27 PM

I really have a hard time expressing exactly why, and I would love to be converted to the other side of the argument.

Uhura!  I’ll take you at your word.

No one knows why some people are homosexuals and others are not.

To which I have to ask why that is relevant to you, because having it as a reason suggests that you favor some explanations over others.  I could be misreading you, but why, independent of whatever information might be out there, do you think, in your words that some people are homosexuals and some people are not.

I don’t think that children should be raised by homosexuals.

Again, this is going to be a lot of asking why, but… why? 

My idea of a functional “family” is a mother, father, and kidlets.

And by that token, other configurations of family are inherently dysfunctional?  How?

Comment #17: Watermelontail  on  11/05  at  04:29 PM

Auguste, the word functional is highly subjective and criticizing me for my “limitted” definition of that word does nat make a convincing argument in support of your opinion….especially since I revealed up front that I was “freetexting” what I wrote.

Comment #18: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  04:29 PM

“I would love to be converted to the other side of the argument.”

Equal rights not a good enough argument?

Mark on 11/05 at 02:26 PM

Keep going…

Comment #19: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  04:30 PM

That’s funny. A lot of white people had a hard time expressing exactly why they were uncomfortable with a black man as president.

Predictable much - LOL!

Well, what’s the functional difference between mixed racial marriage and gay marriage?  If you have two people who love each other and want to start a family, what does it matter that they’re black and white or male and male?

Comment #20: Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on  11/05  at  04:31 PM

Doug H. (Fausto no more),

Homophobia.

Comment #21: Lisa KS  on  11/05  at  04:31 PM

Gay marriage:

Two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.
They want the same rights, and to assume the same responsibilities, as
heterosexuals who get married.  Their being married will do no harm to
other people.

Why should anyone object to that?

Comment #22: Libertarian  on  11/05  at  04:32 PM

Can someone PLEASE come up with a logical argument…. not based on the similarity between homosexuality and race… in favor of marriage and adoption rights for homosexuals so that I can switch sides?

Because why does it effect you at all? Gay people are married now and have kids in California, Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, South Africa… how does this effect you? Why do you feel you need to interfere in other people’s lives?

Comment #23: Seebach  on  11/05  at  04:33 PM

Homophobia.

I would like to think that we’re dealing more honestly than that…

Comment #24: Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on  11/05  at  04:33 PM

Uhura!,

You voted to deny the rights that you yourself enjoy to other law abiding, tax paying citizens of your state JUST BECAUSE THEY’RE GAY. If you cannot get past that HUGE issue, then no answer anyone gives here will change your mind.

Comment #25: Mark  on  11/05  at  04:33 PM

Uhura, if you can’t accept that we are all people, and who we are attracted to and what we may or may not do with our genitals does nothing to diminish the fact we are people, then there isn’t much else to say…

Comment #26: MikeEss  on  11/05  at  04:35 PM

Quote of the day from Commissar Kos himself:

That’s why the Mormon Church and their bigoted allies are so desperate in this fight. Young people aren’t afraid of the gays. They’re on the losing side of history.

And I’m not just ready for this fight, I’m eager for it.

Comment #27: Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on  11/05  at  04:36 PM

Well, what’s the functional difference between mixed racial marriage and gay marriage?  If you have two people who love each other and want to start a family, what does it matter that they’re black and white or male and male?

Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on 11/05 at 02:31 PM

Race is a socially created construct, (so is gender) but sex is not.

So, let’s abandon this race = homosexuality talk in this discussion.

In fact, if you don’t abandon this lline of reasoning, you’ll keep losing the political push for homosexual rights. This line of reasoning DOES NOT convince Blacks or Hispanics (or Whites!) that homosexual couples should have marriage and adoption rights.

Comment #28: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  04:36 PM

Well then, Uhura!, are you saying something, or are you not? If we do not know what you mean by “functional,” in terms of a family, it’s hard to formulate an argument that addresses your difficulties with gay marriage/adoption.

Comment #29: grolby  on  11/05  at  04:36 PM

I really have a hard time expressing exactly why, and I would love to be converted to the other side of the argument.

Try.  This is very important.  Gays across this country are second-class citizens not because of hardcore haters - there aren’t enough of them - but because those with vague misgivings place those misgivings over the rights of fellow citizens they’ve never met. 

We can be a rough crew at this blog, but we’re reasonably willing to educate (says a beneficiary) - if you’re willing to work with us in good faith.

-No one knows why some people are homosexuals and others are not.

Does it matter?  Is prejudice based on religion (a choice) less wrong than prejudice based on race (not a choice)?

-I don’t think that children should be raised by homosexuals.

Again, why?  My friends Jeff and Randy adopted three kids - two girls and a boy - all at once, because they were siblings, and J&R;didn’t want to separate them.  Do you think those kids would be better off still in the foster care system, with the possibility of being split up, than they are with their Daddy and Papa?

-My idea of a functional “family” is a mother, father, and kidlets.

Before the wrath of everyone who was raised by a single parent, or a grandparent, or etc. descends upon you, I’d like to ask something: are the kidlets necessarily the biological offspring of the mother and father?  That is, do adoptions count?  Stepfamilies?  If so - if straight people are qualified to care for children not biologically their own - what element are gay couples missing?

Comment #30: Seraph  on  11/05  at  04:38 PM

“Race is a socially created construct, (so is gender) but sex is not.”

...but sexuality is…

Comment #31: MikeEss  on  11/05  at  04:38 PM

Uhura!,

You voted to deny the rights that you yourself enjoy to other law abiding, tax paying citizens of your state JUST BECAUSE THEY’RE GAY.

Mark on 11/05 at 02:33 PM

That’s an oversimplifiction ANd, if youy cannot see why - you’re in over your head on this one sir.

If you cannot get past that HUGE issue, then no answer anyone gives here will change your mind.

Mark on 11/05 at 02:33 PM

In this case, you lack the ability to make a compelling argument. Doesn’t mean that everyone here is similarly afflicted.
I eagerly await a coherent statement on this.

Comment #32: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  04:39 PM

Californians who tout the “progressive” word in association with California are either a) recent residents, or b) know nothing about the history of their state.

When Spain colonized California, they devastated its Native American population.  The Mexicans continued this when they took over administration.

When California became a U.S. state, they disinfranchised Californios—the Spanish/Mexican/Mestizo ranchers who were settled in CA and controlled much of its land.  Denying them the vote helped the land grab that happened later.

Chinese immigrants to California who came to help build the railroads were also denied political rights, including ownership of land and the vote.  Mexican-Americans and Chinese immigrants were taxed for gold mining, while whites were not.

The railroads, which created towns out of whole cloth in California in the late 19th century, gave land grants to people to settle and then later tried to exact back payments for this land.  (Some of my ancestors actually ended up in jail for trying to resist this.)  Ultimately, the railroads won.

I could give you more examples, but I haven’t all day.  I would suggest you take a look at the electoral map county-by-county in CA and see where the presidential vote for 2008 is divided.  We may call ourselves a “blue” state, but the fact is we have a blue coast and a red eastern half.  The Southern portion of the state also is a major haven for conservatives.

Comment #33: A 5th Generation Californian  on  11/05  at  04:39 PM

Given that Nichelle Nichols was the happy and proud maid of honor at George Takei’s wedding, I think it’s disgusting that a bigot would pollute her iconic Star Trek character’s name by using it to espouse said mindless bigotry.

Comment #34: Lisa KS  on  11/05  at  04:40 PM

“Race is a socially created construct, (so is gender) but sex is not.”

...but sexuality is…

MikeEss on 11/05 at 02:38 PM

I think not - In species that posses two genders - male and female….the males and females are sexually attracted to one another on a basic and very chemical level…

Try again please!

Comment #35: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  04:41 PM

Uhura, please tell us why you think my aunt and her partner should have their son taken from them just because he has two mothers. Go ahead. We’re waiting.

Comment #36: kater  on  11/05  at  04:41 PM

When presented with the question about whether homosexuals should be able to marry and adopt, my answer is NO.

Congratulations!  You are a bigot.

When people start waxing on about how anti gay marriage laws are reminiscent of anti miscegination laws and / or making comparisons between racism and anti homosexual sentiments, my hearing gets turned off.

Go fuck yourself.  Seriously.

Comment #37: Richard Goblin  on  11/05  at  04:42 PM

Race is a socially created construct, (so is gender) but sex is not.

This argument fails in two ways. First, sex, at least as a dichotomy, is socially constructed. There are plenty of people who have extra chromosomes, ambiguous genitalia, etc. Beyond that, though, the ideas of what it is and is not appropriate to do with one’s genitalia are completely socially constructed. We today differ from the Victorians who differ from the Greeks.

Comment #38: luzzleanne  on  11/05  at  04:42 PM

By the way, the commenter who asked “equal rights not enough?” is right on. Comparisons of gay marriage to racial equality may turn you off, but that’s your problem and not ours. Frankly, it’s an apt comparison in the most fundamental way, which is this: what other reason is there to extend civil rights to black OR gay Americans other than that, fundamentally, all human beings deserve equal rights and protection under the law?

Rather than call that argument “predictable,” I would like to hear you explain that. If you prefer a racially neutral formulation, we can do that, too: why should one group of people have civil rights that another does not?

Comment #39: grolby  on  11/05  at  04:42 PM

Given that Nichelle Nichols was the happy and proud maid of honor at George Takei’s wedding, I think it’s disgusting that a bigot would pollute her iconic Star Trek character’s name by using it to espouse said mindless bigotry.

Lisa KS on 11/05 at 02:40 PM

Name calling is not going to help anyone - especially anyone hoping to make real ground on this issue.

The key is to come up with a very logical argument to present to the people who voted to ban marriage and adoption rights for homosexuals… Show them that there is another sensible way to view the issue…

If you have nothing else to add please don’t derail the discussion by name calling and irrelevent tangents.

Thanks!

Comment #40: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  04:43 PM

Again, Uhura, I am really quite curious about how you answer the questions that you asked.  So far, you have set up a guessing game where anyone who would like to discuss your objections in good faith have to divine what they are, and you’ve been simply saying “nope, wrong answer.”

Give us something to work with and we’ll work with you.  Don’t, and we’ll assume that you’ve come in bad faith like legions before you with the same introduction.

No one knows why some people are homosexuals and others are not.

To which I have to ask why that is relevant to you, because having it as a reason suggests that you favor some explanations over others.  I could be misreading you, but why, independent of whatever information might be out there, do you think, in your words that some people are homosexuals and some people are not.

I don’t think that children should be raised by homosexuals.

Again, this is going to be a lot of asking why, but… why? 

My idea of a functional “family” is a mother, father, and kidlets.

And by that token, other configurations of family are inherently dysfunctional?  How?

Comment #41: Watermelontail  on  11/05  at  04:44 PM

I am similar to uhura in terms of demographic profile, but I couldn’t disagree with her more on the gay marriage issue.  To me it is a simple issue of civil rights.  Marriage is a right all adults in the US have. Some choose to exercise, some not.  With who you want.  No biggie.  Why gay people should be left out of that doesn’t make sense to me (whether they “choose” to be gay or not).  I don’t know how else to explain it. 

It’s like you have a right to drive a car (gay or straight, but license required) and you have a right to use public transportation and libraries (gay or straight, who cares!).  You have a right to the city sewage system and city water (but you have to pay for what you use)....it’s so simple and clear to me, no?

Comment #42: nemo  on  11/05  at  04:44 PM

I think not - In species that posses two genders - male and female….the males and females are sexually attracted to one another on a basic and very chemical level…

Then you think wrong.

Comment #43: Seraph  on  11/05  at  04:44 PM

“In species that posses two genders - male and female….the males and females are sexually attracted to one another on a basic and very chemical level…”

...and that includes some males that are sexually attracted to other males, some females that attracted to other females, and others who are undefined.  The incidence of this seems to go up the closer you are to the primate branch of the mammal tree.  And your point is?...

Comment #44: MikeEss  on  11/05  at  04:45 PM

i’ll take the bait.

a logical reason that gay people should be able to marry and adopt?

because people who love each other want to take care of each other. because if they can’t get married, they aren’t allowed to take care of each other in lots of ways. because marriage allows for the creation of stable financial family units in our culture. because people who are brought up to expect that marriage is what they should do (by church, family, or society) should be allowed to do that, no matter who they choose and chooses them.

because i grew up gay in a household of heterosexuals, i believe that gay people raising children won’t materially affect whether a child “turns out gay”. Ditto for my conservative christian hometown and school district.

I guess the real question is, can you give me a logical argument (i.e. other than “ick!” or “i just don’t like it”) that I shouldn’t be able to call my partner my wife? That I shouldn’t have hospital visitation rights? Jointly file taxes? Share health benefits? Can you give me a logical reason that you should be able to tell me I can’t do that? Can you give me an example of this hurting you or anyone else?

Comment #45: moss gatlin (just got married)  on  11/05  at  04:45 PM

I think not - In species that posses two genders - male and female….the males and females are sexually attracted to one another on a basic and very chemical level…

Ummm…

Er…

Try again please!

You know, the benefit of the doubt I was giving you about the honesty of your convictions is starting to fade here.

(It doesn’t help that you freely link to your MySpace profile - which is set private.)

Comment #46: Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on  11/05  at  04:45 PM

I think the way forward at this point is to start gathering signatures to put a referendum on the ballot next election to repeal this last referendum.  And we need to do this every cycle until it passes.  Let’s force the Mormons keep pumping the money in each cycle.  I think we’ll either bleed them dry or tire them out.

I mean it.  Every election cycle from now until the repeal passes.

Comment #47: Richard Goblin  on  11/05  at  04:45 PM

I don’t know, the self-evident truth that all men (people) are created equal seems pretty sensible to me.

Are you going to tell us why gay people should have their children taken from them, or are you going to continue ignoring us?

Comment #48: kater  on  11/05  at  04:45 PM

Uhura, please tell us why you think my aunt and her partner should have their son taken from them just because he has two mothers. Go ahead. We’re waiting.

kater on 11/05 at 02:41 PM

OMG….No way do I think that.

I don’t even know your aunt and her partner or their son….Come on now - this is sophmoric.

Comment #49: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  04:45 PM

Wow, a level 6 derailment. Anyone get the feeling they’ve been repeating themselves or forgotten everything they’ve learned at Commenter School?

Comment #50: Mr. Merle  on  11/05  at  04:46 PM

Can someone PLEASE come up with a logical argument…. not based on the similarity between homosexuality and race… in favor of marriage and adoption rights for homosexuals so that I can switch sides?

Why do you need an argument “in favor” of it? Do you have an argument against it? Other than, “oh, gross”?

  1)No one knows why some people are homosexuals and others are not.

  2)I don’t think that children should be raised by homosexuals.

  3)My idea of a functional “family” is a mother, father, and kidlets.

1. Some people have some clues, namely those who actually are homosexual (not to mention many scientists and scientific professional organizations). Why are you hesitant to take their word for it? Also, why would it matter what the cause is? It’s not like it’s contagious or something ...

2. Why not? Again, studies have been done that show no adverse effects of homosexuals raising children. Further, there are a lot of kids out there right now being raised by homosexuals, in many cases, one of whom is a biological parent. Would you neglect those children by denying their parents rights like hospital visitation, custody arrangements (in cases of “divorce”), etc? Again, it’s not like homosexuality is contagious! In fact, almost every homosexual was produced by straight parents!

3. Why do you feel like your idea should be the ruling concept for the entire country? Where do your insights come from, that is so much better than where all the rest of us get our insights? There are many, many models of “family” out there. We invent them, all of them, and always have! “Family” is a purely social construct. “Traditional” American nuclear family structures have never really existed, anyway, and where they have existed, they have been the exception rather than the rule. So again, why should your feelings carry so much weight? Do you not realize that other people do not feel the same way? Would you want your feelings ignored if you found yourself to be in the minority on an issue?

Comment #51: Stephen  on  11/05  at  04:46 PM

Whatever your real name is, I am not “name-calling.”  You ARE a bigot.  The word bigot is an adjective, defined as “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with intolerance.”  That’s you.  Now, if I called you a “whore,” and you weren’t a prostitute, clearly, I would be calling you a name.  Now, if you WERE a prostitute, and I called you a whore, I wouldn’t be name-calling; I’d be accurately describing you.  And so it is in this case. 

If you dislike being accurately described, I’d recommend you stop fitting the description.  Otherwise, we’d all have to lie to protect your feelings, and clearly, given your comments on this thread, that’s not a type of dishonesty you believe people should subscribe to in their interactions with others.

Comment #52: Lisa KS  on  11/05  at  04:47 PM

I notice that Uhura! neglected to respond to my question.

Comment #53: Seebach  on  11/05  at  04:48 PM

I really have a hard time expressing exactly why, and I would love to be converted to the other side of the argument.

Would that others like you refrain on voting on ballot issues on which they can’t take a remotely coherent position—it would have had a very different result last night otherwise.

You didn’t actually vote on Prop 8, right? If you did, you’d make the Xtian nuts who clearly expressed their (fantasy-based) reasons for voting yes look good by comparison—no mean feat.

Can someone PLEASE come up with a logical argument…. not based on the similarity between homosexuality and race… in favor of marriage and adoption rights for homosexuals so that I can switch sides?

How about: it’s none of your business—certainly not enough to support changing the law over.

I’m not saying you’re a busybody like the Prop 8 nuts, but seriously, why do you even care about whether someone else shares those rights?

Comment #54: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  04:49 PM

LOL, sorry, bigot is a “noun.”  I need to stop trying to do three things at once on my computer.  At least I didn’t refer to her as a “ligand,” but I’d better check my tech report for any chemicals referred to as “homophobes.”

Comment #55: Lisa KS  on  11/05  at  04:49 PM

Uhura!:  Lets buy that sex is not socially constructed—this would REQUIRE that all gays could be diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder.  We could then say that homosexual relationships are in reality relationships between people who are in some way “unnatural”, e.g. one person in the relationship “should have been” born a different gender.  We could call that person functionally equivalent to being born with a birth defect.

Why would you want to prevent someone with a “birth defect” from marrying someone else they love?

Comment #56: KL  on  11/05  at  04:50 PM

This is an interesting point:

Race is a socially created construct, (so is gender) but sex is not.

Given that sex is biological and that most people can be relatively easily sorted into one of two categories based on genetics and genitalia, is there some reason that one group (for example, women) should be denied rights granted to the other group (e.g. men)?

Never mind that sexuality is a lot more complicated than “tab A into slot B,” and that how we relate to each other sexually, even in heterosexual relationships, is largely socially constructed. Why should biological differences between the sexes matter, here? I assume that you believe that you deserve the right to vote and own property just as I, a man, do.

Comment #57: grolby  on  11/05  at  04:50 PM

Yeah, I noticed that, too.

Actually, I noticed that Uhura! made her assertions and then sat back and told everyone who tried to answer them that they were wrong.  This is, of course, a well-documented behavior pattern, but hell, it’s a slow work day, I’m still curious what you have to say, Uhura.

Comment #58: Watermelontail  on  11/05  at  04:50 PM

Uhura, my response to you is simple: why not? I notice you ignored Seebach’s similar argument:

Because why does it effect you at all? Gay people are married now and have kids in California, Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, South Africa… how does this effect you? Why do you feel you need to interfere in other people’s lives?

If you’re going to smugly make statements like

Try again, please.

...and claim that no-one is coming up with any arguments other than analogies to racial discrimination, you could at least PRETEND to engage, in good faith, with alternative suggestions.

See also grolby’s comment. Again, I say: why NOT?

Comment #59: Nic C  on  11/05  at  04:50 PM

I really hate seeing people who have been and still are the victims of bigotry and discrimination taking it out on others.  It seems to be a never ending pattern in this country.  But is there any truth to the claim that African Americans are much more religious than most voting blocs and that accounts for a large amount of their opposition to marriage equality?

One thing does give me hope.  Prop 8 just barely passed.  Let the issue marinate for 10 years or so and the supporters of marriage equality can put their own proposition on the ballot, and it just might pass.

Comment #60: keshmeshi  on  11/05  at  04:51 PM

You just said that homosexuals shouldn’t raise children. The natural extension of that belief is that children should be taken from gay parents. If I’m wrong about that, then please explain why you believe we shouldn’t raise children. Enlighten me, please.

Comment #61: kater  on  11/05  at  04:51 PM

It sounds like Uhura is in favor of some sort of bed checks, or something, to make sure all children are at least 500-feet from an active “outbreak” of The Gay…

Comment #62: MikeEss  on  11/05  at  04:54 PM

Ta-Nehisi Coates states this well:

  If someone wants to give me a reason why gay people shouldn’t be able to marry that doesn’t, at its root, boil down to “yuck,” I guess I’d love to hear it.

From Ezra Klein

Comment #63: Seebach  on  11/05  at  04:54 PM

ou know, the benefit of the doubt I was giving you about the honesty of your convictions is starting to fade here.

Why is that?

(It doesn’t help that you freely link to your MySpace profile - which is set private.)

Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on 11/05 at 02:45 PM

Doug,

I am simply trying to blend in on CyberSpace. I recently noticed that many people on political discussion groups link to their My Space profile…so I thought it was the norm and I did the same thing. My link used to go to a mom’s discussion board that I manage: www.OurMomSpot.net
My profile is set to private because I can’t figure out how to make my photos private. (Don’t want my family and house pics floating about….)

Do not assume ill intent when ignorance is a more likely explanation.

Back to the topic—->

Here’s what I am thinking: Folks on this site are very emotional about this issue at the moment ... therefore logical discourse and me getting the answers I reallyneed may not be possible right now.

I am entirely convinceable - just as I think many of those Californians who voted on 8 are…It’s just that I need something to make it cohesive for me. (I am suspecteing this is their mental dilemma too). When homosexual advocates get nasty, call people bigotted and narrow minded and begin to wax all votriolistic, communication breaks down and active listening wanes.

Take a page out of Obama’s capaign book: Look for a bridge.

I am asking for a bridge - openly. FFS - Help me build it so I can walk across.

Comment #64: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  04:54 PM

Why are we assuming good faith on the part of the center of attention and working so hard to convince this potentially artificial construct? Put the energy into electoral strategies or something, like Pam’s doing.

Comment #65: Mr. Merle  on  11/05  at  04:55 PM

Uhura:

If you’re going to legislate your idea of a functional family, could you start by mandating forcible removal to foster care (which we all know is functional) of all children whose parents divorce, and all kids one of whose parents dies? Why start by denying legal protection to children being raised by people who are already stigmatized by folks like you?

Your supposed reasons don’t make sense even in their own context, and thus it seems as if underlying them is the simple but not particularly praiseworthy “Because I don’t like queer people, and I get to exercise my dislike at the ballot box.”

We don’t know what makes people straight either, but in only a few societies has any variety of being a straight couple been a legal bar to adopting or safely raising kids…

Comment #66: paul  on  11/05  at  04:56 PM

I really hate seeing people who have been and still are the victims of bigotry and discrimination taking it out on others.  It seems to be a never ending pattern in this country.  But is there any truth to the claim that African Americans are much more religious than most voting blocs and that accounts for a large amount of their opposition to marriage equality?

keshmeshi on 11/05 at 02:51 PM

Not relevent for me…I am not religious…

One thing does give me hope.  Prop 8 just barely passed.  Let the issue marinate for 10 years or so and the supporters of marriage equality can put their own proposition on the ballot, and it just might pass.

keshmeshi on 11/05 at 02:51 PM

Wouldn’t have to wait 10 years with some creative marketing and campaining!

Comment #67: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  04:56 PM

Uhura, does my response seem plausible to you?

Comment #68: nemo  on  11/05  at  04:56 PM

A bridge, fine, no problem, but understand that you’re going to need to be building part of it.

Comment #69: Watermelontail  on  11/05  at  04:56 PM

Here’s the argument based on logic:

The terms of the argument as offered here are inverted from the way a logical argument is generally framed.

Uhura, if you have a hard time explaining your own feelings on the issue to us and to yourself, then the burden is on *you* to justify your feelings, not on the rest of the world to drag you into the light against your apparent will by refuting the opinions you cannot even justify.

Comment #70: Chris Clarke  on  11/05  at  04:56 PM

Oh, and off the topic of the derail: great post, Pam.

Comment #71: Chris Clarke  on  11/05  at  04:56 PM

Uhura:

Can someone PLEASE come up with a logical argument…. not based on the similarity between homosexuality and race… in favor of marriage and adoption rights for homosexuals so that I can switch sides?

If you want to switch sides, do it. You don’t need us for that. The problem you have, and will continue to run into if you continue participating in this thread is that you clearly don’t want to switch sides.

Arguing in bad faith doesn’t really work if you’re going to make it so blindingly obvious that you’re arguing in bad faith.

Comment #72: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  11/05  at  04:57 PM

Uhura really has this backwards. We’re starting from the proposition of equality. She’s the one who needs to justify why the state needs to get involved in denying people rights.

Comment #73: Seebach  on  11/05  at  04:58 PM

I think not - In species that posses two genders - male and female….the males and females are sexually attracted to one another on a basic and very chemical level…
Try again please!

Well, then, see, we have a problem. Given what you’ve said here, I’ll try to reconstruct your train of reasoning.

1) Males and females—and only males and females—are sexually attracted to each other on a fundamental level.
2) This attraction is a necessary component of marriage.
3) Ergo, males cannot marry males, females cannot marry females.

The argument is logically sound, but it assumes gay people don’t exist!

Males are attracted to each other in every way a male might be attracted to a female—that’s why this fight is going on in the first place. To prove that gay people oughtn’t marry, you’ve first asserted that they do not exist. Which is, of course, untrue.

To respond more generally, I would say: regardless of your opinions on sex, race, sexuality, gender, etc, marriage is a social construct. That’s undeniable. It was created by humans, and solely for their benefit.

Therefore, the ability to reshape is one we fully possess, and, again, have used multiple times throughout history. We’ve gone from polygamy to monogamy, from a relationship of male ownership to one of just male domination, from single-race marriages to mixed-race marriages, to now, a more egalitarian model. And trust me, those were major changes.

Now, gay people are stepping up to the plate. They’re asking for benefits for their relationships, a relationship of love, sex, and commitment just like any other, that society accords to all straight relationships. They don’t need to prove anything. You need to prove why their requests contradict the institution so fundamentally that we cannot grant them. Saying “they don’t have it now,” or “they didn’t have it when I founded my image of a family,” doesn’t work—we’ve rewritten marriage before and we’ll do it again.

Now, if you have a problem with my argument, please, tell me what it is. Simply asserting that you’re as unconvinced as before doesn’t help anyone.

Comment #74: Erl  on  11/05  at  04:59 PM

Uhura,

Could you be a lesbian? Could you have sex with women and truly enjoy it the same way you do with men, but just *choose* not to? Could you fall in love with a woman and really love her the way you have men?

Most likely, no.

If you say no, and I as a woman CAN have sex with women and enjoy it as well as fall in love with women, then there is something different between me and you.

In short, it is that you are not gay and I am gay.

If it was merely choice that made me gay then you too could choose to be, and it would be pleasurable and loving in the sense of pleasure and love you have expereinced with men.


If it is not some random choice I have made than it is just oppression to deny me the rights other people freely have. EVEN IF IT WERE A CHOICE: Religion is a choice and we can’t descrimate based on that.

Comment #75: ArmyVetJen  on  11/05  at  05:00 PM

Why is that?

You want us to do the work for you, then respond ‘Try again!’ when you don’t get the answer you want. 

Speaking of which, do you have any response to the links me ‘n Seraph posted?

Comment #76: Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on  11/05  at  05:00 PM

She is legit, though, so I was wrong in my assumptions.  Sorry ‘bout that.

Comment #77: Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on  11/05  at  05:02 PM

You just said that homosexuals shouldn’t raise children. The natural extension of that belief is that children should be taken from gay parents. 

kater on 11/05 at 02:51 PM

Natural extension? I call that a Gargantuan Leap.

If I’m wrong about that, then please explain why you believe we shouldn’t raise children. Enlighten me, please.

kater on 11/05 at 02:51 PM


Madam, you are very wrong about that.

I willingly admit once more that I really cannot articulate my feelings on this very well…Maybe because they’re just that - feelings. But, here goes:

I think that adopted children should be placed in the best circumstances possible. There should be income and other requirements, and they should not be placed into homosexual homes because such a lifestyle is still considered “fringe” by society at large.

Comment #78: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  05:02 PM

Go easy on Uhuru, y’all. I suspect her position is typical of the folks we’d want to change their minds the next time this comes up on the ballot.

And it will come up again, because that’s what the future looks like.

* * *
Uhuru—

In fact, if you don’t abandon this lline of reasoning, you’ll keep losing the political push for homosexual rights. This line of reasoning DOES NOT convince Blacks or Hispanics (or Whites!) that homosexual couples should have marriage and adoption rights.

Well, obviously, it’s not convincing you; but if it didn’t seem like an apt analogy, you wouldn’t see so many people using it. Basically, the Lovings weren’t supposed to get married for the same reason you seem to be giving for not wanting homosexuals to marry: people they didn’t know, were unlikely to meet, and who were completely unaffected by the Lovings in any way thought (a) it was icky; and (b) it was a suitable mission of government to micromanage what goes on in people’s bedrooms.  Even if gay sex puts you off (bearing in mind that everyone’s sex life is icky to a certain extent), do you really want to sign on for (b)?

Comment #79: Molly, NYC  on  11/05  at  05:04 PM

I notice you’re still ignoring any good-faith attempts at discussion.
We’ve seen this pattern before.

Comment #80: Watermelontail  on  11/05  at  05:04 PM

Here’s a really clear example of my problem with many White people - especially White men:


A bridge, fine, no problem, but understand that you’re going to need to be building part of it.

Watermelontail on 11/05 at 02:56 PM


After I already said THIS:


I am asking for a bridge - openly. FFS - Help me build it so I can walk across.

Comment #81: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  05:05 PM

“Folks on this site are very emotional about this issue at the moment ... therefore logical discourse and me getting the answers I reallyneed may not be possible right now.”

...um, actually we’re all pretty “emotional” (I prefer “passionate”) about this all the time.  Prop H8 just makes it worse…

You have all the answers you need.  You just have to recognize and accept them…

Comment #82: MikeEss  on  11/05  at  05:05 PM

and they should not be placed into homosexual homes because such a lifestyle is still considered “fringe” by society at large.

Sorry, you’ll have to do better than that. “Society at large” is not a thing, it is a collection of people. You are saying “gay people are different—permanently, inherently different—because we think they are.” That’s not a reason.

And, that’s also pretty silly. Should foster children not be put in homes where the parents have “fringe” hobbies? Believe in “fringe” concepts like universal fair trade?

Comment #83: Erl  on  11/05  at  05:07 PM

Race is a socially created construct, (so is gender) but sex is not.

This argument fails in two ways. First, sex, at least as a dichotomy, is socially constructed. There are plenty of people who have extra chromosomes, ambiguous genitalia, etc. Beyond that, though, the ideas of what it is and is not appropriate to do with one’s genitalia are completely socially constructed. We today differ from the Victorians who differ from the Greeks.

luzzleanne on 11/05 at 02:42 PM

Plenty of people? Hermaphrodites are a very small part of the overall human population.

And yes - “appropriate” sexual behavior and “gender” are social constructs; however, the penis and the vagina and phermonal responses between males and females are biology.

If you’re not going to be logical, please stop now.

Comment #84: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  05:08 PM

I am asking for a bridge - openly. FFS - Help me build it so I can walk across.

Again, try to meet us somewhere on the bridge.  How do you reconcile this:

I think not - In species that posses two genders - male and female….the males and females are sexually attracted to one another on a basic and very chemical level…

... with the links me and Seebach posted?

Comment #85: Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on  11/05  at  05:08 PM

Uhura: Why are gay people fighting for the right to marry if they don’t genuinely feel “deep” love for each other?

Comment #86: Erl  on  11/05  at  05:10 PM

Also, still waiting to hear about how that “It’s none of your bloody business” slogan grabs you, Uhura. It wasn’t really my business either, ‘til these deity-drunk idiots changed the CA constitution over it.

Comment #87: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  05:10 PM

My gods, Libertarian is arguing sense here.

Thank you.

Uhura.  Here.

http://www.colage.org/resources/facts.htm

(I’m too lazy to embed right now.) 

There’s a start for you (statistically).  If you wanted quantifiable evidence that being raised by gays doesn’t harm kids, there’s a place to start.  However, if you really wanted to change, you would look all of this up yourself instead of asking us to make the case for you.  That’s your job - to inform yourself and base your opinions on said information.  If you don’t look for information and then say that you just feel a certain way without any evidence to back up that feeling, that’s your right, but forgive those of us who resent your imposing your “feelings” on people who aren’t doing anything to you.

Comment #88: Atheist Feminazi  on  11/05  at  05:10 PM

Someone asked this:

Why do you feel like your idea should be the ruling concept for the entire country?


My answer is: I don’t. My opinions are my own and I only get one vote…just like everyone else.


I think that I will have to communicate with people who are not attempting to bash me into agreeing with them. At this point - those kinds of comments are being posted faster than i can read and respond to them, and they are not helping me see my way through this topic.

Comment #89: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  05:11 PM

In species that posses two genders - male and female….the males and females are sexually attracted to one another on a basic and very chemical level…

So chemical sexual attraction is a prerequisite for marriage? Well then, gays are just fine. There’s documented incidences of homosexual behavior in pretty much every sexual species that we’ve looked for it in. However, we’d better add a prerequisite for marriage licenses. Gotta prove that you’re attracted to your partner on a basic and chemical level. In love? Very deep friendship? Doesn’t matter - you can’t get hospital visitation rights unless you’ve got that sexual chemistry.

Comment #90: Egarwaen  on  11/05  at  05:11 PM

I don’t think that children should be raised by homosexuals

Uhura, that issue was already settled in California well before Proposition 8. California already has, and has had, laws about domestic partnership. Same-sex couples in California can marry and adopt. So denying same-sex couples the right to marry doesn’t change that.

You keep insisting that you want to be persuaded. What, precisely, would persuade you that allowing civil marriage for same-sex couples is the right thing, rather than the wrong thing? If nothing whatsoever can change your mind, then asking people to “build a bridge” to you is disingenuous; what you’re really asking for is people to build block towers so you can run up and kick them over.

As for your hearing turning off - I’m sorry that you would not listen to Alice Huffman, the leader of the California NAACP, who persuaded the NAACP board to speak out against marriage discrimination. She understands that we all need to stand together, and it’s not a matter of comparing racism vs. homophobia. Why can’t you?

Comment #91: mythago  on  11/05  at  05:12 PM

Uhura:

Once again, your argument is inconsistent. If you think that adopted children should be place in the best circumstances possible, where do you get off claiming that in all cases the best circumstances possible exclude gay parents? You seem to be saying the The Horrible Gay is worse than an orphanage, worse than abusive foster care, worse than being abandoned on the streetcorner, worse than absolutely any other way a child waiting for adoption could be raised. Because otherwise you would recognize that sometimes, perhaps even often, parents who happen to be gay are the best available parents for a kid.

(We also await with bated breath a record of your attempts to change current adoption laws regarding other requirements for adoption, because right now there aren’t income requirements or religious requirements or race requirements, or pretty much any requirements but being able to provide a safe and loving home. Perhaps it would do you some good to focus on those for a few years, then get back to us on The Horrible Gay.)

Comment #92: paul  on  11/05  at  05:12 PM

Can someone PLEASE come up with a logical argument…. not based on the similarity between homosexuality and race… in favor of marriage and adoption rights for homosexuals so that I can switch sides?

You mean arguments in favor of same-sex marriage; homosexuals have been able to marry forever as far as I know, as long as they picked an opposite sex partner.

I was persuaded by inductive logic: I’ve known several gay couples who built homes and lives together, raised children together, took care of each other’s aged and ill parents, whose milestones were celebrated by all of their extended families, who bickered together and mocked each other—in every case just like married couples. The question turned itself on its head: I could not construct a logical argument to deny same-sex couples the rights, responsibilities, and title of marriage because their relationships were indistinguishable from marriage. Further, how could I call myself the friend of these people on the one hand, and deny them rights on the other?

Similarly, what is the logical argument against same sex couples’ adopting? The lack of an opposite sex parent in the home? Consider that we allow single parents to have custody of their children. Often the other parent has left the town or even the state—this happened to many of my friends whose dads refused to pay child support. So they grew up without an opposite sex parent in the home, without permanent damage.

Comment #93: Hector B.  on  11/05  at  05:13 PM

This is an interesting point:


Race is a socially created construct, (so is gender) but sex is not.

Given that sex is biological and that most people can be relatively easily sorted into one of two categories based on genetics and genitalia, is there some reason that one group (for example, women) should be denied rights granted to the other group (e.g. men)?

grolby on 11/05 at 02:50 PM

Ok…I am seeing where you’re going here…

Never mind that sexuality is a lot more complicated than “tab A into slot B,” and that how we relate to each other sexually, even in heterosexual relationships, is largely socially constructed. Why should biological differences between the sexes matter, here? I assume that you believe that you deserve the right to vote and own property just as I, a man, do.

grolby on 11/05 at 02:50 PM

Ok…Ok…

Comment #94: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  05:15 PM

Let’s not forget that gay parents have and will continue to reproduce biologically.

Comment #95: kater  on  11/05  at  05:16 PM

Erl…What you’re saying made a great deal of sense to me…I am going to reread it a few times.

Comment #96: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  05:16 PM

Uhura,

I only saw pieces of it but the parts I saw were moving.  “All Aboard.  Rosie’s Family Cruise” is currently running on HBO.  Here’s a page that gives the schedule.  http://www.hbo.com/apps/schedule/ScheduleServlet?ACTION_DETAIL=DETAIL&FOCUS_ID=616130

Please try to see it if you can.  It shows clearly loving same sex couples who have children around them who clearly love them and are clearly loved by them.  It might change your view on the law. 

Permitting those who are homosexual to have equal civil rights is not promoting the lifestyle or the existence or prevalence of homosexuality.  It simply is permitting people who have that orientation the same rights as the rest of us.  Permitting those rights does not require a belief that homosexuality is a fixed genetic characteristic.

It’s my own semi-educated view on it that genetics and choice, unconscious or not, play a part.  But my view on the cause does not affect my view that equal rights for gays are appropriate and should be given. 

I’ve been fairly indifferent to gay marriage.  If gays want it, they should have it, as far as I am concerned.  I am also not a fan of Rosie O’Donnell, far from it.  But I was moved by the little I saw and I am planning to watch the whole thing.

Comment #97: MiddleageLiberal  on  11/05  at  05:17 PM

Ignore the troll.  This is a common troll tactic: Ask for answers, refuse all answers, tehn claim victory.  Underbridge-dwelling shitstains like her love to do this.

/r/ stick rule ban on troll, please.

Comment #98: Damian  on  11/05  at  05:17 PM

UHURA,

These are going quick I hope you don’t miss my comment, so I am reposting it.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Could you be a lesbian? Could you have sex with women and truly enjoy it the same way you do with men, but just *choose* not to? Could you fall in love with a woman and really love her the way you have men?

Most likely, no.

If you say no, and I as a woman CAN have sex with women and enjoy it as well as fall in love with women, then there is something different between me and you.

In short, it is that you are not gay and I am gay.

If it was merely choice that made me gay then you too could choose to be, and it would be pleasurable and loving in the sense of pleasure and love you have expereinced with men.

If it is not some random choice I have made than it is just oppression to deny me the rights other people freely have.

EVEN IF IT WERE A CHOICE: Religion is a choice and we can’t descrimate based on that.

I grew up in the southern Baptist evengelical south and have many friends who feel teh way you do. I am sorry so much animosity has been directed to you, but it honestly hurts because this is distant to you but it effects my life directly and is very personal. I hope in that vein of humanity we all with argue our points fairly.

Peace,
J

Comment #99: ArmyVetJen  on  11/05  at  05:17 PM

Erl, (and anyone else similarly inclined)

Let’s talk more about THIS:

1) Males and females—and only males and females—are sexually attracted to each other on a fundamental level.
2) This attraction is a necessary component of marriage.
3) Ergo, males cannot marry males, females cannot marry females.

The argument is logically sound, but it assumes gay people don’t exist!

Males are attracted to each other in every way a male might be attracted to a female—that’s why this fight is going on in the first place. To prove that gay people oughtn’t marry, you’ve first asserted that they do not exist. Which is, of course, untrue.

To respond more generally, I would say: regardless of your opinions on sex, race, sexuality, gender, etc, marriage is a social construct. That’s undeniable. It was created by humans, and solely for their benefit.

Therefore, the ability to reshape is one we fully possess, and, again, have used multiple times throughout history. We’ve gone from polygamy to monogamy, from a relationship of male ownership to one of just male domination, from single-race marriages to mixed-race marriages, to now, a more egalitarian model. And trust me, those were major changes.

Now, gay people are stepping up to the plate. They’re asking for benefits for their relationships, a relationship of love, sex, and commitment just like any other, that society accords to all straight relationships.


How can this be presented to people (broadly) so that the next time we (a a state or a nation) have a chance to “make history”... we can?

Comment #100: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  05:20 PM

Well, thanks, Uhura! smile I’m not sure. It seems like the way I’ve put it makes most sense in a one-on-one response to those who are undecided, and I dunno how I’d put it forth as a positive argument rather than a rebuttal.

I think the real answer is to be fearless about depicting loving, same sex couples. Hector’s experience, writ large, will move people—I hope.

Comment #101: Erl  on  11/05  at  05:24 PM

Uhura, (pt 1)

We shouldn’t look at the concept of a “functional” family as a family simply where roles are filled by people of the appropriate gender. There is certainly the traditional model, which states that a family is a mother, a father, and kidlets. But those roles don’t stop simply with the gender of the participants. For example, a mother, in the “traditional” model, stays at home to raise the kidlets. The father, in the “traditional” role is an emotionally distant authoritarian figure who metes out discipline to the kidlets. If you want to go all sorts of traditional, you could say that the wife and kidlets were property of the father, and that abuse of all stripes was permissible because legally the wife and kidlets had no individual rights as human beings.

Furthermore, the “traditional” family model was not exactly the bedrock of society from the beginning of time up until about the 1960s when all hell broke loose. Single parents have always existed and always been capable of raising well-adjusted children. It used to be that if you had two brothers, one single and one married, and the married one died, it was considered “traditional” for the single brother to marry the wife and raise the children—we don’t do that anymore, because women are capable of getting jobs and earning their own money and the loss of the father is not automatic destitution. The crushing social stigma on children born outside of marriage is no longer what it was (I’m sure there are areas where it’s still very difficult to be a “bastard”).

Why aren’t these things still the practice? It’s because of progress… the same reason we don’t have phrenology, or we talk about the humors, and yes, even the same reason that we don’t question the inherent humanity of people of color or try to describe them as 3/5s of a person. This progress toward the equality of two human beings: not limited by their gender (or their color) is why we should look at marriage as the union of two equals, and not as the fulfillment of gender roles by one party or the other. This is why we have Stay At Home Dads and Power Moms, why we have parental custody disputes (because it’s not just assumed that one gender is going to do all of the rearing) and no-fault divorce. This is also the reason that we don’t need to worry that allowing gay marriage will “open the doors” to things like plural marriage or animal marriage—because the foundation of marriage itself is being defined as a union of equals, not as one person taking possession of the other and subjugating them. All parties enter into the contract equally, the foundation is based on mutual love, not on money, or the need to have a fuck-maid, or because someone’s dad has a shotgun trained on your back.

And despite all sorts of efforts to paint non-traditional family structures as somehow detrimental to children, there is simply no evidence to back that up. There is no indication that children raised by a gay couple are more likely to turn out gay themselves (there’s no “recruiting” going on), there is no indication that children of gay couples are more likely to have emotional problems or other bugaboos when people want to think about the children. But what will happen, as a result of these laws, is that children languishing in foster care, children who very likely will have emotional problems as a result of feeling unloved, unwanted, and abandoned, will be less likely to be adopted into a loving household of people who are ready, willing, and able to give them the care that they need. Instead, they’ll stay in foster care, because we’ve decided that we’re going to require a certain degree of “traditional-ness” in our family structures in order to adopt these children out.

I don’t want to get too much into your brain on this one, but I have to just say one more thing: there’s a lot of discomfort when straight people get the mental picture of two gay people having sex, and that’s really none of our business, it’s not like our gay friends look at us an immediately conjure up mental images of us having hetero sex with our partners. Furthermore, it’s not like these couples are going to have sex in front of the kidlets, and for all of the “what if” scenarios of a kid walking in on their two dads copulating, I’ll raise you generations of scarred children who had a bad dream and walked in on daddy hurting mommy. No one wants to see (or think about) their parents having sex. If their parents are two men or two women doesn’t change this basic fact that parents are expected (by the kids) to be celibate. So the buttsex argument just doesn’t have a leg to stand on, logically speaking.

OK, this is running long, so I’ve got to chop this into two comments….

Comment #102: Mighty Ponygirl  on  11/05  at  05:24 PM

ArmyJet - I saw your post…I did not have time to answer.

It’s just a little difficult to sift through all the comments to identify the real attempts at communication (and education) versus the “You’re a Troll - I hate you!” nonsense.


I am merely expressing how I think & feel about this….and I have an open mind. I am glad that a few people tried to give me some pearls to consider.

Comment #103: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  05:25 PM

Uhura (pt 2)

I was able to get married a little over a year ago. My husband and I had been together for a few years before we were able to get married, but for a long time we “couldn’t” get married, not for legal reasons but for financial reasons. But that feeling of “we should be married but we can’t” really sucks. I don’t know if you’re married, or if you’re dating someone special, but I would challenge you to imagine this person, that you love very much and want to commit yourself to for the rest of your life, and being unable to, and not for practical reasons, but because a bunch of people who are all married are saying “no, your love is not like our love, your love is less-than, and you don’t get to marry this person.” You know in your heart that you love this person more than anything else in the world, and the people who don’t even know you are trying to tell you about the sort of relationship you have with that person.

The emotional reaction, the “it’s difficult to explain” reaction of why two loving people shouldn’t be allowed to marry and adopt is basically an unexamined one that rests on traditions that were either incredibly flawed themselves, or nonexistent. I can’t change your mind on this, but hopefully you can start to think about what these things really mean, big-picture.

Comment #104: Mighty Ponygirl  on  11/05  at  05:25 PM

I am asking for a bridge - openly. FFS - Help me build it so I can walk across.
Fair.  I missed that the first time I read through, if I’ve mistaken you for a troll, then I apologize.

No one knows why some people are homosexuals and others are not.

You sound as though you have an oppinion on this matter, I’d like to know what it is, but in the interests of being fair, I’ll give you the ones I am aware of. 

First, the one I believe is that there is an intrinsic difference between someone primarily attracted to members of the same sex and someone attracted to members of the opposite sex, for obvious reasons of propagation of the species, the latter is more common than the former, but the difference exists in many species, which rather strongly suggests, much to the contrary of much proseltyzing, the difference is natural and intrinsic.

The usual counter is that certain people choose, for reasons that have never been disclosed or sussed out to me, to lead a “lifestyle” that includes sex and attraction to other members of the same sex.  Honestly, I have never encountered someone trying to explain the motives behind this so-called choice, and it does not match either my experience or my sense of reason. 

Your question leads me to wonder if you have any leaning toward one of these or the other, but to continue, I’d need to know which and why; not to ridicule, but to discuss.  I’m assuming that you lend some amount of creedence to the second explanation, but again, you haven’t been clear on this, or how much. 

Also, I would ask to know how relevant this point is to the question of prop 8; one who subscribes to the second explanation assumes that same-sex attraction could, if a choice, in theory, be legislated out of existence if the barriers were high enough.  History refutes this, but that does not stop people from believing it.

Comment #105: Watermelontail  on  11/05  at  05:25 PM

Well, thanks, Uhura!  I’m not sure. It seems like the way I’ve put it makes most sense in a one-on-one response to those who are undecided, and I dunno how I’d put it forth as a positive argument rather than a rebuttal.

Erl on 11/05 at 03:24 PM

YES!  What you posted made crystal clear sense. There has got to be a way to package it ObamaCampainStyle.


The other stuff:

You’re just an ignorant bigot who hates gays!

will not work on people when they are alone in the voting booth.

I think the real answer is to be fearless about depicting loving, same sex couples. Hector’s experience, writ large, will move people—I hope.

Erl on 11/05 at 03:24 PM

This may be part of it for some populations; however, if you include it - it may simply raise the “ick” factor.

IMO - it’s better to stick with something along the lines of the logical flow you presented here. When I read it - I was like “yes - that’s right.”

Comment #106: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  05:28 PM

“I mean it.  Every election cycle from now until the repeal passes. “

Please do. It will only serve to hurt the gay lobby, I think.

Comment #107: Ostiarius  on  11/05  at  05:30 PM

Uhura simply does not want to think of herself as a bigot. “I am convincible, but it is your fault that I am not convinced” pushes the responsibility for her bigotry onto others.

Why is this any different than any other bully - say the wife-beater who claims that if she would just behave better she wouldn’t be making him hit her so much.

ANYONE to whom the answer, “I am a human being, and a taxpaying citizen doing no harm to anyone else” is unconvincing is not going to find any answer logical enough. Anyone who can sit in a position of privilege and deny others, at the cost of much pain and genuine harm (including but not limited to the financial) to those others, the things they claim are the most important to them lacks the empathy to find others’ experience compelling.

She claims religion is not the basis of her opinion. What’s left - “You and your life do not fit my picture of how real people should be.”

A bigot. And a particularly vile one too. It is one thing to cause people to suffer because you have a compelling reason to do so. It is entirely different to cause people to suffer simply because they are there and you have the power to hurt them unless they make you stop.

Then, having caused the hurt, to show up here and effectively say, People like me hurt you for no good reason of our own, but rather because of your own failure, so let me, unsatisfied with hurting you at the ballot box, smugly kick you while you are down and reinforce for myself my own misplaced sense of superiority.

How deeply, deeply sad. No clue whatsoever what love is. Seems to think it is entirely chemical. Sad.

Comment #108: Lymis  on  11/05  at  05:30 PM

I love the outreach to “Uhura!” Please, gay “marriage” advocates, don’t change!

Comment #109: Ostiarius  on  11/05  at  05:31 PM

Ostiarius, Uhura! is getting it.

You’re just an asshole.

Comment #110: Mark  on  11/05  at  05:33 PM

Uhuru, one last try - any connection with my simple point that marriage is a right that all Americans have equal opportunity to?

With your “ticket” of American citizenship, paid for by your tax dollars, you get access to a passport, social security, the right to buy property, etc. etc.  marriage is just another one of the many different rights citizens get. 

Any traction?

Comment #111: nemo  on  11/05  at  05:36 PM

“You’re just an asshole. “

Thanks, I try. Being beholden to the principles of judicial restraint and right reason as opposed to saccharine sentimentality requires the cultivation of apatheia.

Comment #112: Ostiarius  on  11/05  at  05:37 PM

I think Uhura may be - I don’t know if there is a word for it - question-trolling.

As in, she actually believes that gay marriage should be legal, but wants to see what sort of arguments are made to see if we can make our case.  ::shrugs::  It’s something I might do.

Even if she’s not, it’s a good exercise in working with undecided or uninformed voters.  I personally think her reasons are repugnant, but we’re going to think that of most people, and sputtering, “Bu - bu - are you crazy?” isn’t really going to make our case.  We have to learn to get past people’s bigotry and figure out the root cause so that we can yank it out.  Just saying someone is a bigot and is stupid isn’t really going to help, because most of them aren’t stupid, and most of them don’t think of themselves as bigots.

The key is opening their eyes to why their position is bigoted.  To racists, it seems self-evident that the race they dislike is not human in the same way that they are.  To this person, the homosexual is someone who is not quite right and so does not deserve the same rights.  It seems unfair, but yes, at this point, we either have someone who will not see why we back our cause or we try to prove our point.  The worst we’ll get is wasted time, and at best we may convince someone.

Now that I’ve completely tipped my hand here.

Comment #113: Atheist Feminazi  on  11/05  at  05:37 PM

I would love to be converted to the other side of the argument.

All right, I’ll bite. Without paralleling race, and without reference to “it’s just wrong”, because obviously if she felt it was just wrong, she wouldn’t vote that way.

This post is really long and has to be split into two parts.

1. Gay marriage.

Marriage comes with a big packet of rights and responsibilities *toward one another* that are enforced by or permitted by the state. It is the only contract an adult can enter into that defines another adult as family.

When two people want to share a life together, they want to be able to treat the other as a family member, which means being able to care for them in the hospital, share in their health insurance, bequeath their stuff to them without benefit of a will, rely on them to handle their funeral, etc. In our society, the only people we consider to be close enough to us that we are willing to give them the right to manage our lives for us when we are helpless, or manage our deaths for us, are family, and family are defined as either blood kin, adopted family (which requires that when the adoption took place, one of the two was a minor and the other was not), or married partners. Married partners are thought of as people who love each other romantically, who are having sex, and who want to spend their lives together in a family unit.

Marriage isn’t a compact between people and God. I am an agnostic, my husband is an atheist. We got married. Marriage doesn’t exist to care for children. I have a pair of happily married 50-something friends who have no kids. Marriage exists so that two people can declare to each other *and* to the state, “We love each other and will be responsible for each other. We will take care of one another, and in exchange, we want the state to grant us the rights we need to do that.”

Anyone who’s married can relate to in-law problems. Imagine if your husband or wife was dying, and your in-laws could forbid you to enter the hospital where they lay? Imagine if your own parents hated your husband or wife so much that they would prevent them from being with you when you were ill? Imagine your husband or wife dies, and you’re not allowed to attend the funeral because the in-laws hate you. Well, this can’t happen to married people… but it *does* happen to gays who want to be married and can’t be.

If two people want to say to each other and the state, “This is the person I want by my side when I am helpless and unable to speak for myself. This is the person I want to handle my funeral arrangements. This is the person I want to share my property with automatically, without having to specifically grant them a right to each and every thing I own. This is the person I trust to look out for me and protect me…” why do we have the right to tell them, “No, you’re not allowed to give that person such a close place next to you, you have to rely on blood kin who may possibly despise you?” Marriage is the only family you get to choose, generally speaking (with the exception of adoptions where the adoptee is old enough to actually make an informed choice as to whether they want that person to be their mom or dad or not.) Why do we deny gays the right to choose the person *they* want to say “this is family?”

Some say “this is a slippery slope leading to bestiality!” Animals can have no rights to protect humans or own their stuff. *First*, we’d need to give animals full and complete human rights, which would be ridiculous given that they can’t talk. Without that right, animals cannot carry out the responsibilites of a married person.

Some say “this is a slippery slope leading to polygamy!” It’s really not. It says “I grant one person the right to be my proxy, my protector, the person the state should turn to when I am helpless.” If marriage granted that right to two people, what if they had a conflict? What if Terri Schiavo had been in a polygamous marriage and her other husband hadn’t wanted her taken off life support? Marriage as an arrangement that grants another person the right to be your proxy can’t be extended to two people because they might disagree, but there’s nothing about being your proxy that demands that the person be male or female.

Comment #114: Alara Rogers  on  11/05  at  05:37 PM

I think that if homosexual marriage advocates do not change their approach - homosexuals’ rights will not be voted in. Each person gets one vote but many votes can easily deny people their fundamntal rights.

I think that the Obama win is a great example of this concept: For social change - you really have to tailor your message to broad groups.

Some people believe that most human beings want peace and justice and inclusion. I think that if you are an advocate for change and you want to be successful, you really have to appeal to that side of people. That’s why it’s all about the presentation and packaging.

I think that the iron is hot right now, and that striking while the iron is hot is practical. Don’t let your anger over other people’s acceptance of “traditional” social norms get in the way of your success.

Comment #115: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  05:37 PM

INTPagen, please stop.

Comment #116: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  05:38 PM

Ost, go eat a dirty ooze-infested sewer rat shit.

/r/ stick rule: Ost.

Comment #117: Damian  on  11/05  at  05:39 PM

And this is the rest of my post.

Some say “this is bad for the children!” What’s bad for children is being torn away from parents they love, regardless of the gender of those parents. I know a little girl who has been raised by two mothers her whole life. If her biological mother should die, why should she be taken away from the only other parent she has ever known, the non-biological mother, to be forced to live with kin who may love her but haven’t been there raising her every day? Imagine being a child whose father dies, and instead of living with your mother and being comforted by her, you are taken away by your paternal grandparents and never allowed to even see your mother again. This is how children of two mothers or two fathers feel when they are taken from their surviving parent.

So there are no good arguments for not granting gays the right to stand with each other the way that husbands and wives are allowed to. Religious reasons cannot apply in a country with freedom of religion, the alternative is worse for children, and it’s not a slippery slope to anything. If the only reason is “I feel that marriage is a tradition we should preserve…” then I have to ask you, do you enjoy owning your own property? Do you appreciate the fact that your husband could go to jail if he raped you? Are you glad that you don’t need your husband’s permission to get a credit card? American marriage tradition only granted women these rights between 40 and 20 years ago depending on where you live. If you’re not married, are you glad that you have the right to pick the man you want, and some guy you don’t like that much can’t just come up to your dad and talk him into giving you to him? Because traditionally that’s what marriage was for women for *centuries*. Change is good.

2. Gay adoption.

No one knows what causes homosexuality, except that we do know three things:
- Being a gay man is partially hereditary. Identical twin brothers have a much higher rate of both being gay than fraternal twin brothers where one is gay.
- Being a gay woman can be influenced by childhood sexual abuse. Surveys of lesbians and bisexual women have found that much higher proportions of lesbian and bi women report childhood sexual abuse from men than straight women.
- There is no correlation between being adopted by gays and becoming gay. None whatsoever. Believe me, they’ve looked.

In an ideal world all children perhaps should be raised by loving, caring, responsible parents of their own blood, one male and one female. But we don’t live in an ideal world and we never will. There are many children who cannot or should not live with one or both of their blood parents due to death, incompetence, or abusiveness from one or both of the parents. Those children are not free of the biological need every child has to have at least one, and better two, parents who are *permanent*, who love them and cannot be separated from them by law without really good reason. Children do not give a good goddamn what sex the people that love them are, but they *must* have someone that loves them or they are much more likely to grow up with permanent personality disorders. And foster parents do not solve this need because they can quit fostering you at any time, and you can be taken away from foster parents any time the state feels like it. There is no permanence there. No security.

There are more children in the world who want someone to love them forever than there are heterosexual married couples who are willing to do it. Allowing single people, unmarried heterosexuals, and gay couples to adopt children alleviates some of that burden. It gives some children who would not otherwise have had *one* loving parent at least one. And gay couple adoption is important because it is much more valuable for children to have two stable “forever” parents that cannot be taken away from them than it is for children to have one parent who keeps presenting them with possible second parents and then taking them away from those second parents. A stable gay couple is objectively better for children than a biological mother who keeps dating different men and inviting them to act as a dad, only to dump them and never let the kid see them again. having role models of both sexes is important, but not as important as having “forever” parents, and not as important as your parent not being overworked and stressed by having to do all the work of raising you herself.

We cannot promise every child two loving, stable, forever parents of opposite sexes. We can’t currently even promise every child *one* loving forever parent. But allowing same-sex couples to become forever parents of children would go a long way toward making sure that as many children as possible have two stable parents who will love them always. And that is much more important to kids than what sex those parents are.

Comment #118: Alara Rogers  on  11/05  at  05:40 PM

Uhura, do not tell actual contributors here how to act, troll.  Your trolling is obvious, and if you cannot handle it, then get the fuck out and never come back.

Comment #119: Damian  on  11/05  at  05:40 PM

Uhura simply does not want to think of herself as a bigot.

You’re right - and no one does. This is why calling someone a bigot will not convince them that you are right. It’s not a successful tactic.

“You and your life do not fit my picture of how real people should be.”

There could be some truth to that.

Comment #120: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  05:41 PM

“Ost, go eat a dirty ooze-infested sewer rat shit. “

I’m sure that’s done wonders for you but no thank you.

Comment #121: Ostiarius  on  11/05  at  05:41 PM

Damien - forgive me for pointing this out but…your behavior here is trollish…

Comment #122: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  05:41 PM

Make that “I’m sure that has…”

Comment #123: Ostiarius  on  11/05  at  05:42 PM

Forgive Damian. He is a hayseed. (Albeit a “progressive” one who, no doubt, prefers the company of city folk.)

Comment #124: Ostiarius  on  11/05  at  05:44 PM

I think that if homosexual marriage advocates do not change their approach - homosexuals’ rights will not be voted in.

Fortunately for us, then, historically speaking civil rights are almost *never* voted in. They are passed by a judiciary and government committed to the principle of equality on which the nation was founded. Because you usually can’t trust people to vote in *other* peoples’ best interests. (Even absent any detriment to themselves. People just aren’t terribly nice.)

And no, you don’t get to tell US to stop, especially not INTPagan, who has said nothing particularly harsh or inappropriate. Just true, and you dislike it.

Comment #125: Well, what?  on  11/05  at  05:45 PM

“You and your life do not fit my picture of how real people should be.”

There could be some truth to that.

::headdesk::

You do realize, don’t you, that your argument amounts to “I’m not a *bigot*, I just think in a bigoted *way*”

Comment #126: Well, what?  on  11/05  at  05:46 PM

INTPagen is making way too much sense here…Except for the “question trolling” part.


I am in no way a troll…or question trolling.


I just want to talk to folks with different opinions than mine so I can broaden the scope of my own thinking.

These insults were not useful and if I were a different sort of person they would have simply served to solidify my original position. That’s what some people fail to comprehend.

It reminds me of something I witnessed in college: There was a White woman who really wanted to get to know me and a few of the Black women I hung out with. She had her reasons which boiled down to - She did not know many Black people personally and just wanted to One woman in our group immediately labelled her as a racist with insidious intentions and did everything possible to push her away. I really regret acting as a bystander to that bullshit.

Another side note: I used to frequent Pandagon a lot abck when it was Jess & Ezra…but then I noticed a change….it’s mostly White people who are very liberal yet somehow very narrow minded when it comes to being able to discuss their POV with people who were not exactly on board with their line of thinking. Holy dichotomy batman! How can you be an open minded person with a closed mind?

A few times there were discussions about “Black” issues, but the only Black person folks would listen to is Pam! I got tired of it and stated to lurk….then I stopped commenting and then I stopped visiting….until now.

Comment #127: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  05:50 PM

Please stop is a figure of speech.
Damn.

Comment #128: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  05:51 PM

Being beholden to the principles of judicial restraint and right reason as opposed to saccharine sentimentality requires the cultivation of apatheia.

In other words, “There’s no real reason. Change makes me uncomfortable, and we’ve always done things this way.”

Comment #129: Hector B.  on  11/05  at  05:51 PM

Meh.  I despise demands of, “Kiss my ass or I vote to fuck you over.”  Talk about leaving me unmoved.  I much prefer the scenario where we convince the genuinely ignorant and unsure of the righteousness of the cause, kick some legal ass and then, when the dust settles and we’re all, finally, equal in the eyes of the law, just laugh at the would-have-been blackmailers.

Comment #130: Lisa KS  on  11/05  at  05:51 PM

Uhura! 

First of all, after a little more looking around, I believe you are not a troll, so I apologize for treating you like one.  That’s on me.

I don’t think that children should be raised by homosexuals.

I’m aware of two common reasons for that objection; first being that being raised by homosexuals somehow puts a child in greater danger than a child raised by heterosexuals.  Data does not bear that out.  Pam’s archives are well stocked with both data and anecdotes of just the opposite.

Second reason being that, if one assumes that being attracted to members of the same sex is a matter of choice or will, then one also assumes that being raised in a household like that will have, somehow, a greater chance of also (scare quotes) choosing that lifestyle (/scare quotes) than someone raised wholly ignorant of it.  First, this requires belief that sexual orientation is some sort of (as I think someone upthread said) a “fringe hobby,” which, again, is not something my experience bears out at all, nor several studies on the matter.

Comment #131: Watermelontail  on  11/05  at  05:53 PM

I just want to talk to folks with different opinions than mine so I can broaden the scope of my own thinking.

...do you feel any differently than you did?

Comment #132: Mighty Ponygirl  on  11/05  at  05:53 PM

She is legit, though, so I was wrong in my assumptions.  Sorry ‘bout that.

Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on 11/05 at 03:02 PM

Apology accepted Doug.

Comment #133: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  05:55 PM

/r/ stick rule Uhura.

If she’s going to continue saying “I’m not a troll, you are, even if I’m obviously trolling”, she needs to be banned, NOW.

Comment #134: Damian  on  11/05  at  05:55 PM

Last part,

Mom, dad and kidlets is a fine way to be, and really, no one here is going to ever advocate that families thus composed need to be altered in any way.  No one else’s family composition is going to endanger yours just by existing, I’m not even certain how it possibly could.  Families composed like yours are not going to be replaced by mandate or peer pressure.

Comment #135: Watermelontail  on  11/05  at  05:59 PM

...do you feel any differently than you did?

Mighty Ponygirl on 11/05 at 03:53 PM

Yes…I think that ERL’s coments helped me the most.

Comment #136: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  06:01 PM

To explain my last post, understand that, from our position, you are a bigot, plain and simple.

I mean, it’s self-evident to you that black people are people, right?  That’s just common sense.  Yet you encounter people who simply do not agree, who think blacks are subhuman, and think that they should have reduced (or no) rights.  The only appropriate response to that position is to sputter.  It’s fallacious on its face.  If someone asked you to prove that blacks deserve the same rights as everyone else, you would probably be too offended to actually try and convince them - that and, if they haven’t already decided that black people are people, they probably aren’t going that direction.

To us it’s the same way with gays.  It is literally incomprehensible to us how you can look at this as a group of people who deserve less rights than anyone else.  That is why we sputter and insult.  Trying to explain why gays are the same as everyone else and deserve the same rights is like explaining that birds fly and grass is green.  It’s simply a fact to us, and it’s easy to forget that, for other people, it may not be.  So we need to educate them.

I’m not saying this in a condescending manner.  I wasn’t raised a bigot by my parents, but I was raised in Texas, and homophobia is pretty common.  I never really seemed to much catch the bug, but it took me years to support things like gay marriage and the like, and my ex-husband being queer to actually mobilize me to vocally advocate this issue.  I was educated, too.

You probably don’t think you’re a bigot, but, from our position, you are discriminating against a group of people who do not hurt you, who have nothing to do with you, and who do not want to inhibit your rights.  They do not want to abuse children.  They do not want to have sex in public.  They simply want the same rights you have - to publicly declare their love, receive the legal benefits that straight couples do, and to raise children in a safe, loving environment.

Also understand that, while some people do have pretty harsh opinions about bigots, one thing to think about is that bigotry generally stems from ignorance, and I try to give people the benefit of the doubt because they may very well be willing to assimilate knowledge that goes against what they have.  However, once the questioning party is informed, it is their job to use that information as they wish.

I do not believe that should give them the right to take their opinions to the polls, though, and I think that kind of thing leads to a dangerous tyranny of the majority.  We should not get to vote on the rights of other people; it would be like asking the South a hundred and fifty years ago to vote on the issue of banning slavery.  It’s not going to happen like that.

Comment #137: Atheist Feminazi  on  11/05  at  06:03 PM

WTF Damien, I have been reading Pandagon way longer than you.

Thank God, you’re not in charge of banning people.

Comment #138: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  06:04 PM

At some point, the post might want to consider filing for divorce from the thread that ensued.

Comment #139: Mr. Merle  on  11/05  at  06:09 PM

the principles of judicial restraint

Tsk. “Judicial restraint” does not mean “courts may not reach any decision that is unpopular”.  Unless you are one of those wackos who believes that Marbury v. Madison should be overturned, it is an appropriate exercise of judicial power to determine whether or not a law is constitutional.

I’ve asked many people who pretend they’re only objecting to the “judicial activism” to explain to me what in the In Re Marriage Cases decision was improper, an overreach of the court’s power, or activist. I’ve never gotten anything coherent except they don’t like the result and the court should have deferred to popular sentiment.

Comment #140: mythago  on  11/05  at  06:10 PM

Don’t let your anger over other people’s acceptance of “traditional” social norms get in the way of your success.

The anger is over other people’s attempts to impose “traditional” social norms on the rest of us. Which goes back to that “none of your business” slogan you’ve so assiduously ignored. Don’t write it off so quickly: it’s a concept that most Americans who aren’t wrapped up in hateful religious fundamentalism (i.e. the vast majority) could accept with ease.

Now if Ostiarius wants to believe in a homophobic Invisible Bearded Sky Man™, it’s none of my business. If he came out and admitted that’s why he supported Prop 8 instead of trying to justify it with “legal arguments” that would be laughed out of a high school civics class, I wouldn’t even bother engaging him in debate. But the minute he tries to interfere in the sex and romantic lives of mutually consenting adults, anger and disdain is what he gets.

Comment #141: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  06:10 PM

I just want to talk to folks with different opinions than mine so I can broaden the scope of my own thinking.

That’s why I took you at face value.  That’s a very INTP thing to do.

Comment #142: Atheist Feminazi  on  11/05  at  06:11 PM

Re: the ick factor.

I think that, as in horror movies, “ick” is helped immeasurably by treating gay people as though they were icky—that is, by concealing them. Obviously I don’t advocate for campaign commercials to consist of 30-second shots of gay makeouts, but I think that prop (whatever pro-marriage number) ads should show gay couples the way they show straight couples in political ads: spooning in meadows, unreasonably but unthreateningly attractive, etc. We don’t want to work on abstract images, especially in defensive fights. We want to make it easy for everyone to empathize with gay couples, and that means making them personable.

I’d also say that the Prop 8 results should give us a much longer-range understanding. They’ve shown, ultimately, that rights can be taken away. The courts, particularly the federal courts, can help. But ultimately gay marriage will only be safe when proposals like Prop 8 are laughed off every year. That’s the long term marriage security plan. And I don’t see how we can get there without ending up in a world where gay couples are just another sort of couple.

Another idea, and I think it’s a bit more radical, is to simply treat the issue as though we have major popular support. During the 2012 midterms, we should run ads against congressmen who supported gay marriage as though that were universally understood as a bad thing. “Robert Jenkins claims to fight for all Americans. But he supported Prop 8, destroying marriage equality in California. Robert Jenkins. Wrong on equality. Wrong for America.”

Ultimately, it’s about framing. Right now, the frame is mostly in anti-marriage side. It consists of the popular images of the “ideal family” and its specificity, the idea that gay love is somehow transgressive, and the idea that marriage equality is something that has to be defended, rather than simply obvious. Very well. We need to move the frame away from there, and we need to be aggressive about it. That means, I think, providing non-threatening public images of gay families, and never letting up on the idea that marriage equality=Equality in general.

Comment #143: Erl  on  11/05  at  06:18 PM

To explain my last post, understand that, from our position, you are a bigot, plain and simple.

And from where I am standing, you are emotinal and irrational.

Now that we have our appropriate labels…we can move on - yes?

I mean, it’s self-evident to you that black people are people, right?  That’s just common sense.  Yet you encounter people who simply do not agree, who think blacks are subhuman, and think that they should have reduced (or no) rights.  The only appropriate response to that position is to sputter.

Appropriate - no.

Instinctual - yes.

Useful - absolutely not.

If someone asked you to prove that blacks deserve the same rights as everyone else, you would probably be too offended to actually try and convince them - that and, if they haven’t already decided that black people are people, they probably aren’t going that direction.

Wrong.

You’re assuming that I think and feel and reason the way you do… A common mistake that make people make when they are considering the words and actions of others…especially if they are the member of a dominant group or “majority”.

People in my position are quite used to considering the motivations of others. It’s a survival mechanism.

To us it’s the same way with gays.  It is literally incomprehensible to us how you can look at this as a group of people who deserve less rights than anyone else.  That is why we sputter and insult. 

Thanks for the explanation - but I already figured that out…from the onset.

Trying to explain why gays are the same as everyone else and deserve the same rights is like explaining that birds fly and grass is green.  It’s simply a fact to us, and it’s easy to forget that, for other people, it may not be.  So we need to educate them.

That’s my point. I am glad you could make it here too - despite the fact that you opened this comment with (surprise!) an insult. I would also like to add that when it comes to info - I am very persistent. Many other people are not - and the sputtering and the insults are a barrier. I am hoping you see that now too.

not saying this in a condescending manner.

Sure sounds that way - especially considering your opening sentence…but I’ll keep reading anyway - LOL!

I was raised in Texas, and homophobia is pretty common.  I never really seemed to much catch the bug, but it took me years to support things like gay marriage and the like, and my ex-husband being queer to actually mobilize me to vocally advocate this issue.  I was educated, too.

Were you insulted first?

If so, did it make you MORE receptive to the information?

You probably don’t think you’re a bigot, but, from our position, you are discriminating against a group of people who do not hurt you, who have nothing to do with you, and who do not want to inhibit your rights.  They do not want to abuse children.  They do not want to have sex in public.  They simply want the same rights you have - to publicly declare their love, receive the legal benefits that straight couples do, and to raise children in a safe, loving environment.

I really never thought that homosexuals want to abuse children or have sex in public or inhibit my rights….but thanks for clearing that up for me…Damn -  this does sound very condescending.

Also understand that, while some people do have pretty harsh opinions about bigots, one thing to think about is that bigotry generally stems from ignorance, and I try to give people the benefit of the doubt because they may very well be willing to assimilate knowledge that goes against what they have.  However, once the questioning party is informed, it is their job to use that information as they wish.

Reality check: What people are required to do when it comes to information and what they actually do are vastly different.

I do not believe that should give them the right to take their opinions to the polls, though, and I think that kind of thing leads to a dangerous tyranny of the majority.  We should not get to vote on the rights of other people; it would be like asking the South a hundred and fifty years ago to vote on the issue of banning slavery.  It’s not going to happen like that.

INTPagan on 11/05 at 04:03 PM

Sorry but, each person does get one vote, and people do vote with all kinds of things in their hearts and minds. That’s why it’s importnat to communicate with people so you can influence what’s in their hearts and minds when they cast their vote.


I am glad that I was able to get something out of this discussion amid all the insults, but now there’s the condescension and I am not sure I can stomach both in one day.

Comment #144: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  06:19 PM

“...with ‘legal arguments’ that would be laughed out of a high school civics class…”

That would be a horse laugh.

“...anger and disdain is what he gets.”

I’m trembling. Indifference and disdain is what you’ll get from me for your pretense of knowledge masquerading as informed opinion.

Comment #145: Ostiarius  on  11/05  at  06:20 PM

The anger is over other people’s attempts to impose “traditional” social norms on the rest of us. Which goes back to that “none of your business” slogan you’ve so assiduously ignored. Don’t write it off so quickly: it’s a concept that most Americans who aren’t wrapped up in hateful religious fundamentalism (i.e. the vast majority) could accept with ease.

Now if Ostiarius wants to believe in a homophobic Invisible Bearded Sky Man™, it’s none of my business. If he came out and admitted that’s why he supported Prop 8 instead of trying to justify it with “legal arguments” that would be laughed out of a high school civics class, I wouldn’t even bother engaging him in debate. But the minute he tries to interfere in the sex and romantic lives of mutually consenting adults, anger and disdain is what he gets.

Gracchus on 11/05 at 04:10 PM

I could be drowsy…but I have NO fucking idea what you just said - LOL!

Comment #146: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  06:21 PM

I’d also like to note that we’ve failed to move the frame on abortion, because it’s still considered a shameful thing to do. I agree that it’s trickier: an abortion is always the result of a conflict, not a joy as marriage is. But I think, as above, that by allowing ourselves to remain (to totally jack LGBT jargon) closeted as abortion experiencers or allies, has allowed conservatives to paint it as an obvious evil. Which, of course, it ain’t.

</threaddoublejack>

Comment #147: Erl  on  11/05  at  06:21 PM

That’s why I took you at face value.  That’s a very INTP thing to do.

INTPagan on 11/05 at 04:11 PM


Interestingly, I too am an INTP…

Comment #148: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  06:21 PM

“I’ve asked many people who pretend they’re only objecting to the ‘judicial activism’ to explain to me what in the In Re Marriage Cases decision was improper, an overreach of the court’s power, or activist.”

There is no clear constitutional warrant for the decision of Ron George and his three stooges, as was noted by the three justices who dissented.  (Remember them?)

Comment #149: Ostiarius  on  11/05  at  06:22 PM

ERL re/ Abortion: You are quite right.


If these issues could be framed (packaged) for easy digestion by certain types of people, we’d see a real shift - Just like we saw last night!

Comment #150: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  06:23 PM

“I could be drowsy…but I have NO fucking idea what you just said - LOL!”

Don’t worry. You’re not missing anything worth reading.

Comment #151: Ostiarius  on  11/05  at  06:23 PM

It seems to me that Uhura’s difficulties may occur because
1. she believes that biology is or should be destiny, and
2. she doesn’t actually understand biology very well.

This is probably an extremely common combination in the US.

Ambiguous genitalia are actually relatively common congenital abnormalities.  Since the penis and clitoris arise from the same embryonic tissue, it is easy for signals to get mixed and a genetic male may not develop fully masculine genitals (e.g. androgen insensitivity syndrome) or sometimes a female may have excessive testosterone and develop male-like organs.  However, in many such cases the external signs are not pronounced and the person is raised as a girl, with or without surgery to remove any malformed dangly bits.  The uterus is usually absent, so the person is typically infertile. 

One of the more interesting such developmental anomalies is 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, in which the enzyme that converts testosterone to dihydrotestosterone (DHT) is deficient or nonfunctional.  In the embryo, DHT, not testosterone per se, signals the proto-reproductive tissue to start along the “male” pathway; if it is missing the genitals will not develop normally even if adequate testosterone is present. Such individuals are born with micropenises and an overall effeminate appearance but may, at puberty, suddenly become fully fertile males, because that is more under the control of testosterone.  (But they never go bald, because the function of DHT in the adult is the maintenance of secondary sexual characteristics.  DHT also causes prostate enlargement, for some reason.)  In some societies such people are raised as girls till puberty, then they rather abruptly transition to men.  Biology as destiny?

So there are lots of ways in which the “penis and vagina” are actually *not* biological, at least not in any unambiguous sense.

As to the “pheromones,” it is controversial whether humans even detect them.  We don’t seem to have a functional vomeronasal organ, which is what detects pheromones in most other mammals.  (If your cat opens its mouth and curls its lip in a certain way called flehmening, it’s trying to get more air over the vomeronasal organ.)  There may be a small VN organ but it doesn’t appear to have any neurons connected to it, so although we may detect pheromones we probably make very limited use of them, certainly in comparison to other mammals.

At this time, we don’t even really know what causes heterosexual attraction.  It obviously has something to do with brain organization, but exactly what is not understood.

So it should be apparent that if one has more than an extremely superficial knowledge of biology, one would have a hard time stating that there are definite biological pathways to “male” and “female” and to heterosexuality.

It’s certainly true that one needs one set each of mostly-normal male organs and mostly-normal female organs to produce offspring. But “marriage” in our modern society isn’t only about children anyway.  I am legally married but do not have and never will have children.  Based on the rhetoric of a lot of gay marriage opponents, my marriage should be just as invalid as one between two men.

All that said, personally I think the solution is for the state to get out of the “marriage” business entirely.  My marriage certificate says it puts us into the condition of “Holy Matrimony.”  Why on earth should the state make such a religious judgement?  Civil marriage is a set of legal entitlements and privileges.  Why not just have civil unions for *everybody*?  Then if you want to get “married” at your church and get a certificate suitable for framing, knock yourself out.

Comment #152: Sialia  on  11/05  at  06:23 PM

“Uhura simply does not want to think of herself as a bigot. ‘I am convincible, but it is your fault that I am not convinced’ pushes the responsibility for her bigotry onto others.”

That pretty much nails it. Uhura’s “feelings” are no one’s responsibility but hers. And if you can’t come up with anything other than it just doesn’t feel right to you, Uhura, then you have *no case*. It does not matter what you feel.

I sometimes don’t feel so great about gay *adoption* myself (marriage, no problem). I have some notion that a mother and father are ideal. But there’s reality: my father was a useless alcoholic failure. My mother struggled because of it. In hindsight, I could have had a lot better childhood with two capable, loving fathers instead of the parents I actually got. So how can I begrudge gays adopting? They’ll do no worse than the “ideal” nuclear, or the single parent, or the orphanage, or the village, or any one of the environments that humans have created for child-rearing.

My feelings of “ick” at gay adoption just childish, just bad programming. I think if you’re really sincere, you’ll admit that yours are, too, and take the reasonable, grown-up view despite them.

Comment #153: wapsie  on  11/05  at  06:25 PM

Damn Siala,

I have a degree in Medical Laboratory Science and Technology - LOL!


Also - you may have missed the memo, but insulting people rarely convinces them that your position is worth consideration.


I will not even read beyond the first sentence of your comment now - and since it was aimed at me ....you wasted minutes of your life that you will not get back.

Comment #154: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  06:25 PM

Can someone PLEASE come up with a logical argument…. not based on the similarity between homosexuality and race… in favor of marriage and adoption rights for homosexuals so that I can switch sides?

First come up with a logical argument against marriage and adoption rights from homosexuals, that isn’t based on the fact that they’re different and that difference scares you.

The fact of the matter is that you know all the reasons homosexuals should be treated equally, they’re all the exact same reasons that black people should be treated equally, which is to say all the exact same reasons that all people should be treated equally.

But you flatly refuse to acknowledge that, so I don’t really know what is supposed to convince you otherwise.

Comment #155: dan  on  11/05  at  06:26 PM

I could be drowsy…but I have NO fucking idea what you just said - LOL!

Well, first I explained the category error behind your statement:

Don’t let your anger over other people’s acceptance of “traditional” social norms get in the way of your success.

And then I provided you with an argument for voting “no” for Prop 8: the sexual and romantic lives of other consenting adults are no-one else’s business, so vote “no” on making it the business of the state.

Clear? Your thoughts?

Comment #156: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  06:26 PM

Uhuru!-
First you admit gender is socially constructed, but sex is not.

First there is the issue of whether sex is socially constructed (1 out of 1000 births are neither fully male nor fully female) later. Bear in mind making marriage only between a man and a woman would mean 1 out of 1000 people might not be able to marry AT ALL, EVER. Because they have female anatomy, but male genes. Or were born with genitals not fully differentiated, but were given sex assignment surgery to fix that, but turn out in adulthood to have been made the wrong sex. Or absorbed a twin of the opposite sex in utero and have male and female genes in different cells within their bodies. 1 out of 1000 people may not be assigned a sex inarguably. This is a birth defect of a sort. You’re talking about discriminating against people because of a birth defect.

Secondly, gender being a social construct, I have a lot of masculine personality traits, and my husband has a lot of feminine ones. I tend to identify with male protagonists in novels (although I’ve gotten better about it over time)—he identifies more often with female protagonists. So if we adopted, I would be the masculine parent in spite of being female and my husband would be the motherly one.
If this is not a problem for you—and from what you say about gender and feminism, I think it isn’t—why do our genitals matter?
Our kids wouldn’t be seeing much of us with our trousers down.

Gay kids are raised by straight parents all the time—basically, throughout human history. Gay couples have been raising straight kids for decades. So parental sex doesn’t effect the children’s sexuality. And in our heteronormative society, you can be sure kids will get the message they are supposed to like the opposite sex.

Marriage WOULD protect the children of gays, and not just adoptive ones. Many gays try to live as straight before they acknowledge their unhappiness. They have biological children that they share custody of. Gay marriage and adoption would protect those kids in case of anything happening to the other parent, they would still have a two parent home; inheritance rights from the step parent; an extra person who can sign medical authorization, field trip permissions, sick notes, etc.

Frankly, one doesn’t parent with one’s genitals, so I don’t get the obsession you have with male and female. Even when it comes to role models—I’m more like my dad, my brother is more like my mom, but we both learned some ways of thinking from each parent, and neither logic nor compassion are actually sexed traits.

Comment #157: Samantha Vimes  on  11/05  at  06:26 PM

I was up till about 03:00 CDT watching the prop 8 returns—needless to say, I’m pretty despondent over them. At the same point, I know, in my heart and head, that this fundamental right will eventually be accepted as law - it may take up to 10 years, but it will happen.

To Uhura!: I think it takes some fortitude to come somewhere and express what you know to be an umpopular view and hang around for reasoned answers, and for that, I am glad.

The overall problem that I have with you’re argument is that you are beginning from the premise that you, or the state, are giving gays and lesbians some right. Whereas, in reality, you are preventing gays and lesbians from exorcising fundamental rights of association. Marriage, from a legal not religious, perspective is a simply contract which brings with it certain communal rights and privileges. We do not exclude non-religious or the irreligious from this contract, nor do we exclude those incapable of natural conception. This is the corrective logic found in the overturning of nearly all misagination laws. 

To put it in a clearer context, it would be illegal for me to interfere with your fundamental right to purchase a home in my neighborhood. You have the right to enter into a contract with the seller and I have no right to interfere due to the color of your skin. Similarly, the state has no right to decree what physical characteristics your husband or wife must posses. Should the state be the arbiter of your rights to choose the person who you wish to enter into the contract of marriage with?

Ultimately, the the problems of racism and homophobia do intersect—not because the experiences of those who have suffered from them are similar, but because they both place the state in the position of denying fundamental rights.

Comment #158: sjk  on  11/05  at  06:28 PM

Don’t worry. You’re not missing anything worth reading.

Funny material is always worth reading. If Uhura wants entertaining reading that’ll make her laugh, she should check out your bizarre “legal” arguments in the thread I linked about.

Comment #159: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  06:29 PM

Clear? Your thoughts?

Gracchus on 11/05 at 04:26 PM

Nope…


I live in VA, but thanks for trying.

Comment #160: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  06:30 PM

There is no clear constitutional warrant for the decision of Ron George and his three stooges, as was noted by the three justices who dissented.  (Remember them?)

Indeed, and I remember that they did not refer to their colleagues on the court as “stooges”, nor suggest that they acted in bad faith, only that their reasoning was incorrect.

When you say there was no ‘clear constitutional warrant,’ that suggests to me you haven’t actually read the decision itself, but you’ve read a little about it and have a vague idea that it rested on the majority finding Prop 22 in violation of some constitution or other. What do you mean by ‘clear constitutional warrant’, and why was the majority’s opinion incorrect in finding that a) Prop 22 required strict scrutiny and b) the State of California had not demonstrated a compelling interest in opposite-sex-only marriage?

Comment #161: mythago  on  11/05  at  06:31 PM

Smanthoid!

Spell my name correctly and I MAY read what you wrote.

Comment #162: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  06:31 PM

Gracchus, I don’t have a box of crayons handy or else I’d bring it down to your level by drawing you a nice picture.

Comment #163: Ostiarius  on  11/05  at  06:32 PM

I’ll give you another try, just ‘cause you’re sleepy. Step by step, asking questions to you, the undecided and conflicted voter:

1.  Do you believe that the sexual and romantic lives of consenting adults are no-one else’s business but their own?

I’ll be back after you ponder this complex question.

Comment #164: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  06:33 PM

Gracchus, I don’t have a box of crayons handy or else I’d bring it down to your level by drawing you a nice picture.

My, my ...I’m being too complex for Uhura, and too simplistic for Ostiarius. Pretty amusing.

Comment #165: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  06:35 PM

Damn….and the insults are aflyin’ again…


Anyway - getting back to the original pointof this discussion….The LGBT community - or rather advocates for the LGBT community should try to focus on packaging their message so that it has mass appeal.

People need to be made to think of the issue of homosexual marriage and adoption in a different way than they currently are. People are just now beginning to open their minds about race, and I believe a similar transformation can take place when it comes to sexuality….and even the topic of Abortion.

Comment #166: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  06:36 PM

I do believe that Uhura is helping to develope a cogent construct, though honestly I stopped reading her posts about halfway through.  I am also a straight, african american woman who happens to live in California and I donated to the No on 8 campaign because I feel very strongly that it is discriminatory and has its roots not only in bigotry and ignorance but from out of state.  Utah is now developing California’s policies.  It’s absurd on it’s face.  It is not exaggeration that the black community is homophobic.  I have friends who are intellectually honest on most things but just plain devolve when discussing gay rights.  It boggles the mind.  Honestly, I think the fault may lie in the running of the No on 8 campaign.  I just didn’t see enough about it until maybe 5 days before the election (commercials or otherwise).  The Yes on 8 folks were out in full force for at least 6 weeks prior to the election.  Also it took a long time for our so called political leaders to come out against it.  Swartzenager came out against it maybe a week before the election.  Diane Fienstein maybe two weeks prior.  Barrack Obama advised against it about a week prior but the Yes on 8 folks actually lied about his stand on the basis of a comment he had made somewhere else about gay marriage.  Let’s be clear, this proposition was not about gay marraige, it was about amending the California Constitution with a religious-based definition of a family construct. A supposedly secular document.  The entire existance of the proposition was inappropriate.

Comment #167: Meady  on  11/05  at  06:36 PM

Uhura - I’m not surprised (that you’re an INTP as well).  I understand why you’re getting the responses that you are, but that’s largely because, being the same type (although leaning X on the T-F axis), I understand some of the processes that might be backing the responses.  It’s also why I thought you might be asking the question to see what responses you got; I know that generally INTPs spend a great deal of time integrating information regardless of whether it supports or refutes their positions.  Accuracy is key.

To clarify why I am communicating the way that I am (i.e. outright calling you a bigot), it’s pretty much limited to this thread.  I’m talking to you a little, but I’m also indirectly talking to the people who are insulting you because they are not getting far.  In the process I am offending you, and for that I am sorry, but, by the same token, I’m pretty offended by the vote that you cast.  Right now neither of us is particularly happy with the other.  Hopefully we can come to an understanding.

I realize that you take “bigot” to be an insult; I would, too, but it’s partially because, in my head, there are two kinds of bigots.  There are the bigots you think of when you hear the word - assholes who cling to a particular viewpoint despite all logic and reason that would tell you otherwise because they just want to treat another group of people like shit.  I believe these people exist, but I think they are fewer than most people think.

The second kind is the kind who is simply not informed.  I believe you likely belong to this category, so I am calling you uninformed, and presuming that this lack of information causes bigoted views on your part.  I am giving you the benefit of the doubt enough to think that you simply have not been presented with enough information to tip the scales the other way.

I’m also laying it out, straight in front of you, what I’m saying and why I’m saying it.  Yes, I think you’re bigoted, but I also explained why rather than simply saying, “Fuck you, you damn bigot!”

So basically, in saying the things that I have, I’m saying to you, I think you’re a bigot, but here’s why (and, incidentally, you didn’t reply to the data I presented earlier - I would appreciate it if you did), and I am saying to them, stop insulting her already because she, and other people who ask, are potential allies.

That’s why I said that I tipped my hand - I took the internal processes that would happen when asked this question and externalized them for the sake of this one debate and explanation.  This is a debate I have seldom lost on the logic front, even if I have lost it on the ultimately convincing front (with other Marines while I was in).  For the most part I haven’t presented my arguments yet so much as dissected the rationale behind them.

And yes, I was called a bigot whenever I behaved like one.  It turned out I was one, so I am unoffended. 

Incidentally, why is it that you do not think that interracial marriage and gay marriage are analogous?

Comment #168: Atheist Feminazi  on  11/05  at  06:36 PM

My, my ...I’m being too complex for Uhura, and too simplistic for Ostiarius. Pretty amusing.

Gracchus on 11/05 at 04:35 PM


A good communicator tailors his / her message to the audience.

Comment #169: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  06:37 PM

A good communicator tailors his / her message to the audience.

A good audience listens.

Comment #170: Matt T.  on  11/05  at  06:39 PM

Uhura:

And from where I am standing, you are emotinal and irrational.

It’s funny (albeit hypocritical) that you should say so, given that you began your involvement in this thread by openly acknowledging that your own position was emotional and irrational.

You screwed yourself, though, by demanding that we all persuade you to abandon your admittedly emotional and irrational position, then proceeded to wonder aloud why most everyone decided that you were a preening, self-obsessed fuckstick with a gross overestimation of her capacity for reason and treated you accordingly.

In fact, that seems to be the pattern every time you show up here, with the added bonus that you spend a lot of time attempting to use your race as a shield from criticism. I get the impression that you’ve never really considered the possibility that the way people react to you is because of what you yourself are saying and doing, not because of white privilege.

Comment #171: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  11/05  at  06:40 PM

A good communicator tailors his / her message to the audience.

And a seeker of honest discourse actually engages in it. I tailored my proposal per your own request by simplifying it, and you continue to evade it. It’s a serious question, and the answer (see Ostiarius) is not as obvious at it would seem:

1.  Do you believe that the sexual and romantic lives of consenting adults are no-one else’s business but their own?

Comment #172: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  06:40 PM

No, ok, I figured out the burden of proof problem!

Logically speaking, the burden of proof falls on the defenders of only-straight marriage, as they make a positive claim: marriage ought only be between a man and a woman, in addition to the other properties previously and commonly recognized.

But practically speaking the burden of proof rests on us. That’s not a judgement of the rightness or wrongness of our position. It’s because we lost. So, in this sense, Uhura! is right. We’re the ones who need to retool and rearm and come back with something new. Saying in individual arguments that the anti-marriage-equality people have to defend themselves might work, but it won’t win over the electorate. Which is I think her point. It’s a bitch, and it oughtn’t be true. But it is.

Comment #173: Erl  on  11/05  at  06:40 PM

Ostiarius writes, “There is no clear constitutional warrant for the decision of Ron George and his three stooges, as was noted by the three justices who dissented.  (Remember them?)”

Dear Ostiarius: The “constitutional warrant” for the Calif. Supreme Court’s decision has been adequately explained to you by several commenters on the other thread you are trolling. Until we hear a substantive refutation of the constitutional law and theory arguments already made, you can drop the judicial activism excuse for animosity towards gays and lesbians.

Comment #174: Luke  on  11/05  at  06:40 PM

By the way, others are also invited to play the role of the conflicted voter.

Comment #175: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  06:44 PM

Plenty of people? Hermaphrodites are a very small part of the overall human population.

And yes - “appropriate” sexual behavior and “gender” are social constructs; however, the penis and the vagina and phermonal responses between males and females are biology.

Yes, a small part, but still a part that points out that the idea of male and female as the only two options is a socially constructed mechanism.

So your basic argument is that gay people (not to mention bisexuals or asexuals) are tricking us and don’t actually exist?  If human and animal biology were so simple as that we wouldn’t even be having this argument because there would be no gay people who are agitating for their rights.  There would be no gay people having gay sex. There would be no animals having gay sex. There would be no historical tradition of homosexual relationships. All of those things, however, exist. We don’t know why it happens biologically, but it does.  Your science isn’t very sound if you’re ignoring decades upon decades of factual evidence.

Comment #176: luzzleanne  on  11/05  at  06:44 PM

-My idea of a functional “family” is a mother, father, and kidlets.

Therefore single parents should have their children taken away and single people should not be allowed to adopt, even though there are children waiting to be adopted who would be better off with one parent than zero.

Comment #177: Grammar RWA  on  11/05  at  06:45 PM

Damn Siala,

I have a degree in Medical Laboratory Science and Technology - LOL!

Also - you may have missed the memo, but insulting people rarely convinces them that your position is worth consideration.

I will not even read beyond the first sentence of your comment now - and since it was aimed at me ....you wasted minutes of your life that you will not get back.

What were you insulted by, precisely?

It seems to me that Uhura’s difficulties may occur because
1. she believes that biology is or should be destiny, and
2. she doesn’t actually understand biology very well.

Plausible statements with a qualifier stating that they “may” be true is insulting?

Comment #178: Fashionably Evil  on  11/05  at  06:46 PM

We should not get to vote on the rights of other people; it would be like asking the South a hundred and fifty years ago to vote on the issue of banning slavery.  It’s not going to happen like that.

Actually INT, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were products legislative votes, necessary to overturn the effect of Dred Scott.  So if classes of people are not protected by the 14th amendment, either popular votes or legislative votes of some nature will likely be required.  We need to persuade more people that equal rights for gays should exist.

Comment #179: MiddleageLiberal  on  11/05  at  06:49 PM

Saying in individual arguments that the anti-marriage-equality people have to defend themselves might work, but it won’t win over the electorate. Which is I think her point. It’s a bitch, and it oughtn’t be true. But it is.

I don’t if I agree with that, though your probably right. In this case, particularly, Prop 8 passed in no small part due to outside interference and out-and-out lies from from the pro-bigotry folks. Now, that being said, gay marriage is still such a radical idea, no matter how logical the arguments that are for civil rights in this case, it still might’ve failed just due to basic human fear. Someone above or in a previous thread, I forget, said it’s just a matter of time, as evidence by the lack of the complete collapse of society in Candada, Massachusettes, etc. and so forth.

Still, given the reality of politics in America, you’re most likely right. Just to get our fellow Americans to be decent human beings, actually try to fulfill the promise and quit being such a hypocritical culture, we’re probably gonna have to brew up a better line of bullshit, politically speaking, than the pro-bigotry bunch.

Comment #180: Matt T.  on  11/05  at  06:50 PM

Uhura - I’m not surprised (that you’re an INTP as well).  I understand why you’re getting the responses that you are, but that’s largely because, being the same type (although leaning X on the T-F axis), I understand some of the processes that might be backing the responses.  It’s also why I thought you might be asking the question to see what responses you got; I know that generally INTPs spend a great deal of time integrating information regardless of whether it supports or refutes their positions.  Accuracy is key.

Damn - you got me.

...So basically, in saying the things that I have, I’m saying to you, I think you’re a bigot, but here’s why (and, incidentally, you didn’t reply to the data I presented earlier - I would appreciate it if you did), and I am saying to them, stop insulting her already because she, and other people who ask, are potential allies.

This is what I have been saying too.

Incidentally, why is it that you do not think that interracial marriage and gay marriage are analogous?

INTPagan on 11/05 at 04:36 PM

I felt this way based on the idea that race is a social construct, while sex (being male / xy or female / xx) is a biological reality. (Making allowances for hermaphrodites and other variations of course…)

ERL gave me a different context to place this in which, in my mind, looks like this:

Race = social construct (in the USA this is mainly based upon the biological realities of appearance…skin color, hair texture, etc.)

Sex = biological reality (xx / xy)

Sexual attraction = a biological or a social construct (unknown / mystery)

Marriage = social construct designed to benefit two humans by conferring certain social rights to them as a “couple”


It is unAmerican to deny US citizens social rights based on biological or social constructs.

 

This is very clean logic.

Comment #181: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  06:50 PM

Uhura!:

I doubt your sincerity about wanting to be converted, but…

Here goes:

Why should the state have the power to define who enters a contract with whom?  It certainly has the power to enforce contracts and you certainly have legal rights under the same but that is far different than defining with whom you may enter the contract.

I doesn’t matter to me who gets married as long as they are human and of a certain age.  The state telling me whom I can fall in love with-and form a union with makes as much sense as them telling where I can shop for clothes or buy ice cream.  To wit:

The basic premise of freedom is that one person, or a group of persons, may do as they like providing they do no harm.

Laws ban things because they are either mallum im se or mallum im prohibito (latin dictionary at another location).  In the first case they are banned because they do actual harm; e.g., murder, mayhem, etc.  In the second case they are banned because enough members of society want them banned not because of anything necessarily intrinsically bad about them.  Things in the second category violate the basic premise of freedom and are, therefore, by their nature, anti-democratic and evil.  Gay marriage bans are in the second category.

QED

Comment #182: Magis  on  11/05  at  06:50 PM

When presented with the question about whether homosexuals should be able to marry and adopt, my answer is NO.

The vast majority of gay parents adopting are one partner adopting the biological child of the other partner.

So if you’re opposed to that arrangement, what you’re really saying is that gay people should not be allowed to live together if one of them has a child.

Comment #183: Grammar RWA  on  11/05  at  06:51 PM

Then Magis - don’t communicate with me - because based on your opening statement I doubt that you are sincerely trying to assist.

Comment #184: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  06:54 PM

And going way back - and someone else may’ve brought it up - but this struck me:

-My idea of a functional “family” is a mother, father, and kidlets.

Is that all it takes? I mean, aside from the righteous and deserved indignation from single parents of all stripes - not to mention adoptive parents, foster folks and other “non-traditional” guardianship roles - there’s more to “family” than filling in the slots. What if the father’s abusive? What if the mother is? What if both drink to excess or just don’t like the kidlets? I’ve got an great-uncle that was such an abusive piece of shit, his daughter split at 16 and nobody in the extended family ever saw her again. That’s a superior family unit over two dudes or two women? Really? Just ‘case Mom, Dad, Biff and Sis are all in the picket fence don’t mean it’s a “family”.

Comment #185: Matt T.  on  11/05  at  06:56 PM

It is unAmerican to deny US citizens social rights based on biological or social constructs.

As many people have pointed out, and as you have consistently ignored, religion is a choice, and it is un-American to deny people rights based on that choice.

Your whole argument boils down to “it’s okay to hurt people because of choices they’ve made,” but the counterexample of religion demonstrates that this is not necessarily true.

So you have to make an argument for why living openly (a choice) as gay (not a choice) is a valid reason for hurting people.

Comment #186: Grammar RWA  on  11/05  at  06:56 PM

I went away from the keyboard to take care of some matters, grab some food, and enjoy a beautiful fall day.  Its while doing so that my mind cleared and I came to a discovery.

From where I read, Uhura! is convinced that homo/bisexuality is a choice, not something natural - regardless of evidence to the contrary.  Hence the massive disconnect: What we believe as fact and a natural basis for why gays should have the same rights as everyone else, she doesn’t believe - and doesn’t want to believe.  Which is why I think we’ve hit the Strother Martin line.

Comment #187: Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on  11/05  at  06:58 PM

OK - NOW I am really confused. I just concluded that it’s wrong to deny people social rights and RWA and Doug are saying WHAT?


Are the people here really so angry and disillusioned that you’ll actually seek to disagree when there is no longer a disagreement?

Comment #188: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:00 PM

It is unAmerican to deny US citizens social rights based on biological or social constructs.

This is very clean logic.

Excellent. Problem solved as far as you and I are concerned.

Of course, that was the basic argument being used by the “No on 8” side. The problem is that the “Yes on 8” were less interested than you were in presenting logical arguments for voting one way or the other. Bogus legal arguments about “judicial activism” was about as close to rational and reality-based as they got.

I may be wrong. Did the “Yes on 8” side present any arguments you found compelling?

Comment #189: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  07:01 PM

I suspect that the main objection of persuadable people to gay marriage is the prospect of children being conditioned to become gay, or that gayness is somehow infectious, if only in the sense that if society OKs gayness, more kids will become gay.  Otherwise, why the fear of having gay teachers?  Reference to studies that refute the notion that same sex parents turn otherwise straight kids into homosexuals would be helpful.

Oh, and my earlier post on the Reconstruction Amendments should have read that they were “were products of legislative votes.”

Comment #190: MiddleageLiberal  on  11/05  at  07:02 PM

Then Magis - don’t communicate with me - because based on your opening statement I doubt that you are sincerely trying to assist.

Magis’s was a good faith effort to address your question even though he doubts your sincerity.  The “answer my question, but don’t frame it any way that remotely questions my motivations!!!” line is getting old.

Comment #191: Fashionably Evil  on  11/05  at  07:02 PM

HA HA!

Comment #192: wtf  on  11/05  at  07:02 PM

From where I read, Uhura! is convinced that homo/bisexuality is a choice, not something natural - regardless of evidence to the contrary.  Hence the massive disconnect: What we believe as fact and a natural basis for why gays should have the same rights as everyone else, she doesn’t believe - and doesn’t want to believe.  Which is why I think we’ve hit the Strother Martin line.

It doesn’t matter though. Let’s imagine for a moment that all the science is wrong and being gay is entirely a choice. It doesn’t automatically follow that this is a bad choice for which people deserve to be hurt. To make that leap, Uhura has to have come into the discussion with the preconception that being gay is not just a choice, but a bad choice that makes one a bad person who deserves to be punished.

Comment #193: Grammar RWA  on  11/05  at  07:03 PM

Also - you may have missed the memo, but insulting people rarely convinces them that your position is worth consideration.

Are the people here really so angry and disillusioned that you’ll actually seek to disagree when there is no longer a disagreement?

Comment #194: Matt T.  on  11/05  at  07:03 PM

Uhura!:

If you are sincere, I tender my apologies.  It is just that we often see people feigning sincerety to advance a point.

My basic premise is that it should not be anybody’s business.  Gays should require our permission to form a contract that would, if not for their matching genders, be otherwise legal.

Comment #195: Magis  on  11/05  at  07:04 PM

By the way, I’d amend your:

Sex = biological reality (xx / xy)

To read “Sex for Purposes of Reproduction.”

Comment #196: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  07:04 PM

Fashionably evil - you read it…because I will not be subjecting myself to that type of thing in this thread any more.

I have had my fill.

Comment #197: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:04 PM

OK - NOW I am really confused. I just concluded that it’s wrong to deny people social rights and RWA and Doug are saying WHAT?

Are the people here really so angry and disillusioned that you’ll actually seek to disagree when there is no longer a disagreement?

I’m sorry, there’s a lot of comments here. Did I miss the one where you said that you’ve decided it’s wrong to stop gay people from getting married and adopting children?

Comment #198: Grammar RWA  on  11/05  at  07:05 PM

Fashionably evil - you read it…because I will not be subjecting myself to that type of thing in this thread any more.

I have had my fill.

And she ducks out just as things are getting interesting. Brava!

Comment #199: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  07:06 PM

It doesn’t matter though. Let’s imagine for a moment that all the science is wrong and being gay is entirely a choice. It doesn’t automatically follow that this is a bad choice for which people deserve to be hurt. To make that leap, Uhura has to have come into the discussion with the preconception that being gay is not just a choice, but a bad choice that makes one a bad person who deserves to be punished.

Grammar RWA on 11/05 at 05:03 PM

And I am not willing to make that leap…but many others are…as evidenced by the results of the cote of Prop 8. Looking at this from the lens of Americans voting to deny other Americans social rights - it’s easy to see.

Comment #200: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:08 PM

My basic premise is that it should not be anybody’s business.  Gays should require our permission to form a contract that would, if not for their matching genders, be otherwise legal.

Magis on 11/05 at 05:04 PM


Your line of reasoning = Mind your business

And, it could be used against you when it comes to people’s individual votes re/ the definition of marriage.

Not wise: Soial rights for all Americans are everyone’s business. And, as Americans, we should be encouraged to believe that we have a responsibility to vote in a way that ensures all Americans receive equal social rights.

Comment #201: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:10 PM

And I am not willing to make that leap…but many others are…as evidenced by the results of the cote of Prop 8.

What do you think made their arguments so compelling to so many people?

Comment #202: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  07:11 PM

And she ducks out just as things are getting interesting. Brava!

Gracchus on 11/05 at 05:06 PM

Not ducking out. Refusing to engage certain lines of conversation in this thread. BTW- I double dog dare you only works on the testosterone filled sacks.

Comment #203: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:11 PM

What do you think made their arguments so compelling to so many people?

Gracchus on 11/05 at 05:11 PM

I think that their arguments appealed to their default position: Gays are just “different” therefore they are a threat to “us”....

It works too.

Comment #204: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:12 PM

Fashionably evil - you read it…because I will not be subjecting myself to that type of thing in this thread any more.

No, seriously, there was nothing that I could read as insulting anywhere in either of those posts.

Comment #205: Fashionably Evil  on  11/05  at  07:13 PM

And, as Americans, we should be encouraged to believe that we have a responsibility to vote in a way that ensures all Americans receive equal social rights.

If you really believe this, why in the name of Johnny Mack Brown are you against homosexuals having the right to enjoy all the legal and economic benefits of marriage like straight people do and why are you against them adopting children?

Comment #206: Matt T.  on  11/05  at  07:13 PM

Sorry, misread what you were trying to say. Too complex, Virginia, LOL, all of that. Ok…

I think that their arguments appealed to their default position: Gays are just “different” therefore they are a threat to “us”....

Do you think that default position is reasonable?

Comment #207: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  07:15 PM

Your perceptions are not the issue here.

Comment #208: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:16 PM

Do you think that default position is reasonable?

Gracchus on 11/05 at 05:15 PM

In terms of animals trying to survive in the big cruel world - yes. But, we have opposable thumbs and have built cities, transportation & communication systems, and rockets. We should be above that.

Comment #209: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:17 PM

Your perceptions are not the issue here.

Indeed they aren’t. I’m asking you, as a conflicted voter who would like to be convinced.

Comment #210: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  07:18 PM

Wow, I can’t believe so many people actually responded to “Uhura.” So clearly just a bigot.  I mean, did you even TRY to find out the answers to all of your questions before coming here and demanding that everyone here give you all the answers? That’s lazy, and rude.  And you refuse to listen to most of the people here, and then you continue to demand that they answer you!  Wow. 

Yeah, she’s had her fill now, I guess getting over 100 people to respond to her baiting and bigotry was all she really wanted.  Nice.

Comment #211: boogley  on  11/05  at  07:18 PM

Matt is hopelessly late. Let’s give him time to read.

Comment #212: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:18 PM

Wow, I can’t believe so many people actually responded to “Uhura.” So clearly just a bigot.  I mean, did you even TRY to find out the answers to all of your questions before coming here and demanding that everyone here give you all the answers?boogley on 11/05 at 05:18 PM


My bad - I thought this was a discussion board….where…like…people discussed shit.

Comment #213: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:19 PM

“Uhura!”:

Nichelle Nichols called.  She’s suing for defamation of character.

Comment #214: Maureen  on  11/05  at  07:20 PM

Indeed they aren’t. I’m asking you, as a conflicted voter who would like to be convinced.

Gracchus on 11/05 at 05:18 PM

 

 

That wasa not directed at you. You cockblocked my post to someone who said THEy didn’t see anything insulting being posted here -yayaya

Comment #215: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:20 PM

In terms of animals trying to survive in the big cruel world - yes. But, we have opposable thumbs and have built cities, transportation & communication systems, and rockets. We should be above that.

So, just to clarify, you’re saying that this default position is unreasonable in the context of a human society with laws and constitutions? Or (let’s be more specific) in the context of the state of California ca. 2008.

Comment #216: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  07:21 PM

When presented with the question about whether homosexuals should be able to marry and adopt, my answer is NO.

And, as Americans, we should be encouraged to believe that we have a responsibility to vote in a way that ensures all Americans receive equal social rights.

Comment #217: Matt T.  on  11/05  at  07:22 PM

I feel compelled to repost this:


Another side note: I used to frequent Pandagon awhile back when it was Jessie & Ezra…but then I noticed a change….it’s mostly White people who are very liberal yet somehow very narrow minded when it comes to being able to discuss their POV with people who were not exactly on board with their line of thinking. Holy dichotomy batman! How can you be an open minded person with a closed mind?

A few times there were discussions about “Black” issues, but the only Black person folks would listen to is Pam! I got tired of it and stated to lurk….then I stopped commenting and then I stopped visiting….until now.

Comment #218: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:23 PM

Matt is hopelessly late. Let’s give him time to read.

Man, I’ve read the entire thread. You haven’t moved one iota from that original post. I do admire your dancing, though.

Comment #219: Matt T.  on  11/05  at  07:24 PM

So, just to clarify, you’re saying that this default position is unreasonable in the context of a human society with laws and constitutions? Or (let’s be more specific) in the context of the state of California ca. 2008.

Gracchus on 11/05 at 05:21 PM

 


I think it’s unreasonable within the context of humans existing in socially dependent civilized groups who claim to have achieved a certain level of intellectual and technological ability / prowess.

Comment #220: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:24 PM

Thanks Matt!

I have noted your opinon and I am choosing not to waste my time or yours any longer.

Comment #221: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:25 PM

Well, at least she’s a sort of entertaining troll.  I think I have troll bingo.  Wheeee! Thanks for playing Uhura.

Comment #222: boogley  on  11/05  at  07:26 PM

I think it’s unreasonable within the context of humans existing in socially dependent civilized groups who claim to have achieved a certain level of intellectual and technological ability / prowess.

And is California (or Virginia) in the year 2008 a collection of humans existing in socially dependent civilized groups who claim to have achieved a certain level of intellectual and technological ability / prowess?

Comment #223: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  07:27 PM

Question: What are people hoping to achieve by calling someone a “troll” ?

Comment #224: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:27 PM

I have noted your opinon and I am choosing not to waste my time or yours any longer.

Well, I guess I’ll have to cry myself to sleep tonight knowing a intellectually dishonest, passive-aggressive, ill-informed bigot doesn’t value my opinions. I don’t know what I’ll do with myself, it’s like finding out Michael Savage things you’re a wimp.

Comment #225: Matt T.  on  11/05  at  07:28 PM

Poor Matt T!  Try not to take it too hard, ok?

Comment #226: boogley  on  11/05  at  07:29 PM

And is California (or Virginia) in the year 2008 a collection of humans existing in socially dependent civilized groups who claim to have achieved a certain level of intellectual and technological ability / prowess?

Gracchus on 11/05 at 05:27 PM


OK - you’re talking about Prop 8 and I am talking about the overarching theme of social equality for homosexuals….What’s wrong with this picture?

First - I live in VA, so I did not vote on Prop 8.

Many people in CA voted for it. No amount of vitriol or reverse engineering of arguments troll calling or general asshollery is going to change that outcome…but maybe with the right marketing, future outcomes can be changed.

Does that help you?

Comment #227: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:31 PM

Your perceptions are not the issue here.

Well, in so far as the whole thing seems to be about you, this is probably true.

I guess I should be more blunt: your willingness to perceive insults does not support your assertion that you’re here to learn.

Comment #228: Fashionably Evil  on  11/05  at  07:31 PM

Well, I guess I’ll have to cry myself to sleep tonight knowing a intellectually dishonest, passive-aggressive, ill-informed bigot doesn’t value my opinions. I don’t know what I’ll do with myself, it’s like finding out Michael Savage things you’re a wimp.

Matt T.  on 11/05 at 05:28 PM

Wow!

Comment #229: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:32 PM

Well, in so far as the whole thing seems to be about you, this is probably true.

I thought this was about Prop 8 and social equality for homosexuals.

I guess I should be more blunt: your willingness to perceive insults does not support your assertion that you’re here to learn.

Fashionably Evil on 11/05 at 05:31 PM

OK.

Comment #230: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:33 PM

OK - you’re talking about Prop 8 and I am talking about the overarching theme of social equality for homosexuals….What’s wrong with this picture?

Prop 8 goes directly to your overarching theme. Think of it as a case study.

First - I live in VA, so I did not vote on Prop 8.

Understood.

Many people in CA voted for it. No amount of vitriol or reverse engineering of arguments troll calling or general asshollery is going to change that outcome…but maybe with the right marketing, future outcomes can be changed.

That’s where I’m going…trying to figure out the marketing approach.

We’re at the point where you’re asking us to use reason-based to change (in the context of Prop. 8 or some other state’s equivalent) or overcome the unreasonable “default position” of an undecided voter. Fair enough?

Comment #231: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  07:36 PM

It doesn’t matter though. Let’s imagine for a moment that all the science is wrong and being gay is entirely a choice. It doesn’t automatically follow that this is a bad choice for which people deserve to be hurt. To make that leap, Uhura has to have come into the discussion with the preconception that being gay is not just a choice, but a bad choice that makes one a bad person who deserves to be punished.

There is that too.  I get the whole “Convince me that gay marriage is OK, even though I refuse to believe any of the fundamental constructs that lead you to believe its OK” vibe. 

Hence Strother Martin.  “What we’ve got here is… failure to communicate. Some (wo)men you just can’t reach. “

Comment #232: Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on  11/05  at  07:36 PM

boogley,
Oh, I’ll live. It’ll be tough, but I’ve got plenty of Doug Sahm and Otis Redding records to get me through. Plus, ya know, the knowledge that eventually, though it may take a lifetime, the bigots will lose, no matter how much that dissemble and no matter how badly they twist logic to protect their tiny little fears. It might not happen in my lifetime, but it will happen.

Now that I think about it, for the longest time, I didn’t think America would get over itself enough to elect a Black president in my lifetime. I thought the bigotry there was just too strong. How about that.

Comment #233: Matt T.  on  11/05  at  07:36 PM

Matt is hopelessly late. Let’s give him time to read.

I’ve read the whole thread now. So, I ask again:

Did I miss the one where you said that you’ve decided it’s wrong to stop gay people from getting married and adopting children?

Saying “It is unAmerican to deny US citizens social rights based on biological or social constructs” and expecting everyone to read your mind doesn’t do much for us, because you presumably came into the thread believing that was un-American and yet still thought it would be a good thing to prevent gay marriage and adoption by gay people.

Please just say what you mean in clear language. At least a few people here have done you the same courtesy already.

Comment #234: Grammar RWA  on  11/05  at  07:36 PM

Wow. I had no idea this thread would leap off of the tracks, but it took my mind off of the pain of those amendments. Thanks Uhura! Beam ‘er up.

Comment #235: Pam Spaulding  on  11/05  at  07:38 PM

I think that all the “troll” callers and insulters and bashers should really pause and think here.

If you had the opportunity to speak to a mega auditorium full of people who voted yes on Prop 8 is this how you would convince them to reconsider their position? I this how you would persuade them to listen to your point of view? Do you think you would be successful?

I realize that many young and idealistic people make up the bulk of the folks who post here (at least that’s the impression I get) and I recall being young and idealistic too - so I feel like I have to repeat this to you:

For social change, you’ll need as many allies in the “mainstream” as you can get…. That’s how civil rights for Blacks and suffrage for women were won.

Please consider what I am saying here.

Comment #236: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:39 PM

Wow y’all. This isn’t quite at   “Oh How I Envy American Students” level yet, but it’s up there.

Comment #237: Southern Sans Crazy  on  11/05  at  07:40 PM

Pam - I don’t even know why you’re participating in that bullshit. You should know better.

Comment #238: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:40 PM

Not-Uhura:

Can someone PLEASE come up with a logical argument…. not based on the similarity between homosexuality and race… in favor of marriage and adoption rights for homosexuals so that I can switch sides?

It is your side that is trying to take away a fundamental constitutional right. The burden of proof is on you.

Comment #239: Rebecca  on  11/05  at  07:40 PM

Wow. I had no idea this thread would leap off of the tracks, but it took my mind off of the pain of those amendments.

Suddenly, I hear Ozzy Osbourne’s voice in my head.

Comment #240: Matt T.  on  11/05  at  07:40 PM

My nickel’s worth, as a Black man and a straight (but not narrow) progressive who supports individual sexual autonomy.

Uhura…it is not anyone’s business or perogative to “convert” you to their position, especially since you have made your opposition to gay and lesbian folks having the same rights and responsibilities as “straight” people perfectly clear. It is the equivalent of Black folk having to defend their humanity to Klansmen, or Jewish folk defending their humanity to neo-Nazis.

You say that homosexuals should have no right to be raising children??  I have some news for you that you might not know: homosexuals are ALREADY raising children as we speak…and the world isn’t falling off its axis. If straight single fathers and mothers are capable of raising children and collectively pooling their resources to aid and nurture their children, then why can’t gay and lesbian people be allowed the same ability. After all, they are first and foremost HUMAN BEINGS before they make up their mind about sexual preference.

And as for gay and lesbian and bisexual folk deciding to institutionalize their love through marriage: well, nothing in any law would force ANY church who chooses not to recognize such arrangements to do so….if they didn’t like it, they could still choose not to perform them. So that strawman won’t work, either.

Personally, I think that when you cut through all the bullshit about “religious freedom” and “God/Nature created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve or Alana and Sue”, the deep down burning issue isn’t family relationships or even concern for children.  It is, ultimately about SEX….especially the fear that if we don’t prevent gay/lesbian/bisexual folk (and this applies to sex workers, “slutty women”, and all other opponents of sexual fascism) from getting “access” by raising and adopting children, then the dominant sexual reactionism will lose its hegemony. In other words, this is an issue of the Religious Right attempting to use the State to gain back the power to control and restrict sexuality that it is losing steadily at the pulpit.

That Uhura mines traditional antiracist verbiage about White “elitist” gays and lesbians attempting to ride the civil rights movement and anti-Black racism to promote their own “sex” agenda only makes her ultimate attempt to justify anti-sex and anti-gay bigotry that much worse.

Sorry, Uhura, but some of us progressive Black folk can see right through you…and know a bigot when they see one. Those Black and Brown folk who voted for Prop 8 and enabled it to pass only get my deepest contempt…and those who attempt to pass it off as “progressive policy” deserve that much worse. Equality is for everyone or no one; and an injury to one is ultimately an injury to all.

Finally, Uhura….you came here wanting answers, not the other way around.  If you can’t deal with the answers, then don’t ask the questions to begin with.


Anthony

Comment #241: Anthony Kennerson  on  11/05  at  07:41 PM

Saying “It is unAmerican to deny US citizens social rights based on biological or social constructs” and expecting everyone to read your mind doesn’t do much for us, because you presumably came into the thread believing that was un-American and yet still thought it would be a good thing to prevent gay marriage and adoption by gay people.


Ok..this is just getting silly.

Comment #242: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:41 PM

My bad - I thought this was a discussion board….where…like…people discussed shit.

I’ve read the whole thread and I don’t see where you’ve discussed anything. All I see is that you’re asking someone to wave a magic wand and make you not prejudiced against gay people.

Nobody can do that, U. You have to defeat your own prejudice yourself.

Comment #243: Chet  on  11/05  at  07:42 PM

Pam - I don’t even know why you’re participating in that bullshit. You should know better.

Jeezy creezy, the rudeness just builds and builds.

Comment #244: Well, what?  on  11/05  at  07:42 PM

Pam - I don’t even know why you’re participating in that bullshit. You should know better.

Wow.  Line.  Over.

Comment #245: Fashionably Evil  on  11/05  at  07:43 PM

Finally, Uhura….you came here wanting answers, not the other way around.  If you can’t deal with the answers, then don’t ask the questions to begin with.

Anthony

Anthony Kennerson on 11/05 at 05:41 PM


Says the closeted Black Male homosexual.


Sorry A-dawg…but no straight Black Man I know would have said anything of that nature or even clicked into this thread.

Comment #246: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:43 PM

I fail to see how it’s “name-calling” to call someone a bigot because they’re bigoted.

Comment #247: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/05  at  07:44 PM

Saying “It is unAmerican to deny US citizens social rights based on biological or social constructs” and expecting everyone to read your mind doesn’t do much for us, because you presumably came into the thread believing that was un-American and yet still thought it would be a good thing to prevent gay marriage and adoption by gay people.

Ok..this is just getting silly.

Would you do me the favor of explaining why? I honestly do not know what you’re saying, and that’s why I’ve asked three times now.

Comment #248: Grammar RWA  on  11/05  at  07:44 PM

Sorry A-dawg…but no straight Black Man I know would have said anything of that nature or even clicked into this thread.

Wow, so you’re thoroughly ignorant of EVERYone, not just gays. On just precisely how many levels do you suck ass, U?

Comment #249: Well, what?  on  11/05  at  07:45 PM

Also - you may have missed the memo, but insulting people rarely convinces them that your position is worth consideration.

realize that many young and idealistic people make up the bulk of the folks who post here (at least that’s the impression I get) and I recall being young and idealistic too - so I feel like I have to repeat this to you:

Comment #250: Matt T.  on  11/05  at  07:45 PM

If you had the opportunity to speak to a mega auditorium full of people who voted yes on Prop 8 is this how you would convince them to reconsider their position? I this how you would persuade them to listen to your point of view? Do you think you would be successful?

And what, precisely, did gay people get by asking nice? Ever since they started these knock-down, drag-out fights for constitutional inequality in the courts, multiple states now provide for same-sex marriage.

Prior to that, what was the result? DOMA. Legislative measures in almost every state. Asking nice hasn’t worked out so well. Taking, that’s been working pretty well, and there’s every indication it will continue to work. Quite frankly it’s completely irrelevant what a roomful of Yes on Prop 8 voters think, or would need to hear to be convinced; next time, there’ll be a lot less of them.

Comment #251: Chet  on  11/05  at  07:46 PM

Wow.  Line.  Over.

Fashionably Evil on 11/05 at 05:43 PM

Says the closeted Black Male homosexual.

Sorry A-dawg…but no straight Black Man I know would have said anything of that nature or even clicked into this thread.

Uhura!  on 11/05 at 05:43 PM

Heh. B’lieve you pulled the trigger just a bit too soon, there, bubba.

Comment #252: Matt T.  on  11/05  at  07:47 PM

Oh, and since you asked for a logical argument, Uhura, here’s a short and sweet one.

Homosexuals are HUMAN BEINGS. Just as “straight people” are.

And if David Vitter, Ted Haggard, David Duke, and Sarah Palin are allowed to have and raise children, then I fail to see why Ellen deGeneres, George Takei, Margaret Cho, or any other normal human being who happens to be gay or lesbian should be denied that same right.

Good enough for you???


Anthony

Comment #253: Anthony Kennerson  on  11/05  at  07:48 PM

Amanda,

I know how this works. If I engage you, you’ll get angry and ban me. And you’ll justify it because a few people came in here and called me a troll, when I was really just interested in finding a safe environment to speak with people who have a different POV than mine about these issues. IRL - it’s very difficult to get people to tell you the real deal about this topic….if they even admit to you they’re gay in the first place.


I doubt you have read everything so I’ll just tell you that some people have already given me some info to think about and some points to ponder - so now this is just banter and insults. So not productive and a waste of everyone’s time.

You have a wonderful night.

Comment #254: Uhura!  on  11/05  at  07:49 PM

exit polls show 70% of blacks, (with black women at 74%) voted for the amendment. That’s about 20 points higher than any other racial group.

Why?

Comment #255: seeker6079  on  11/05  at  07:49 PM

Not-Uhura, your argument against the use of the race parallel seems to be that race is biological, and sexual orientation is not necessarily biological. (Ignoring evidence to the contrary.)

But why would that matter? Sex, as you have so lovingly pointed out, is biological. Why should my right to marry another person be restricted by that person’s sex, when it is not restricted by their race?

Comment #256: Rebecca  on  11/05  at  07:49 PM

When someone says: “Race is a socially created construct, (so is gender) but sex is not.”

And is countered with: “There are plenty of people who have extra chromosomes, ambiguous genitalia, etc.”

And then responds: “Plenty of people? Hermaphrodites are a very small part of the overall human population.”

You are dealing with a troll.  Uhura! says there are only two sexes.  Acknowledges there are a small number of humans who are not one of those two groups, but insists that there are still only two groups.  I’m all for trying to convince people.  But people who reason like this cannot be convinced, and we’d all be better moving on to trying to convince the next person.

Comment #257: gex  on  11/05  at  07:49 PM

Not wise: Soial rights for all Americans are everyone’s business. And, as Americans, we should be encouraged to believe that we have a responsibility to vote in a way that ensures all Americans receive equal social rights.

Non sequitur….

We have a responsibility to make sure everyone receives equal rights so you vote against equal rights.  Am I missing something here?

Comment #258: Magis  on  11/05  at  07:50 PM

when I was really just interested in finding a safe environment to speak with people who have a different POV than mine about these issues

The person who accuses a straight black man of being other than he claims, simply because she dislikes what he has to say, wants a “safe environment” to spew her bullshit. It is to…barf.

Comment #259: Well, what?  on  11/05  at  07:52 PM

(officially calls the WAHmbulance for Uhura’s fee-fees)

Comment #260: Well, what?  on  11/05  at  07:53 PM

BWWWHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAA!!!! 

Ahhhh, sir…just so you know, I am as straight and hetero as any typical American…and I happen to like women. Ever noticed my blog??? I just don’t happen to be as dipshit narrow in my thinking as you apparantly are.

But..so nice of you to flash your ass and show off your true colors. Next time, bring your own hood and robe, fool.


Anthony

Comment #261: Anthony Kennerson  on  11/05  at  07:54 PM

@ Anthony—I checked out your blog. And damn, boy, if that’s not straight then I am seriously misinformed about straightness.

Comment #262: Well, what?  on  11/05  at  07:57 PM

It is unAmerican to deny US citizens social rights based on biological or social constructs.

This is very clean logic.

Funny, that’s what No on 8 people have been saying all this while. What have the Yes on 8 people been saying?

While you talk abour repackaging and making things more appealing to the masses, in a sense it feels like you’re saying “well, the average person is too stupid to get this, so you need to dumb it down further so they’ll get it”.

And you got that boiled down version above there (^), but it still missed its mark. Even for a non-American like me, it quite simply boils down to “gays are people too, so there’s no reason why they should be disallowed from marrying, if that is what they really want”. What more could one ask for?

Comment #263: Jha  on  11/05  at  07:59 PM

The person who accuses a straight black man of being other than he claims, simply because she dislikes what he has to say, wants a “safe environment” to spew her bullshit. It is to…barf.

It’s not even that. It’s the suggestion that homosexuality is something “wrong”, that it’s a slur. Doesn’t matter if the cat’s straight or not. “Yeah, right, fag” isn’t an argument.

Comment #264: Matt T.  on  11/05  at  08:00 PM

It should be noted, though, that younger people (age 18-34), which I assume includes people of all races, voted down Prop 8 by nearly a 2-1 margin.  So maybe, this is more of a “old head” religious divide rather than a racial one….attempts by folk like Uhura aside.

And…remember that Blacks make up only 6.2% of the population, and the bulk of the support for Prop 8 came from exclusively White fundamentalist, right-wing enclaves.

Not saying that there isn’t a lot to answer to from Black evangelicals about anti-gay bigotry, but context is everything.


Anthony

Comment #265: Anthony Kennerson  on  11/05  at  08:00 PM

Nor, for that matter, the insinuation that ALL straight African-American males think exactly the same about any particular topic, much less this one, much less they all think the way this one yay-hoo thinks they should. That’s just friggin’ stupid, man.

Comment #266: Matt T.  on  11/05  at  08:02 PM

Uhura, you’re getting owned, you don’t know it, and I’ll tell you why.

You’re operating right now in inferior feeling judgment, and feeling, being a subjective rational function (if you don’t know what I’m talking about that’s okay), is not going to be convinced by objective rational arguments - thinking ones.

Your introductory argument essentially boiled down to your feeling that gays are wrong.  Facts are not going to sway you here.  I half-sympathize with your want to be convinced, but you are coming from the wrong place to the wrong place to be convinced.

You’re also making arguments that no INTP in their right primary function would make here, which further confirms to me that you’re coming from a place of inferior feeling rather than primary thinking.

Stop using your subjective judgments and use your head.  It’ll take you where you need to go.  No one else can help you there.

Comment #267: INTPagan  on  11/05  at  08:03 PM

Well, the answer is to appeal to the emotional and irrational sides of those mainstream (i.e. non relgious fundie) undecideds in a positive way. Show them that gay couples aren’t demons whose every action isn’t driven by a social agenda. Show them supportive and caring couples. If the undecided voters gets it, good. If they don’t, that’s one lost. Marketing can only do so much.

As it happens, that approach was used by the “No on Prop 8” side, and I don’t know what more they could possibly do to appeal to the mainstream (which has little to do with religious fundamentalist lifestyles).

If you had the opportunity to speak to a mega auditorium full of people who voted yes on Prop 8 is this how you would convince them to reconsider their position?

This site is not that forum—it’s explicitly partisan. Sure, clumsy Xtian fantasist trolls like Ostiarius stop by. But no-one’s trying to change his mind because his “default position” is clearly cemented in place, and it’s clear he’s too busy trying to come up with justifications to make it seem reasonable in the context of California, 2008.

The forums you’re talking about are the comments section of MSM Web sites. But as Matt T. pointed out at 5:47PM, there’s something else at work with your concerns and dissatisfactions about homosexuality, Down a little Lower.

It was fun, though. Night!

Comment #268: Gracchus  on  11/05  at  08:04 PM

OOPS…8.2% refers to the Black electorate in Cali.  Should have made that a bit clearer.


Anthony

Comment #269: Anthony Kennerson  on  11/05  at  08:04 PM

It’s not even that. It’s the suggestion that homosexuality is something “wrong”, that it’s a slur. Doesn’t matter if the cat’s straight or not. “Yeah, right, fag” isn’t an argument.

It’s both/and. Even if she doesn’t mean to imply anything negative about gayness (which, c’mon, she does, because she’s a bigoted fuck), she still is calling him a liar just for being outside the realm of her preference.

Either that or she only knows other shitty bigots like herself, and *honestly* thinks nothing can be any different, ever, in the world.

Comment #270: Well, what?  on  11/05  at  08:05 PM

@ Anthony—I checked out your blog. And damn, boy, if that’s not straight then I am seriously misinformed about straightness.

Dude, what is it, porn, or what?

Comment #271: INTPagan  on  11/05  at  08:05 PM

A few months ago, I wanted to go fishing. I was reminded by a friend that this would require first obtaining a fishing license. So I inquired into that, and was stunned to learn that the law discriminates against would-be fishers who refuse or are unable to pay for the licensing fee. The inequality of that moment was seared into my brain forever, and in that moment, I realized that I was a second-class citizen. Not only did the license requirement discriminate against the unlicensed, but the license fee discriminated against those who had not paid the fee. Not only that, but the penalty for fishing without a license directly stigmatized the non-licensed, actually fining them! Discrimination all around — and all we are talking about is fishing.

Imagine a world where everyone could get a license — merely by having a heartbeat. Imagine that everyone could opt against having a license. There would be no need to pay a license fee, nor any need to pay a fine for fishing without a license. Imagine such a world — I wonder if you can — a brotherhood of man.

Now, imagine a world in which everyone could get married, whether gay or straight. We wouldn’t have to worry about fining or jailing gay couples for getting married; they would be able to marry without any legal or criminal penalties to their freedom. What’s that you say? There are no penalties imposed on gay couples who have a wedding ceremony, who actually live openly as married citizens? You mean they already have the right to engage in marriage, unlike me being denied my right to fish without a license? Well, if they already have the freedom to marry, then what’s all this flurry about, concerning how “unjust” it is to deny them a license? No cops are going to bust in on them in the middle of their marriage ceremony. No anti-homosex police are going to be prowling around the neighborhoods of married gay couples, shining a flashlight through their window in the dead of night, seeking to jail them for sodomy; the Supreme Court declared anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas).

So what the hell are gays really after, in the act of seeking a marriage license? I’ll tell you: they seek social legitimacy of homosexuality. It’s not about promoting equality between the licensed and non-licensed, since the freedom to marry is already there (freedom of assembly, even under bedsheets, is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution). It’s about obtaining social validation. Pure and simple. Gays aren’t just out to quietly live their lives within the context of marriage. They’re promoting gay marriage in order to massage social attitudes, using the liberalization of policies on marriage licensing as a vehicle of cultural engineering. The debate is cast as one of equality, when in fact what it’s really about is who gets to stigmatize who, and along with that what ideas should be stigmatized.

I condemn conservatives for the same social engineering mentality. Why have a license at all? The very purpose of licensing something is to deny the license to some while offering it to others (otherwise, licensing loses its meaning). With anti-sodomy laws now struck down, just what sexual behavior are conservatives actually preventing by denying gays a marriage license? The answer is, they’re not impeding any kind of behavior. Just like the gays that seek licenses for gay marriages, conservatives clutch on to a license as a vehicle for socially engineering society. To them, the purpose of the marriage license is to validate “tradition” (and thereby validate conservatives).

And so both sides in the debate are fixated only upon validating their own private sex lives with the government’s stamp of approval. This is not about freedom, since the license (and lack of it) has no dominion over one’s sex life. This is about validation for the winners, and shame for the losers.

Heaven forbid that people would instead eschew the very need for a license, and instead get married with or without the government’s acknowledgment. I wish that I could fish without the government’s approval, but alas, I would actually be fined if I committed such a crime. But it’s no punishable offense to bring your partner to orgasm, even within the cultural context of marriage. Whether the legal definition of marriage changes or not, make no mistake, this debate has NOTHING to do with making us freer.

“Taking Marriage Private”
By Stephanie Coontz
New York Times, Nov. 26 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html

Comment #272: John Dias  on  11/05  at  08:06 PM

It’s both/and. Even if she doesn’t mean to imply anything negative about gayness (which, c’mon, she does, because she’s a bigoted fuck), she still is calling him a liar just for being outside the realm of her preference.

Oh, I dig and didn’t mean to imply otherwise. My bad. Still, if someone’s idea of a witty riposte is “Yeah, right, you’re probably a fag,” and go home, then it’s sort of part and parcel s/he will think the other person is a liar for not conforming to his/her very specific brand of reality. Two mints in one.

Comment #273: Matt T.  on  11/05  at  08:09 PM

Dude, what is it, porn, or what?

No, it’s just…well, it’s just UberDudeliness. Honestly, much of it offends me as a feminist. But the gay guys I know tend not to write at length In Defense Of Getting Lots And Lots of Pussy. wink

Comment #274: Well, what?  on  11/05  at  08:09 PM

Why don’t you LGBT types put forward some sorta legislation that stops jack-booted thugs from trying to steal my precious bodily fluids?  It’s always about YOU, isn’t it?

Comment #275: Rugged in Montana  on  11/05  at  08:12 PM

And I will take one point back: Uhura is a “ma’am”, not a “sir”. Sorry about that.


Anthony

Comment #276: Anthony Kennerson  on  11/05  at  08:12 PM

@ John Dias.

Wow. You are going to have to do so, so, so, so so so SOOOOOOOOOO much better than that.

Uh huh. Marriage is totally about Teh Orgzms, not at all about the, you know, legal shit. That’s why straight people NEVER GET MARRIED. EVER.

p.s. stephanie coontz is one of the laziest thinkers on the planet. If *she* is your go-to? Your side is fucked.

Comment #277: Well, what?  on  11/05  at  08:13 PM

So, a commenter appears claiming to be the relevant demographic considered in the OP, proclaims irrational bigotry and baits others to engage as the OP says we should, and ends with Limbaugh’s catchphrase.  Subsequent posts are nearly entirely bad faith and more baiting.  And people are still trying to engage him why?


Equality will come with the dying out of older generations (this election has thoroughly convinced me of that) and humanizing homosexuals to those able/willing to face their internalized bigotry.  It will be a long fight.

Comment #278: D  on  11/05  at  08:15 PM

I say don’t even bother w/ these bigots. Thankfully, there is an entire generation emerging in this society that will relegate folks like Uhura! & Ost to irrelevancy. They barely won this prop and they won it by lying to the citizens of CA and on the backs of the 40-50+ crowd, w/ the largest margins coming from the 60+ crowd.  Just like the folks against interracial marriages, bigots like Uhura! & Ost are going the way of the dinosaurs and will one day be nothing more than an irrelevant freak side show popping up like a pathetic KKK rally on Martin Luther King Day or skinhead marches on Hitler’s birthday. We will just watch you and cringe in embarrassment while the ACLU fights in those activist courts for your first amendment rights to yell at folks who have teh gay sex. (And truly, I don’t mean to undermine the fact that the existence of these groups demonstrates an undercurrent of racism and bigotry that still pervades our society. But still, they are the fringe, and I think we can agree that the mainstream of society, with baby steps to be sure, continues to plod towards tolerance and equality).

Unfortunately, this day has not come yet or soon enough, but it is coming.  I know this not really any solace for the thousands and thousands of Americans who are currently be denied their fundamental civil rights and the families that suffer because of this. But there is hope. So gloat away bigots, time is on our side.

Comment #279: wish i lived in CA to vote no on H8TE.  on  11/05  at  08:15 PM

Wait, wait, wait a second, I just realized something.

Uhura, you believe that Pam should have fewer rights than you, and yet you’re telling her what to do?

That’s just unvelievable.

Incidentally, for the record, I don’t believe marriage between any people should be a government-involved activity; I believe it should be a purely religious institution, and there should be civil unions for everyone that are not called freaking marriage.

However, if I can get married but don’t want to, it pisses me the hell off that there are people who can’t get married and want to.  Fuck that.

Comment #280: INTPagan  on  11/05  at  08:15 PM

Amanda,

I know how this works. If I engage you, you’ll get angry and ban me.

You obviously don’t know Amanda (or Pam, whose thread this is). Very few people get banned here. We have regular trolls. All that the admins ask is that our trolls not be boring.

But if your history has taught you that it’s so easy to get banned from blogs for being a troll, well…

now this is just banter and insults. So not productive and a waste of everyone’s time.

It could have been otherwise if you’d answer people’s plainly worded questions.

Question: What are people hoping to achieve by calling someone a “troll” ?

Just to alert others that it’s not worth spending time engaging with someone who has neither a “drop of honesty” nor a sincere “love to be converted.”

Comment #281: Grammar RWA  on  11/05  at  08:17 PM

The link on John Dias’s name goes to some site that tries to install things on your computer (malware or something). Troll diversity is high on this thread!

Comment #282: MissPrism  on  11/05  at  08:17 PM

Oh, John Dias.  I remember you.  You’re the men’s rights activist.  I didn’t know you were a homophobe, too, although I am not overly surprised.

Comment #283: INTPagan  on  11/05  at  08:19 PM

Responding to Well, What??:

No, it’s just…well, it’s just UberDudeliness. Honestly, much of it offends me as a feminist. But the gay guys I know tend not to write at length In Defense Of Getting Lots And Lots of Pussy. wink

Not to thread-jack this, but try reading ALL of my blog before making such an asinine comment like that. Just because I defend sexual speech and media and the people who use and make it does not make me the pussy hound you infer. I write about a lot of things…sex included.

But, you are entitled to your opinions of me, however whack they may be. I can take them in stride.

Back on topic…


Anthony

Comment #284: Anthony Kennerson  on  11/05  at  08:20 PM

To John Dias…

What if we lived in a world where anyone could be free, instead of some being slaves.  Wouldn’t that devalue freedom?  Of course!  So we must keep some people in slavery, otherwise we won’t be able to fully appreciate our freedom…

That makes about as much sense as the bullshit you quoted.  Idiot…

Comment #285: MikeEss  on  11/05  at  08:20 PM

however, i do want to add that pam’s point is well taken and engagement and outreach is important and necessary. i don’t mean to suggest, that to just write off entire groups of people which is what i think pam is warning against.  i guess i just believe that at some level, the cranks are not going to be converted and we need to reach out the generation coming up behind them.  for example, the younger cuban-american demographic in miami.  their views on engagement w/ cuba and progessive policies are wildly different from the grandparents/parents.  that’s where progress will come from.

Comment #286: wish i lived in CA to vote no on H8TE.  on  11/05  at  08:23 PM

“Equality will come with the dying out of older generations (this election has thoroughly convinced me of that) and humanizing homosexuals to those able/willing to face their internalized bigotry.  It will be a long fight.”

Exactly. 

“Uhura” asked above (probably in bad faith, but whatever) what you would say to an auditorium full of people who need to be convinced to treat gay people like people.  Answer:
Tell them you’ll be right back, lock the doors, and wait 20-years or so.  Those whose opinions have already calcified cannot be reached…

Comment #287: MikeEss  on  11/05  at  08:25 PM

The passing of H8 proves the old adage about evil lurking in the hearts of wo/men.  To actively seek to nullify thousands of marriages…I can’t imagine someone shoe-horning themselves into my private relationship and bond like that.

Comment #288: Ranylt  on  11/05  at  08:28 PM

MikeEss:

“What if we lived in a world where anyone could be free, instead of some being slaves.  Wouldn’t that devalue freedom?  Of course!  So we must keep some people in slavery, otherwise we won’t be able to fully appreciate our freedom…”

There is no actual freedom being denied or restricted vis-a-vis who gets a marriage license.  Since no freedom is being restricted, there is therefore no slavery.  There is, however, discrimination—against the licensing of gay marriages.  So what if there is (or if there isn’t) such discrimination—what difference does it make whether the government acknowledges your marriage or not?  What PRACTICAL difference does it make in your everyday life?

None.

Comment #289: John Dias  on  11/05  at  08:29 PM

It doesn’t matter though. Let’s imagine for a moment that all the science is wrong and being gay is entirely a choice. It doesn’t automatically follow that this is a bad choice for which people deserve to be hurt. To make that leap, Uhura has to have come into the discussion with the preconception that being gay is not just a choice, but a bad choice that makes one a bad person who deserves to be punished.

Grammar RWA on 11/05 at 05:03 PM

And I am not willing to make that leap…but many others are…as evidenced by the results of the cote of Prop 8. Looking at this from the lens of Americans voting to deny other Americans social rights - it’s easy to see.

You obviously have already made that leap, as evidenced by the fact that you thought it would be a clever insult to call Anthony gay.

Now, if “being gay is a choice” (it isn’t, but this is for the sake of argument), and holding to a particular religion is a choice, then we can investigate “<i>the preconception that being Christian is not just a choice, but a bad choice that makes one a bad person who deserves to be punished.”

And that would obviously be an expression of bigotry. So those “Americans voting to deny other Americans social rights,” whatever the voters’ skin color, are bigots. Yet for some reason we should not say that bigots are bigots? And why not?

Comment #290: Grammar RWA  on  11/05  at  08:31 PM

Mike Ess:

“That makes about as much sense as the bullshit you quoted.  Idiot…”

I didn’t quote anything.  That whole post was mine.  I merely linked to another, separate article at the end of my post.

Comment #291: John Dias  on  11/05  at  08:32 PM

Pam, thanks for posting that picture again—it’s freaking gorgeous.  Love it.

Uhura, quick question for you that I didn’t see upthread, though I might have missed it—do you know any gay folks who are in long-term, stable, permanent, “you-are-the-love-of-my-life” partnerships?

Comment #292: LauraB  on  11/05  at  08:32 PM

What PRACTICAL difference does it make in your everyday life?

Mine? None. Gay folks who want to get married? It’s sort of the entire friggin’ point, ain’t it? If it makes no practical difference in youreveryday life, why restrict the liscencing - and legal recognition, lest we forget - of gay marriage?

Comment #293: Matt T.  on  11/05  at  08:32 PM

Dude, um, John Dias, do you know anything about the legal rights/benefits that “marriage” confers? “What PRACTICAL difference does it make in your every day life?” Do you live under a rock? How old are you???

Comment #294: wish i lived in CA to vote no on H8TE.  on  11/05  at  08:34 PM

“Thankfully, there is an entire generation emerging in this society that will relegate folks like Uhura! & Ost to irrelevancy.”

I disregard the noxious mediocrities of my generation, so I am not worried about the noxious mediocrities beyond the horizon. There will always be people like you who have “just enoughof learning to misquote.”

Comment #295: Ostiarius  on  11/06  at  05:09 AM

Um, Uhura actually did end up listening to reason, you can stop flogging her for not getting it now.

So, OI KNOCK IT OFF!

But yeah, we have a lot of work, getting into these small communities that think they don’t know any gays and getting them over the social stigma and cultural lies so that they can see and be willing to read the massive information we’ve put out there. More than anything, it tells us that we owe it to ourselves to come out to bigoted family members, put a face to the hate.

Because as Uhura stated, the opposition isn’t based on logic or morality, it is based on a feeling. Let’s replace that feeling with genuine internal self-imposed shame.

Comment #296: Cerberus  on  11/06  at  05:32 AM

You’re the men’s rights activist.  I didn’t know you were a homophobe, too, although I am not overly surprised.

What IS it with MRAs and homophobia? You’d think that they’d be all over the idea of man-on-man action, since it’s, you know, manly, and leads to zero chance that some scheming female will steal your sperm. Yet Glenn Sacks - a fairly moderate fellow by MRA standards - regularly takes shit from the screaming hordes because he’s pro-LGBT rights.

Comment #297: mythago  on  11/06  at  05:32 AM

INTPagan:

“Oh, John Dias.  I remember you.  You’re the men’s rights activist.  I didn’t know you were a homophobe, too, although I am not overly surprised. “

What makes me a homophobe?  My advocacy for equality via the abandonment of all marriage licensing?  Or is it my opposition to Prop. 8, on the basis that its defeat would (hopefully) make marriage licensing meaningless?  You’re not too quick on the uptake, I see.

Or do you just throw out epithets like “homophobe” to people to don’t analyze an issue precisely the way you do?  Doesn’t that make you an ideologue?

Comment #298: John Dias  on  11/06  at  05:49 AM

Every time a post based on detailed information and rationality is made, Uhura! claims to be insulted too early on to read the rest of it. The only ones she has claimed any positive response to were emotion-based, rather than logic-based. Legal and scientific responses are ignored. This makes *some* sene, given that although she asked for logic, she gave us only emotions—feelings she has trouble putting into words.

Saying “I am not a troll” does not make someone not a troll.

I, for one, am no longer feeding the troll. And I’m an INTJ, enough to know both what constitutes rational arguments, and enough to make up my mind not to bother reading this thread any more.

Comment #299: Samantha Vimes  on  11/06  at  08:09 AM

Pam,

Racism is why is why gay marriage didn’t pass. It was racist whites lying to blacks about gay marriage…

Comment #300: Larry  on  11/06  at  08:35 AM

General food for thought.


If someone found your love for another human being… Icky, Nasty, Unplesant.

Would it be fair if they used the power of the state to make your love for that person be heavily burdened compared to a relationship with someone you didn’t really love but which wasn’t considered Icky, Nasty, Vile to the person burdening you?

Comment #301: Panzer  on  11/06  at  08:47 AM

Uhura:

1)  In most places, spouses are not compelled to testify against one another in court, presumably because their communication is considered privileged, even as it would be with an attorney or a cleric. The close bonds of affection within marriage are such that even the courts recognize them as inviolate – and yet homosexual partners, who may be just as close and love each other just as much, are denied this privilege for no other reason than that they’re gay.

2)  Likewise access to inheritance, common property, and power of attorney in case of incapacitation is nearly always guaranteed in marriage. Even homosexuals who draw up a legal contract to ensure their partners these rights could be denied them by family, whereas in marriage, the legal spouse usually takes primacy over blood relatives. 

3)  Most people who argue against gay marriage do so based on the claim that one of the main reasons for marriage is procreation within a stable family unit, but that argument doesn’t really hold water since infertile opposite-sex couples are permitted to marry without undue interference from the state.

4)  Dr. Judith Stacey and others in the field of social psychology have shown there is no negative difference in how children turn out when raised by homosexual parents as opposed to heterosexual parents. To deny those who are otherwise qualified the right to adopt jointly merely because the co-applicants are gay, is clear-cut state-sponsored discrimination. 

The homosexuality/race parallel is good. Both race and sexual orientation are innocent conditions of being, IMHO, and thus should be protected from (especially state-supported) discrimination.

Comment #302: The Devil's Advocate  on  11/06  at  09:18 AM

Because as Uhura stated, the opposition isn’t based on logic or morality, it is based on a feeling. Let’s replace that feeling with genuine internal self-imposed shame.

Cerberus on 11/06 at 03:32 AM


Thanks for recognizing what actually happened Cerebrus.

I agree with your statement, but I would adjust it slightly:

I would say replace their “feelings” with information and a new thought process for considering the issue. I sincerely believe it can be done.

By the way everyone: Last night I think I was denied access to this web site from my home computer. (I am @ work right now) ...At ~ 9 or 10 pm I made a post and then all I could see was a white screen.

I am not sure why that happened. But I think it’s telling. I emailed Amanda shortly after it happened last night and received no answer as of this morning. I am wondering if the same thing will take place at this point. Plus….Given some of the things I am reading from certain people who are still able to access this site, I am really waiting to see how this will be explained….or if it will.

Instead of trying to shoot back like I did earlier I intend to ignore the people who seem to want a fight here. The people who willfully skipped over the discussion ERL and I had and went on the attack. I understand that it comes from a place of anger and frustration - and there will be more anger and frustration ahead because many Americans have their personal feelings and perceptions about homosexuality and homosexuals.

Anyway - while I can still post, I am going to say this:

Last night I thought more about the way ERL expressed his ideas about this issue and the way it helped me to get to this point: It is unAmerican to deny US citizens social rights based on social or biological constructs.

I thought about how this issue relates to the issue of women’s suffrage: Men denied women the right to vote based on a construct that was a mixture of biological and social. Either way, it was wrong. It was unAmerican.

I thought about all of this as I rode in my vanpool this morning with several White people who were clearly pissed / sad that the President elect is a Black man….but then I thought about the hundreds of other White people I saw on TV who were cheering and hugging and celebrating in the streets of DC for the same reason. Today, I am really convinced that there are people in this country who want inclusion, fairness, and justice. I am convinced that they outnumber the people who don’t want it.

I was thinking that rather than linking social rights for homosexuals to racial discrimination, showing similarities to women’s suffrage and other social wrongs would help certain segments of the American population think of this issue in a whole new way. I think many people (especially Black people) are not willing to believe that being homosexual is just like being Black….and that’s what people hear when someone attempts to make the case that social justice for homosexuals is similar to / just like social justice for Blacks. Perhaps that’s why some Blacks do not want to listen. I think that’s why I was having trouble with this.

Now….as for the folks who have their feelings based on religion….I am not sure how to get through to them. There is a bible verse which Christians interpret as clearly saying homosexuality among males is sinful. How to combat that or get people to reinterpret that is a mystery to me.

 

I would like to address something Larry said:

Pam,

Racism is why is why gay marriage didn’t pass. It was racist whites lying to blacks about gay marriage…

Larry on 11/06 at 06:35 AM

Larry,

to me this sounds very condescending to Black people.  Black people believe whatever White people tell them?

Comment #303: Uhura!  on  11/06  at  09:41 AM

Has anybody noticed that over 300 posts in Uhura! (for the most part) has totally derailed almost all of us from the central issue in the post:

Why did African-Americans vote so heavily against gay marriage rights???????

Is it because people whose hard-won freedoms and achievements are so comparatively new and perceived to be fragile that they worry that the weight of others will collapse them?  (I guess the best metaphor for this speculation would be the lifeboat: when you’re in the water you think everybody should be hauled aboard; once you’re aboard you worry about the boat being swamped and so desire that others not join you there.)  Speculation on my part, and not advanced as my view.  Just trying to get the thread back to where it should have been in the first place.

Comment #304: seeker6079  on  11/06  at  09:46 AM

John Dias:

Fine, let’s take your position as a starting point: that the state should be out of the marriage game entirely.  What, then, does one do about the countless instances where interpersonal relationships have legal consequences?  Let’s say that I’m gay and my life partner is in hospital and a question on medical treatment need be done.  Who makes that call?  Me, the man who he’s spent the past X years of his life with, or his, say, sister, who hasn’t spoken to him in years and can’t wait for him to die so she gets more of their parents’ inheritance?

Comment #305: seeker6079  on  11/06  at  09:49 AM

Uhura. I couldn’t get in last night either from my home computer and now am able to (on my home computer).  I don’t think it was deliberate.

Comment #306: Heresygirl  on  11/06  at  09:53 AM

Well H-girl….I really am hoping that it wasn’t.

Comment #307: Uhura!  on  11/06  at  09:56 AM

By the way everyone: Last night I think I was denied access to this web site from my home computer. (I am @ work right now) ...At ~ 9 or 10 pm I made a post and then all I could see was a white screen.

Happened to me, too. It was just a server problem, I think. Everything was back up and running fine after a couple of hours.

I am not sure why that happened. But I think it’s telling.

I get this strange impression that you want to argue merely for the sake of arguing. I enjoy that as well, sometimes, but…goodness…have you never been banned from a site before? Most of the time, you can still read what’s going on, but you’re either prohibited from posting under your original user-name or even by IP.

I am wondering if the same thing will take place at this point.

Only if the moon is full.

Comment #308: The Devil's Advocate  on  11/06  at  09:57 AM

Uhura, it wasn’t.  I couldn’t get on for hours last night and some of my posts got eated up.

Comment #309: seeker6079  on  11/06  at  09:57 AM

Has anybody noticed that over 300 posts in Uhura! (for the most part) has totally derailed almost all of us from the central issue in the post:

Why did African-Americans vote so heavily against gay marriage rights???????

Actually, I didn’t. I took the chance and revealed some of the possible thoought processes and people got so angry - THEY couldn’t see it.

Is it because people whose hard-won freedoms and achievements are so comparatively new and perceived to be fragile that they worry that the weight of others will collapse them?  (I guess the best metaphor for this speculation would be the lifeboat: when you’re in the water you think everybody should be hauled aboard; once you’re aboard you worry about the boat being swamped and so desire that others not join you there.) Speculation on my part, and not advanced as my view.  Just trying to get the thread back to where it should have been in the first place.

seeker6079 on 11/06 at 07:46 AM

I don’t think so.

I think it’s very much along the lines of what I said this morning combined with extreme displays of heteronormativity…though I doubt you’ll even consider what I said.

I notice that the White people here ask questions about why Black people think ABC and do XYZ and then they listen to the other White people who come in and speculate….not many Blacks here to talk to…and then on top of it, their words are skipped right over when they do say something.

Comment #310: Uhura!  on  11/06  at  10:01 AM

For what it’s worth, I was unable to access the site last night as well, and I gave up trying and went to bed.  I think one of my comments may have gotten eaten as well.  I’m running out the door for work (or will be once I actually get dressed) but wanted to quickly address this:

I thought about all of this as I rode in my vanpool this morning with several White people who were clearly pissed / sad that the President elect is a Black man….but then I thought about the hundreds of other White people I saw on TV who were cheering and hugging and celebrating in the streets of DC for the same reason. Today, I am really convinced that there are people in this country who want inclusion, fairness, and justice. I am convinced that they outnumber the people who don’t want it.

I have been hoping, wistfully, for years, that this is true—that there are more people who want fairness than people who don’t.  But I’ve never in my life been more convinced that it might be true.

Comment #311: LauraB  on  11/06  at  10:13 AM

Uhura!  Wow.  Homophobic, passive aggressive, a victim complex a mile wide and needlessly insulting.

I’ll bet you’re loads of fun at parties.

Uhura, you seem particularly prickly on being called a troll.  You might want to come back to the thread fresh, read it through from the start, and ponder numbers 3, 6, 12, 16, 21 and 23.

12 is especially big.  You have devoted a phenomenal amount of effort into making this thread all about you so it is more than a little amusing that when somebody points that out you whip out dismissiveness (“though I doubt you’ll even consider what I said”, when there was no evidence that I would be so disinclined), and moved on to implied racism, (skipping over the comments of black people, etc.). 

Wow.  You really are a nasty piece of work, aren’t you?

Comment #312: seeker6079  on  11/06  at  10:20 AM

Has anybody noticed that over 300 posts in Uhura! (for the most part) has totally derailed almost all of us from the central issue in the post:

Why did African-Americans vote so heavily against gay marriage rights???????

I’m not going to keep the debate rolling with Uhura, because I think it’s pointless. I don’t think she was trolling, but I do think she was dancing around the issue raised in your question above (the same one Pam originally raised) for reasons unknown.

As Matt T. pointed out, the closest she came to touching directly on the issue was when she reacted to another commenter by saing:

Says the closeted Black Male homosexual.

Sorry A-dawg…but no straight Black Man I know would have said anything of that nature or even clicked into this thread.

Another commenter, Matt T. responded that she “pulled the trigger just a bit too soon, there.” While I’d agree she “pulled the trigger,” in my view she pulled it way too late to address the issue at hand. A shame, because that conversation would have been truly interesting and productive, rather than (at least for me) an amusing pass-time.

I do hope Pam re-visits the issue of how pro-gay-rights folks (and not only LGBT people) positively address and connect to a mainstream ethnic community where a cultural phenomenon like the “Down-Low scene” is said to exist on a fairly widespread basis (I put it this way because I’m a straight white dude whose only knowledge of this business is a couple of MSM articles).

It’ll be an interesting conversation—one that even Uhura might contribute to productively. But that obviously didn’t happen in this thread, so I’m done here and on to other threads.

Comment #313: Gracchus  on  11/06  at  10:27 AM

To return to the central issue in the post: Why did African-Americans vote so heavily against gay marriage rights???????

Anybody other than Uhura?  That lady need not respond, as she has so kindly taken time out of her day to look down her nose and inform we in the slow class that she has already addressed the issue.

Comment #314: seeker6079  on  11/06  at  10:29 AM

(slow, sarcastic golf clap) Well done, everybody. Epic anti-derailment fail.

Comment #315: Mr. Merle  on  11/06  at  10:41 AM

By the way everyone: Last night I think I was denied access to this web site from my home computer. (I am @ work right now) ...At ~ 9 or 10 pm I made a post and then all I could see was a white screen.

I am not sure why that happened. But I think it’s telling.

Your paranoia is telling. Look:

wish i lived in CA to vote no on H8TE.  on 11/05 at 06:34 PM

Ostiarius on 11/06 at 03:09 AM

Nobody could post between those times. But you are a troll. You keep implying that you’ve changed your mind, but you won’t actually say that you think gay people should not be prevented from marrying or adopting. Either you haven’t changed, or you won’t own it so you won’t advocate anyway. And you keep asking for respect, for your views to be heard without criticism, when you won’t respect anyone else here enough to speak clearly. We’re all supposed to study your unstated reasoning and tease out some exegesis, because this is all about you.

Comment #316: Grammar RWA  on  11/06  at  10:48 AM

To return to the central issue in the post: Why did African-Americans vote so heavily against gay marriage rights???????

As Anthony said:

It should be noted, though, that younger people (age 18-34), which I assume includes people of all races, voted down Prop 8 by nearly a 2-1 margin.  So maybe, this is more of a “old head” religious divide rather than a racial one….attempts by folk like Uhura aside.

And…remember that Blacks make up only 6.2% of the population, and the bulk of the support for Prop 8 came from exclusively White fundamentalist, right-wing enclaves.

Not saying that there isn’t a lot to answer to from Black evangelicals about anti-gay bigotry, but context is everything.

So let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that confronting black homophobia is going to solve this problem. Rather, homophobia among black people primarily and overwhelmingly hurts gay black people.

Comment #317: Grammar RWA  on  11/06  at  10:57 AM

As people have been saying on other threads, try again in 2010. There will be less turnout and the math would probably favor the anti-discrimination forces.

But if I were in a gay marriage in a state where my basic benefits as a partner were being voted on every 2 years (with differing results), I might hop the next bullet-train to Vancouver.

Comment #318: Mr. Merle  on  11/06  at  11:08 AM

I notice that the White people here ask questions about why Black people think ABC and do XYZ and then they listen to the other White people who come in and speculate….not many Blacks here to talk to…and then on top of it, their words are skipped right over when they do say something.

Uhura, when an African-American gentleman took the time to reply to you, you dismissed him and, to boil down your replies to him, called him a faggy fag fagpants because he did not act in a way that you think is normal for black men.  Are you kidding us?

Comment #319: Atheist Feminazi  on  11/06  at  11:11 AM

The thing that puzzles me about the argument that same-sex parents provide inferior parenting and LGBT families are inferior families - Uhura!, your point 3 - is that their logic then leads them directly to “Because these children live in what we say are inferior families, we feel they ought to suffer legal discrimination on top of receiving inferior parenting”.

Bewilders me. After all, if these people really had such a concern for children, you’d think they’d want to ban legal discrimination against children they believe are already suffering from inferior parenting, not work to make their situation even worse.

Comment #320: Jesurgislac  on  11/06  at  11:26 AM

I don’t get why states are in the business of approving marriages.  Marriage is a religous thing maybe they should leave it up to the indavidual churches to decide who they marry.  I know their are tax and other implications of being married but you could say that those laws apply to anyone who has been married in any church, and get the government out of approving or disproving marriage.

Comment #321: John Hussein Rove  on  11/06  at  11:41 AM

“Bewilders me. After all, if these people really had such a concern for children, you’d think they’d want to ban legal discrimination against children”

If the position was in any way logical yes, but it isn’t.

This is, in the minds of most of the anti-gay voters, a referendum on homosexuality, not on same-sex marriage. Since they aren’t allowed to vote gay people out of existence, they have to settle for voting to hurt us, in the hopes that we’ll choose to cease existing on our own.

That’s what the whole “they are trying to force us to accept them” and “my kids shouldn’t be taught they exist” crap is all about.

Comment #322: Lymis  on  11/06  at  11:44 AM

Marriage is a religous thing maybe they should leave it up to the indavidual churches to decide who they marry

Marriage existed long before any of the Western religions.  It was a public, civic thing in, say, ancient Rome and ancient Greece.  It is not a “religious thing” for everyone—I’m a religious person, but my civil marriage to my deeply atheist husband is very important to me.

Try expanding your horizons beyond your own experience.

Comment #323: JupiterPluvius  on  11/06  at  11:52 AM

So let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that confronting black homophobia is going to solve this problem. Rather, homophobia among black people primarily and overwhelmingly hurts gay black people.

Grammar RWA on 11/06 at 08:57 AM


I agree…somewhat. It also hurts Black women who have the highest HIV infection rate….as a result of unprotected sex with closeted homosexual Black Males and / or non monogamous Black males.

Comment #324: Uhura!  on  11/06  at  11:56 AM

Also, I understand arguing for the sake of arguing - we do it a lot here - but, at the same time, actually telling us when you change your mind rather than vaguely alluding to the fact that you just might have and then frantically pointing everyone to the point where we were supposed to read your mind isn’t a very effective method.  I appreciate the time and thought you put into this issue, but the responses to you here have been understandable because you truly do give the impression of someone who simply refuses to listen.  It was hard to read what might be a sincere desire to learn over the protests you gave that we were insulting you when we stated simple facts or perceptions that we said might be wrong, the parts where you didn’t reply to data that had been provided, and the parts where you decided how someone within a racial community should behave, regardless of what their actual identity was.

Comment #325: Atheist Feminazi  on  11/06  at  11:58 AM

Lymis: This is, in the minds of most of the anti-gay voters, a referendum on homosexuality, not on same-sex marriage. Since they aren’t allowed to vote gay people out of existence, they have to settle for voting to hurt us, in the hopes that we’ll choose to cease existing on our own.

I live in hope that Uhura! will come back and explain how she reasons from “Those children are living in dysfunctional families, poor kids” to “Those children ought not to be allowed the benefit of having married parents.”

I don’t get why states are in the business of approving marriages. 

You may or may not “get it”, but civil marriage, not requiring any church’s approval but supported by the common law and statute, is older than the US Constitution. People who want the legal benefits of marriage must accept that they need the state to provide those and that it is up to the state, not any church, to decide who can and cannot get married.

Comment #326: Jesurgislac  on  11/06  at  12:00 PM

Why did African-Americans vote so heavily against gay marriage rights???????


I think that it’s a combination of religion, an environment of extreme displays of heteronormative behavior, and lack of information.


As I stated earlier:

I was thinking that rather than linking social rights for homosexuals to racial discrimination, showing similarities to women’s suffrage and other social wrongs would help certain segments of the American population think of this issue in a whole new way. I think many people (especially Black people) are not willing to believe that being homosexual is just like being Black….and that’s what people hear when someone attempts to make the case that social justice for homosexuals is similar to / just like social justice for Blacks. Perhaps that’s why some Blacks do not want to listen. I think that’s why I was having trouble with this.

Now….as for the folks who have their feelings based on religion….I am not sure how to get through to them. There is a bible verse which Christians interpret as clearly saying homosexuality among males is sinful. How to combat that or get people to reinterpret that is a mystery to me.

Comment #327: Uhura! The Bigotted Black American Troll  on  11/06  at  12:01 PM

Uhura! I agree…somewhat. It also hurts Black women who have the highest HIV infection rate….as a result of unprotected sex with closeted homosexual Black Males and / or non monogamous Black males.

Which is something that, as an opponent of same-sex marriage, you see as “acceptable collateral damage”,  I take it?  “When presented with the question about whether homosexuals should be able to marry and adopt, my answer is NO.” Because homosexual men ought to be getting married to straight women and having gay sex on the downlow, not pledging faith to each other. Okay.

Comment #328: Jesurgislac  on  11/06  at  12:02 PM

“I live in hope that Uhura! will come back and explain how she reasons from “Those children are living in dysfunctional families, poor kids” to “Those children ought not to be allowed the benefit of having married parents.”

Jesurgislac on 11/06 at 10:00 AM

I challange you to find where I said that. Produce the text.

Comment #329: Uhura! The Bigotted Black American Troll  on  11/06  at  12:03 PM

Which is something that, as an opponent of same-sex marriage, you see as “acceptable collateral damage”, I take it?

Jesurgislac on 11/06 at 10:02 AM

Um….That would be a no.

Comment #330: Uhura! The Bigotted Black American Troll  on  11/06  at  12:04 PM

Uhura!: There is a bible verse which Christians interpret as clearly saying homosexuality among males is sinful. How to combat that or get people to reinterpret that is a mystery to me.

You could point out:

1. That other Bible verses have been interpreted to clearly justify slavery:

“5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; 6n ot only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, 8 knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free. (Ephesians 6:5-9)”

2. That it is wrong and unConstitutional to deny others civil rights based on religion

3. That distinguished Christians such as Desmond Tutu have said “If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn’t worship that God.”

None of that is a mystery to me. Nor was it to Mildred Loving, or to Coretta Scott King.

Comment #331: Jesurgislac  on  11/06  at  12:06 PM

Uhura!: I challange you to find where I said that. Produce the text.

You said, when asked why you opposed same-sex marriage:

-I don’t think that children should be raised by homosexuals.
-My idea of a functional “family” is a mother, father, and kidlets.

So, your reasoning here went very directly from: two mothers and kidlets, or two dads and kidlets, are a dysfunctional family, those poor children are being raised by homosexuals, to:

“I oppose same-sex marriage” - which is to say, you believe that children whom you argued to be already disadvantaged ought to be further denied the legal benefits of having married parents.

That’s what you said. Have you changed your mind?

Comment #332: Jesurgislac  on  11/06  at  12:09 PM

Usually,

Sad to say it but ....Refuting commonly held religious beliefs with bible versus does not work.

I think this is because people reverse engineer religious reasons for their social beliefs: For example, the belief that homosexuality is wrong came before the associated bible verse in the minds of many of these folks.

Apparently logic is the enemy of faith too. I think it must be this way or religions would dissolve.

That’s what you said. Have you changed your mind?

Jesurgislac on 11/06 at 10:09 AM


So…you didn’t read key parts of the thread - yet you have the balls to attack?

Uhura!: Um….That would be a no.

So how do you justify opposing same-sex marriage, if you haven’t justified the high HIV rates as “acceptable collateral damage”? If you didn’t find that damage acceptable, how could you justify opposing a means of preventing it?

Clearly, the more gay men who feel able to live openly as gay men, to marry each other rather than marry women and have sex with other men secretly, the fewer women will suffer from HIV infections from their down-low husbands. Yet you find this resolution unacceptable - so plainly, the damage caused by your position on this subject is “acceptable”.

Comment #335: Jesurgislac  on  11/06  at  12:13 PM

So…you didn’t read key parts of the thread - yet you have the balls to attack?

Nope, I’m female. I don’t need “balls” to attack. If you now support same-sex marriage and realise your earlier comments were wrong, wrong, wrong - you only have to say so.

Comment #336: Jesurgislac  on  11/06  at  12:14 PM

Jesurgislac ... we’re not even having the same conversation.

All I will say about this matter: when someone posts claiming they want logical, valid arguments as to why same-sex couples should be able to marry and adopt children, and people oblige yet their questions of why the poster feels the way they do are ignored, it’s no wonder some might get angry, especially as these are extremely personal issues for many of us here. My advice: if you want to be taken seriously, you have to at least respond to what they’re saying. For instance, Uhura never responded to the attempts to show her that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom after she claimed only males and females mated in nature. Another example is her dismissal of the discrimination based on race/discrimination based on religion question by saying she wasn’t religious herself, therefore ignoring the whole point. It seems she only points out what she sees as attacks against her, and ignores all the logical, valid arguments. There’s no point wasting time on energy on someone who refuses to listen to other’s reasons. She also is apparently stereotypical of her own race and white people as well. She called Anthony gay because “black guys don’t care about gay rights” and insulted the white people who posted here by claiming racism, when it’s her posts that are bringing up race in the first place. For all she knows, other minorities posted here and didn’t feel it was relevant to the conversation to bring up their race.

As to the question posed about how to integrate racial issues with those of sexual orientation, I don’t know. The way I understand it, for the most part minority groups are less accepting of homosexuality than whites. I’m also curious as to why. My two diversity class professors are both African-American, and while obviously concerned with racial issues also believe overcoming sexism and heterosexism is very important as well. I don’t really know enough people from other races to get their opinions on the matter. If you look at popular rap culture, women seem to be objectified, and men have more ideals of masculinity pushed on them. Perhaps this is why homosexuality is condemned as not fitting into these gender roles. Yet there are images of uber-masculinity and female objectification in all media, regardless of the races involved.

I’ve heard that minorities tend to be more religious as a whole, so maybe that’s another reason.

Comment #338: ArtOfMe  on  11/06  at  12:22 PM

Uhura!: Jesurgislac ... we’re not even having the same conversation.

I’m trying to have a conversation with you, Uhura, I’m being reasonable. Why are you unwilling to respond to my questions in a reasonable way?

Comment #339: Jesurgislac  on  11/06  at  12:25 PM

Uhura!

Now….as for the folks who have their feelings based on religion….I am not sure how to get through to them. There is a bible verse which Christians interpret as clearly saying homosexuality among males is sinful. How to combat that or get people to reinterpret that is a mystery to me.

[jump to different post]

Refuting commonly held religious beliefs with bible versus does not work.

I think this is because people reverse engineer religious reasons for their social beliefs: For example, the belief that homosexuality is wrong came before the associated bible verse in the minds of many of these folks.

Apparently logic is the enemy of faith too. I think it must be this way or religions would dissolve.

She’s got it in two.  Correct, and exactly the reason why the Amy Sullivans of this world err in their belief that certain categories of religious believers are “switchable” to the Dems.  Their religious texts frequently serve not to create but only to anchor their own already- and solidly- established views on The Ways Things Should Be, and to engage them on their turf is to always be on the losing end of a debate over the rules of Calvinball.  Worse, it’s a fixed game, because even if you do make a convincing religious argument which threatens a dearly held prejudice then it will be written off with some variant of “the devil quoting scripture for his own purposes”.  Religion is a bit like The Jackal’s crutch in the famous thriller: it serves to hold some people up, to gain sympathy, and obtain entry into where they should not be permitted to go; having served that purpose it can now be used to hurt somebody.

Uhura! raised the question of persuasion considerably upthread.  I think that nowhere near enough effort has gone into clarifying what marriage is and isn’t.  The notion that “marriage” is solely and exclusively a religious function is ingrained into our mental culture.  We are talking about two totally separate things (civil marriage and religious marriage) and if we permit faith-based arguments that the availability of the former to all is an attack on the latter for some then we will never win over the confused but persuadable middle.

Comment #340: seeker6079  on  11/06  at  12:45 PM

Uhura! raised the question of persuasion considerably upthread.  I think that nowhere near enough effort has gone into clarifying what marriage is and isn’t.  The notion that “marriage” is solely and exclusively a religious function is ingrained into our mental culture.  We are talking about two totally separate things (civil marriage and religious marriage) and if we permit faith-based arguments that the availability of the former to all is an attack on the latter for some then we will never win over the confused but persuadable middle.

seeker6079 on 11/06 at 10:45 AM

Seeker - you’re on point.

Arguing with religious beliefs is pointless.

I think we need to try to get people to see marriage as a social right rather than a religious one. Marriage was started as a social instrument to ensure patrilineage, convey property, and provide certain rights and protections.

BTW Seeker - thanks for reading my posts so damned carefully - LOL!

ArtOfMe:

The way I understand it, for the most part minority groups are less accepting of homosexuality than whites. I’m also curious as to why.

Leaving aside the general population perhaps we should be wary of the professional protest class.  A close friend of mine was trapped into an all-day diversity seminar some years ago.  It was mandatory, and she could be disciplined for not being there or not cooperating.  She had to sit quietly and fume while a highly paid consultant went on at length about how white-on-black racism was the only form of hatred that mattered and should be combatted.  This to a Jew who has huge gaps in her family tree that (grimly literally) went up in smoke, and who that morning had picked up a paper and read about the desecration of a local Jewish cemetery.

Short version: There’s always going to be a certain class of people for whom bigotry only counts when it is aimed at them ro people like them and they’re often very noisy, persistent and influential.

Comment #343: seeker6079  on  11/06  at  12:57 PM

There’s always going to be a certain class of people for whom bigotry only counts when it is aimed at them ro people like them and they’re often very noisy, persistent and influential.

And that’s a shame, isn’t it? I wish more people felt the way I do: that any kind of discrimination, whether it’s based on sex, gender identity, orientation, racial or ethnic background, or any other component is a wrong committed against the freedom of ALL people. If we want a truly free and equal society to exist, we can’t only see in terms of Us versus Them, Male versus Female, Black versus White, Gay versus Straight. We’re taught our whole lives that everything is a dichotomy. One can only be male OR female (and only if you have the right genitalia), a minority or white (nevermind those of mixed race), gay OR straight (nevermind bisexuals or people who don’t fit into any one category).

We’re all human beings, and that is what should matter. We need to get over this instinct to categorize everything, and stop fearing those who are different, instead learning to see things from a common perspective.

Not sure if that relates to your comment, but it’s one of the central issues at the root of the problems of both homophobia and racism.

Comment #344: ArtOfMe  on  11/06  at  01:06 PM

I think we need to try to get people to see marriage as a social right rather than a religious one.

It might be better to go back to base principles and reverse the onus.  If the state creates an institution is should be open to all, because the state must guarantee “rights and freedoms ... subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”, (to steal the language of of section 1 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).  In short, “everybody gets the right” is the starting point, not the ending point of the debate.  People who seek to limit the rights of others because of their religious or philosophical views would run smack into that.

Comment #345: seeker6079  on  11/06  at  01:07 PM

Not sure if that relates to your comment…

Oh, I think it does.  And it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t, given the inarguable nobility of the sentiment.

There are always going to be people flowing towards the creating and maintenance of divisions amongst us.  Sadly, some of these people use as their vehicle for doing so the purported decrying of those divisions.  Worse, they poison the well for others who are more genuine in their sentiments.

Comment #346: seeker6079  on  11/06  at  01:12 PM

Short version: There’s always going to be a certain class of people for whom bigotry only counts when it is aimed at them ro people like them and they’re often very noisy, persistent and influential.

seeker6079 on 11/06 at 10:57 AM

Most people only care about their own problems.

John, the state is going to be in the business regardless. I assume you’re thinking of people preparing contracts and paperwork, for example, who gets to inherit their stuff, how they will divide assets if they separate, etc.

Who do you think enforces those contracts if there is a dispute?

Comment #348: mythago  on  11/06  at  03:03 PM

Mythago:

“John, the state is going to be in the business regardless. I assume you’re thinking of people preparing contracts and paperwork, for example, who gets to inherit their stuff, how they will divide assets if they separate, etc.

Who do you think enforces those contracts if there is a dispute? “

The U.S. Census Bureau recently reported that, for the first time, the number of cohabiting unmarried couples exceeds that of cohabiting married couples.  People aren’t getting legally married anymore.  But in this culture, we’ve accepted thinking that defines marriage only in a legal context.  Therefore, the intimacy and trust that could have developed between a nominal husband and wife is prevented, because neither saw legal marriage as appealing.  And so, as a result, they define themselves as “boyfriend and girlfriend,” without any permanence.  All it takes is a realization that they can have a wedding, but forgo a marriage license (this is assuming, however, that they don’t live in a common-law state where legal marriage would be conferred on them by default).  Because there is so much social pressure to define marriage in legal terms, actual would-be lifelong unions are consigned to boyfriend/girlfriend status.  All it takes for boyfriend/girlfriend to become husband/wife is an epiphany:  get married, but don’t get a marriage license.  It’s no surprise (to me) that the same options are available to gays!

So what’s left?  Inequality in marriage licensing.  So the hell what.  We don’t need to overturn licensing laws and policies; as a culture, we need to transcend and eclipse them.  Until that happens, you’re going to see millions of activists on both sides of the debate over gay marriage, fighting it out in the electorate, duking it out in the courts.  Meanwhile, non-politicos and non-ideologues stand by, never realizing that all they have to do is just get a marriage ceremony and move on with their lives.

As far as the legal “benefits” conferred by marriage, puleeze.  Sign a contract, not a marriage license.

Comment #349: John Dias  on  11/06  at  03:28 PM

John Dias, I think that you are neglecting a key systemic and interpersonal benefit provided by a recognized “marital” state: predictability.  With marriage the courts are not overwhelmed by litigation trying to sort out the multitude of nuances between varying degrees and types of romantic partners, but rather have a set framework: People A and B in a marriage are presumed to have X arrangement with Y benefits and Z obligations.  Otherwise, even the most routine breakup becomes a nightmare of uncertainty?  Did they have a contract or not?  Was it complete, or superceded?  Are there resulting or constructive trust issues to be determined?  To what extent?  Are there support issues?  What were their individual expectations going in?  Did they change (and on and on and on).

Marriage provides a handy and socially useful default setting of rules, rights and obligations.

Comment #350: seeker6079  on  11/06  at  03:47 PM

John Dias: As far as the legal “benefits” conferred by marriage, puleeze.  Sign a contract, not a marriage license.

Uhura! runs away (showing herself doubly unfit to bear her handle), and John Dias proves blithely unaware that a marriage license is a contract.

Comment #351: Jesurgislac  on  11/06  at  04:07 PM

Denying people marriage rights means you deny someone the right to have a family because of who they are. 

The right to have a family.

Everyone who opposes marriage rights for gays should imagine a world where the only family they are allowed to have is the one they were born into.  Yeah, your parents, siblings, etc.  No spouse, no children.  They don’t count as your family.  You wander through the world with an assembly of folks who, under the law, don’t count.

And for what?  To validate your view that gays are icky? 

It’s cruel.

Comment #352: Lupe  on  11/06  at  04:37 PM

Yep - I ran to the next topic.

spouses are not compelled to testify against one another in court, presumably because their communication is considered privileged

This dates back to when a married couple was considered one person (the MAN, of course) who could not be compelled to testify against himself.

In my neighborhood, the Yes on 8 yard signs formed a map of the Jesus people, so I’m going to guess that the majority of black Yes on 8 voters were self-described Christians, (because the God who made homosexuals would want them to live and die lonely and alone, natch.) Some few might have been pissed off by the arguments that being gay was just like being black, so anyone opposed to same-sex marriage was a festering bigot.

For the moment I’ve given up on the idea that most people would not want to take rights away from the gay couple next door, or the woman who rings up their purchase at Target, or their auto mechanic, or their cubicle mate at work. I think the fastest route to same-sex equality is for the state to stop issuing marriage licenses for anybody. Let everyone receive civil union status. I think the opposition to redefining marriage to cover same-sex couples is that strong.

Comment #354: Hector B.  on  11/06  at  05:13 PM

Okay, John, let me try this again: If people sign contracts, who do you think enforces those contracts or interprets their meaning if there is a disagreement by the parties?

Comment #355: mythago  on  11/06  at  05:27 PM

If Gay marriage is not established in California by the courts, then Gay marriage will be approved by the voters in California the same time it is approved by the voters in Mexico, since the two will be virtually the same culture by 2010.

Comment #356: Walrus  on  11/06  at  06:47 PM

Dias:

So what’s left?  Inequality in marriage licensing.  So the hell what.  We don’t need to overturn licensing laws and policies; as a culture, we need to transcend and eclipse them.  Until that happens, you’re going to see millions of activists on both sides of the debate over gay marriage, fighting it out in the electorate, duking it out in the courts.  Meanwhile, non-politicos and non-ideologues stand by, never realizing that all they have to do is just get a marriage ceremony and move on with their lives.

Except heteros are never going to give up their right to marry, so the only way to make things equal is to give gay people the same right.

As far as the legal “benefits” conferred by marriage, puleeze.  Sign a contract, not a marriage license

It’s quite a lot of hassle to sign a separate contract for every single right conferred by marriage. Powers of attorney for medical stuff, property things, adoption, etc. etc. ad infinitum. A marriage license is all those contracts in one handy package.

Not-Uhura, the comment of yours I tried to respond to last night seems to have disappeared, so I’ll try to render it again. You said something like:

Malcolm X was combative and MLK was not, and whom do we celebrate today? Jesse Jackson was painted as combative and Barack Obama was not, and who’s the president-elect?

John Dickinson was not combative. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were. Whom do we remember?

Comment #357: Rebecca  on  11/06  at  07:17 PM

What YOU need to remember is the need for developing a persuasive argument for your POV.

The bullshit I have seen here so far is a miserable failure.

Comment #358: Uhura!, The Black American Bigot  on  11/06  at  07:25 PM

Rebecca,

we’re not going to talk if you insist on bastardizing my screen name.


And, as far as I am concerned - you can NEVER receive the right to marry and I’ll be happy just the same.

Comment #359: Uhura!, The Black American Bigot  on  11/06  at  07:27 PM

Really Pam? It’s my fault that black people voted to take away might right to get married because I didn’t reach out to them enough? After a run in with some racist dickwad do you ever think that it is your fault because you didn’t reach out to him?

Comment #360: pablo  on  11/06  at  07:42 PM

And, Uhura, this:

Rebecca,

we’re not going to talk if you insist on bastardizing my screen name.

And, as far as I am concerned - you can NEVER receive the right to marry and I’ll be happy just the same.

is why I say you’re operating from feeling rather than thought.  You are willing to deny someone their rights, or to not give a damn about their rights, based on your feelings about them.  Be rational.

Comment #361: INTPagan  on  11/06  at  08:01 PM

After a run in with some racist dickwad do you ever think that it is your fault because you didn’t reach out to him?

Pablo, did you read Pam’s post? She’s a lesbian, so, you know, part of the LGBT community too. “We need to do more outreach” does not mean “Because we didn’t do enough outreach it’s all our fault that black voters supported Prop 8.”

Comment #362: mythago  on  11/06  at  08:04 PM

Rebecca,

we’re not going to talk if you insist on bastardizing my screen name.

And, as far as I am concerned - you can NEVER receive the right to marry and I’ll be happy just the same.

Would you prefer SuperUltraJulie? Or Black American Bigot? You’re certainly no Uhura.

And you’re wrong, in fact - I have the right to marry, but I, unlike you, care about the rights of people other than myself.

Care to address any of my comments?

Comment #363: Rebecca  on  11/06  at  08:06 PM

Wait, Pam’s a lesbian?!?!?!

I’m totally not going to read this blog anymore; teh ghey might be catching.

Comment #364: INTPagan  on  11/06  at  08:07 PM

Definitely Not Uhura: Yep - I ran to the next topic.

Which appears to be: insulting people who don’t flatter you.

Comment #365: Jesurgislac  on  11/06  at  09:26 PM

Would you prefer SuperUltraJulie?


Do I have a stalker?

Lovely!


You’re certainly no Uhura.

But I AM rather attractive. LOL!

Care to address any of my comments? Rebecca on 11/06 at 06:06 PM

Fucks naw….not til you use my screen name.

Comment #366: Uhura!, The Black American Bigot  on  11/06  at  10:18 PM

Jesurgislac wrote:

“John Dias proves blithely unaware that a marriage license is a contract.”

Oh, but it isn’t!  Not since the advent of no-fault divorce.  What good is a contract if neither party can ever be found to be in breach?  That’s the purpose of a prenup, which puts the “oomph” in the contract.  People who just obtain a marriage license are not bound to behave in any way.  Parental rights are also not conferred by a marriage contract, as unmarried parents can stipulate to custody outside of the context of marriage.  Besides, even under “legal” marriage, once one of the parties files for divorce and custody is contested, all bets are off.  The machinery of family court mediators, psych evaluators, CPS, abuse allegations, predilections of judges—all these take over, and it’s like the “contract” of the marriage means nothing.  So don’t assume that a legal marriage gives you more rights to your kids than would be the case with a private marriage.  And above all, don’t blithely assume that a marriage license is the same as a contract.  That is the most uninformed statement I’ve ever read on this topic.  Ask any divorcee whose ex-spouse cheated on them whether they got justice under the so-called marriage contract, and see what you find.  “No-fault” divorce is so-named for a reason.

mythago wrote:

“Okay, John, let me try this again: If people sign contracts, who do you think enforces those contracts or interprets their meaning if there is a disagreement by the parties?”

Yes, contracts are enforced by the government.  That is not in dispute here.  What is in dispute is the notion that no-fault divorce in any way resembles a contract between the parties.  The only thing that does resemble a contract is a pre-nup, and that is best drawn up by a legal professional.  Private marriage encourages people to draw up their own marriage contracts—or to get privately married without a contract (and thus dissolution of the marriage would not fall to a judge).  In either case—prenup with a legal marriage vs. no-nup with a private marriage—both exceed the stability and contractual oversight of a standard no-nup legal marriage.

Rebecca wrote:

“...heteros are never going to give up their right to marry, so the only way to make things equal is to give gay people the same right.

My point is not that legal marriage should or shouldn’t be equal; it’s clearly not equal, and discriminates against gays.  Rather, my point is that legal marriage provides no tangible benefits that could not be obtained through private contracts.  A marriage license affords no benefits, except in the sense that a divorce judge that wants to arbitrarily favor one party over the other can confer some benefits based on whim alone.

Gays who do have the right to legal marriage will find out about the joys of divorce about 4-5 years after their marriage began; that’s the typical lifespan of half of all licensed marriages these days.  Gays—an affluent group—are going to fight for the right to get that license, and then wake up one day wondering what happened to 70 percent of their income.  Thanks to that marriage license, at least one of the two parties benefited.  Straight divorcees have understood these realities, and are rejecting licensed marriage in favor of cohabitation instead.  Gays will soon follow, once they realize that licensed marriage is a HUGE financial risk.

Rebecca also wrote:

“It’s quite a lot of hassle to sign a separate contract for every single right conferred by marriage. Powers of attorney for medical stuff, property things, adoption, etc. etc. ad infinitum. A marriage license is all those contracts in one handy package.”

It’s not a contract.  Those rights are conferred by the state.  If you walk into a marriage just assuming that your rights are protected and the other party’s sexual obligations expected,  you are going to be sadly disappointed.  No right that you assume to be granted solely to married people is so exclusive that it could not be secured through alternative means other than legal marriage.

You just can’t lose by choosing private marriage over legal marriage.  It’s so much more beneficial to all who have something to lose.

Comment #367: John Dias  on  11/06  at  11:03 PM

Dias:

My point is not that legal marriage should or shouldn’t be equal; it’s clearly not equal, and discriminates against gays.  Rather, my point is that legal marriage provides no tangible benefits that could not be obtained through private contracts.  A marriage license affords no benefits, except in the sense that a divorce judge that wants to arbitrarily favor one party over the other can confer some benefits based on whim alone.

So you don’t see anything wrong with making same-sex couples go through a far more arduous legal process to get the same rights? (Yes, I know you favor doing away with the marriage contract altogether. But, as I said, that’s not going to happen, so equality can only be achieved by allowing same-sex couples to marry in the same way as opposite-sex couples.)

Black American Bigot: Blackmail, how thrilling. You do realize blackmail only works if I actually have an interest in having you answer me?

Any Trekkies able to think of a more suitable name for Not-Uhura?

Comment #368: Rebecca  on  11/06  at  11:20 PM

Rebecca:

“So you don’t see anything wrong with making same-sex couples go through a far more arduous legal process to get the same rights?”

I don’t oppose their efforts to obtain marriage licenses.  In fact, I was hoping for Prop. 8 to be defeated, as I said earlier in this thread.  And I also said that equality in terms of access to marriage licenses is not the issue with gays.  They are stigmatized, they know it, they feel it, and they hate it.  Somehow they think it’s going to go away if they can get marriage licenses too, and they’re fools for thinking that.  Not only is it foolish to assume that gay marriage licenses will produce a cascading effect of goodwill and tolerance, but it’s also foolish to assume that obtaining a marriage license will actually improve your life.  Gays who obtain the right to a marriage license—and then get legally married, then divorced—about about to get a nice slice of hell.

But hey, I understand the compulsion to be the architect of one’s own destruction.  It’s never fun to have your options taken away from you, and therefore I don’t blame gays for agitating for their own oppression.  How disappointed they will be when they realize that they, being legally married, will be just as stigmatized as before.  They want to be able to openly say, in mixed company with strangers, “Oh, you’ll never guess what my husband told me on the way home from work yesterday,”  and have it all sound natural.  It won’t sound natural.  That’s the issue.  They’re pinning their hopes on a political objective on the assumption that victory will lead to cultural acceptance.

It will never be over.

Comment #369: John Dias  on  11/07  at  12:08 AM

“Mirror-Universe” Urhura springs to mind, as she’s vicious, unprincipled, turns on you when you least expect it.

John Dias:

They want to be able to openly say, in mixed company with strangers, “Oh, you’ll never guess what my husband told me on the way home from work yesterday,” and have it all sound natural.

I hate to break it to you, but arguing that this thing that has absolutely nothing to do with you is totally all about you isn’t going to convince anyone who isn’t a total fucking dumbshit.

See, it’s going to sound natural to them no matter what Joe Bigot from down the block thinks. Because — and this is key — gays who want to get married are more interested in actually marrying each other than they are in what you think of them marrying each other.

Comment #371: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  11/07  at  02:30 AM

What’s a liberal W?

And for that matter, what’s YT?  You mean like that eighties band?

Comment #372: whut?  on  11/07  at  02:36 AM

“Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster” wrote:

“See, it’s going to sound natural to them no matter what Joe Bigot from down the block thinks. Because — and this is key — gays who want to get married are more interested in actually marrying each other than they are in what you think of them marrying each other.

You’re making this too easy.  If the above statement were true, Nimrod, then WHY DOES IT MATTER WHETHER THEY’RE ALLOWED TO OBTAIN A DAMN MARRIAGE LICENSE???  Huh?

Comment #373: John Dias  on  11/07  at  03:31 AM

John Dias:

You’re making this too easy. If the above statement were true, Nimrod, then WHY DOES IT MATTER WHETHER THEY’RE ALLOWED TO OBTAIN A DAMN MARRIAGE LICENSE??? Huh?

Because if you want to get married, you have to have a marriage license. If you can’t get a marriage license, you can’t get married. If that weren’t the case, there wouldn’t be any point in marriage licenses in the first place, and we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Gays don’t give a fuck whether or not you approve of their desire to get married, or even if you approve of the concept of marriage in general. Because — and here I bluntly rephrase what I said in my previous post — IT’S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU, YOU SELF-OBSESSED LITTLE ASSCHAPEAU.

Also, if you’re going to be condescending, it would help if you weren’t so objectively full of shit. Being a spiteful little fuckstain hellbent on making everyone else just as miserable and pathetic as you are isn’t actually a valid substitute for having the slightest clue what the fuck you’re talking about.

Comment #374: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  11/07  at  05:43 AM

I understand the compulsion to be the architect of one’s own destruction.  It’s never fun to have your options taken away from you, and therefore I don’t blame gays for agitating for their own oppression.  How disappointed they will be when they realize that they, being legally married, will be just as stigmatized as before.  They want to be able to openly say, in mixed company with strangers, “Oh, you’ll never guess what my husband told me on the way home from work yesterday,” and have it all sound natural.  It won’t sound natural. That’s the issue.  They’re pinning their hopes on a political objective on the assumption that victory will lead to cultural acceptance.

It will never be over.

John Dias on 11/06 at 10:08 PM

This comment in interesting…

Could it be that working both angles @ the same time - cultural and legal acceptance - simultaneously is the key?

Thinking about the women’s suffrage movement…

From the legal standpoint: create concrete arguments / presentations based on legal logic centered on marriage being a social right….

From the cultural acceptance standpoint: More prominent gays choosing not stay in the closet…more non gays who are also prominent speaking out on behalf of gays….

“Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster” wrote:

“If you can’t get a marriage license, you can’t get married. If that weren’t the case, there wouldn’t be any point in marriage licenses in the first place, and we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.”

Before the 1900s, there were no marriage licenses.  Before the 1900s, marriage existed.  Therefore, marriage is possible without a marriage license.

The purpose of a license—any license—is to deny something to some people while granting it to others.  Why have a license when you grant it to all comers?

If you decide not to get a marriage license, and get married with a ceremony, will the government burst in during the ceremony and arrest you before you can say “I do?”  No.

If you are denied a marriage license, and get married with a ceremony, will the government burst in during the ceremony and arrest you before you can say “I do?”  No.

If you live as a married couple yet have no marriage license, will the government burst into your bedroom when you’re having sex with your partner?  No.

YOU DON’T NEED A MARRIAGE LICENSE IN ORDER TO GET MARRIED.  That’s the misconception.

I can also tell that you haven’t read this thread.  So I’m going to provide you with a link to a New York Times opinion piece by Stephanie Coontz about the history of government-licensed marriage.  You will see that marriage did not always require a license, needs no license requirement today, and therefore the political furor surrounding this issue is pure symbolism, nothing more:

“Taking Marriage Private”
By Stephanie Coontz
New York Times, Nov. 26 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html

Now take some anger management courses, please.

Comment #376: John Dias  on  11/07  at  12:38 PM

Rather, my point is that legal marriage provides no tangible benefits that could not be obtained through private contracts.

Bull. Social Security benefits, health insurance coverage, tax breaks, inheritance claims, access to housing, and about a thousand things, not to mention transferability between states. Many of those are only given by the government or corporations and can’t be gained through the use of private contracts, and the ones that can cost lost of time and money, which means you leave gay couples paying to obtain a fraction of the rights others are granted for free.

Yes, if the government only issued domestic partnership papers to all couples seeking what we traditionally call a marriage arrangement, and provided the same rights to every couple, then we wouldn’t have a problem. But since we could achieve the same goal, just by allowing gay couples access to marriage, I don’t see the point. The government isn’t going to get out of the marriage business, so you sure sound like you’re arguing that gays should just get over it because they’re not missing out, which, as I’ve said, is total bull.

Judging by the rest of your comments and your obsession with women stealing your money through marriage, etc. I can only conclude that you are a misogynist MRA dickwad, which is why you can’t see straight about equality.

Comment #377: mothworm  on  11/07  at  12:56 PM

Uhura!,

Given some recent comments, I still can’t see where you’ve exactly come over to thinking that gay marriage is hunky-dory, but I wonder if thinking about the general absurdity of how we treat marriage and sex as an aesthetic issue would help.

Years ago, I had a friend, Camille, who was trans—born with a male body, switched to a female one in college. She also dated both men and women. Under marriage laws as they stand, she could have married her girlfriend when she still had an outie, but not after she traded it in for an innie. Conversely, with her lady bits in place, she could now marry any guy she would have been denied when she had guy parts.

Why? Camille was the same human being/entity before and after her transition, but her rights changed as her anatomy changed. Nothing was different about her except for the contours of her flesh. We’re denying equality based on nothing more than topology, which is patently absurd.

Comment #378: mothworm  on  11/07  at  01:10 PM

The purpose of a license—any license—is to deny something to some people while granting it to others.  Why have a license when you grant it to all comers?

But we won’t be. Gay marriage is about extending equality to consenting adults, a point most anti-gay people seem to miss. Marriage licenses would still be denied people under the age of consent. A marriage license means that the government sees you as an adult, able to choose your own spouse and enter into a contract with him or her freely. Unlike now, where gay couples are treated the same as children.

If you decide not to get a marriage license, and get married with a ceremony, will the government burst in during the ceremony and arrest you before you can say “I do?” No.

If you are denied a marriage license, and get married with a ceremony, will the government burst in during the ceremony and arrest you before you can say “I do?” No.

And do you know why that is? Because you and I and the government all know that having a marriage ceremony without a marriage license gets you a big steaming cup of jack squat. It’s meaningless as far as your rights are concerned.

I can hold debates in my back yard, vote for myself in a cardboard box, and declare myself president of the United States, and the government’s not going to come busting down my door, either. But neither will I actually get to run the country (first order of business, reuniting Sleater-Kinney for my inauguration!).

If you live as a married couple yet have no marriage license, will the government burst into your bedroom when you’re having sex with your partner?  No.

They could until recently, and the people voting against marriage equality weren’t happy about that change, either.

Comment #379: mothworm  on  11/07  at  01:20 PM

We’re denying equality based on nothing more than topology, which is patently absurd.

mothworm on 11/07 at 11:10 AM

This is a key point. The above is the way YOU see it. The folks who voted overwhelmingly yes for prop 8 see it another way…

Comment #380: Uhura!  on  11/07  at  01:21 PM

mothworm wrote:

“Social Security benefits, health insurance coverage, tax breaks, inheritance claims, access to housing, and about a thousand things, not to mention transferability between states.”

Half of those things ARE indeed possible through contracts.  The other half—government benefits restricted to legally-recognized marriages—demonstrate discrimination not against gays, but against those who don’t have a marriage license (including single people).  But yes, valid point, there are *some* benefits to marriage, due to government policies that redistribute wealth.  Licensing marriages results in wealth redistribution—whether through alimony or through taxpayer dollars (including the denial of tax breaks to some)—yes, thanks for proving my point about wealth redistribution.

“The government isn’t going to get out of the marriage business…”

I favored Prop. 8.  The issue is not that a political movement needs to overturn existing policies on who is eligible for a marriage license.  I suppose that the shifting sands of public policy will both open and close marriage licensing to at least some group over time.  What I advocate is that people redefine marriage in their own minds.  They can get married and specifically reject the acquisition of a marriage license.  Sure, in a legally-recognized marriage, the lower income earner could divorce the higher earner, and take them for all their worth; that would be a benefit of licensed marriage.  Sure, in a legally-recognized marriage, the government could extend Social Security survivor benefits to a surviving spouse while denying it to an unlicensed surviving spouse.  True, that.

The point is not that I want gays to give up and go home.  I encourage them to change the laws so that all marriages—gay and straight—can be licensed.  But what you don’t understand is that this is not the true goal that gays have!  Imagine that in every state, gay couples were now legally entitled to a marriage license.  Then, religious and conservative groups who oppose gay marriage in principle (if not in law) start to enact a private system that puts their own stamp of approval on marriages, denying gay marriages their recognition.  For example, they could unite and promote the idea that no marriage is legit unless it is a “God-recognized” marriage, or a “Biblical” marriage, or a “Torah-based” marriage, etc.  Culturally, they would have the clout to do this, no matter what the law said about gays’ entitlement to a marriage license.  If this all came to pass, do you think that gays would just sit back and let it go on, without trying to impose some sort of legal penalties on such “anti-gay discrimination?”  No, they wouldn’t leave it alone.

They would sue such groups based on hate crimes legislation.  They would make it a criminal offense for an organization to even mentally discriminate between gay and straight marriages.  They would put people in jail under hate crimes laws simply for speaking out against gay marriages.  Why?  Because gays never thought that obtaining marriage licenses was the end-all, be-all of their agenda.  What they want is to feel like they belong, and they’ll use the hammer of government policy to make people accept them, whether there is any true acceptance or not within people’s hearts.

This is not about equality under the law.  This is about gays trying to use public policy to eliminate stigmatization against homosexuality.  It’s social engineering, and I predict that it will lead to thought crimes which restrict freedom of association, speech, and assembly.

So I don’t begrudge gays their effort to obtain marriage licenses; if they achieved that objective and then quietly went home, I’d be content and happy.  I won’t try to impede them from obtaining that objective, nor do I speak out against it.  But I know they won’t stop at that.  They will only stop when the culture accepts them.  It’s all about the way they are made to feel.  If you disagree with that, then I suppose that we are at basic loggerheads, and the discussion has wound down to the basic premises that underlie our arguments.

Comment #381: John Dias  on  11/07  at  01:23 PM

<blockquoye>This is a key point. The above is the way YOU see it. The folks who voted overwhelmingly yes for prop 8 see it another way…</blockquote>

And…huh? Yes, that’s obviously true, to the point of being not worth mentioning.

I thought we were trying to give you/people similar to you other ways of thinking about marriage equality? I already know they don’t see it the way I do. I posted my little story to see if coming at it from a different vantage point had any affect on your/their thinking.

Comment #382: mothworm  on  11/07  at  01:47 PM

You know what John? I LIKE YOU. You’re not like the other people, here, in the trailer park.

But, do you perhaps know what the QUEERS are doing to the </i>SOIL</i>?

Comment #383: mothworm  on  11/07  at  01:59 PM

John Dias: “Because gays never thought that obtaining marriage licenses was the end-all, be-all of their agenda.  What they want is to feel like they belong, and they’ll use the hammer of government policy to make people accept them, whether there is any true acceptance or not within people’s hearts.”

No doubt gay people want to feel as if they belong. Oh the horror. The notion of using the government to force norms that ought to be private into the public square, however, is a tactic characteristic of conservative opponents of gay rights. And if you really didn’t “begrudge gays their effort to obtain marriage licenses,” you would not have supported Prop. 8. I believe the proposition was a referendum on same-sex marriage and not on speech criminalization - even assuming arguendo that gay rights advocates, were they to have more political power, would behave as despicably as their political opponents, which I highly doubt.

In any case, same-sex marriage should command support from libertarians and many liberals who would not then support the speech criminalization about which you are so worries.

Comment #384: Luke  on  11/07  at  02:44 PM

Mothworm wins the internet.  Forever.

Comment #385: INTPagan  on  11/07  at  03:17 PM

...Wow, you’re an idiot, Dias.

Comment #386: Rebecca  on  11/07  at  07:08 PM

And now I’ll clarify why you are an idiot.

But what you don’t understand is that this is not the true goal that gays have!

[cite sources]

Imagine that in every state, gay couples were now legally entitled to a marriage license.  Then, religious and conservative groups who oppose gay marriage in principle (if not in law) start to enact a private system that puts their own stamp of approval on marriages, denying gay marriages their recognition.  For example, they could unite and promote the idea that no marriage is legit unless it is a “God-recognized” marriage, or a “Biblical” marriage, or a “Torah-based” marriage, etc.  Culturally, they would have the clout to do this, no matter what the law said about gays’ entitlement to a marriage license.

And there are plenty of straight liberals and moderates who wouldn’t bother, so this is kinda BS.

Why?  Because gays never thought that obtaining marriage licenses was the end-all, be-all of their agenda.  What they want is to feel like they belong, and they’ll use the hammer of government policy to make people accept them, whether there is any true acceptance or not within people’s hearts.

This is not about equality under the law.  This is about gays trying to use public policy to eliminate stigmatization against homosexuality.  It’s social engineering, and I predict that it will lead to thought crimes which restrict freedom of association, speech, and assembly.

So I don’t begrudge gays their effort to obtain marriage licenses; if they achieved that objective and then quietly went home, I’d be content and happy.  I won’t try to impede them from obtaining that objective, nor do I speak out against it.  But I know they won’t stop at that.  They will only stop when the culture accepts them.  It’s all about the way they are made to feel. If you disagree with that, then I suppose that we are at basic loggerheads, and the discussion has wound down to the basic premises that underlie our arguments.

In what ways is this not exactly like a struggle for religious or racial tolerance?
1. Why don’t gay people have a right to feel like they belong?
2. How would “thoughtcrime” against gay people be different from “thoughtcrime” against people of a certain race or religion? (Also, thoughtcrime: Does not mean what you think it means.)
3. How magnanimous of you, you’ll let them have marriage licenses. Civil rights don’t end there, you know. Gay people do not have an obligation to keep you comfortable with your denial to them of civil rights.

And for discoball’s sake [cite sources].

Comment #387: Rebecca  on  11/07  at  07:36 PM

What is in dispute is the notion that no-fault divorce in any way resembles a contract between the parties.

Divorce is not a contract. Divorce is a lawsuit that is intended to dissolve the marital relationship. “No-fault” means that the party filing the lawsuit does not have to prove that the other party did bad things (like adultery) that caused the marriage to collapse.

What you’re probably thinking of is the award of property and custody. That is dictated by the fact that the parties got married, which means that they entered into an economic partnership governed by specific laws. For example, when you marry in California, you are agreeing that any assets acquired during the marriage (roughly - there are exceptions) become the common property of both of you. The divorce doesn’t create “community property”. The marriage did that.

Nothing prevents you from moving in with your SO and creating contracts that dictate division of property and expenses should the relationship cease.

Comment #388: mythago  on  11/07  at  08:25 PM

Uhura writes:
“I notice that the White people here ask questions about why Black people think ABC and do XYZ and then they listen to the other White people who come in and speculate….not many Blacks here to talk to…and then on top of it, their words are skipped right over when they do say something.”

“Furthermore: When people start waxing on about how anti gay marriage laws are reminiscent of anti miscegenation laws and / or making comparisons between racism and anti homosexual sentiments, my hearing gets turned off.”

I’m a 53-year-old black, southern woman. I proudly identify myself as a feminist. I am spiritual but I don’t attend church regularly. However, unlike Uhura, my hearing is just fine and discrimination is discrimination no matter what disguise it may wear. Gay rights are a civil rights issue. Denying people basic civil liberties based on sexual orientation is just as discriminatory as denying rights based on skin color, ethnicity, age, disability, national origin, socioeconomic class, or religious belief.

Indeed, the very act of demanding that people convince you as to why they are entitled to the same protections under the law as you are entitled to is in and of itself, discrimination. No one has to justify why they are deserving of civil rights. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence that sets out the founding principals of this country presents that these rights are “Inalienable.” They cannot be taken away because they are not conveyed; they are each and every person’s entitlement as a human being. Don’t worry, I’m quite aware that the fulfillment of the promise of the Declaration and subsequently our Constitution has been an ongoing and sometimes sluggish process, but the ideology is clear.

No group of people has to justify why they are entitled to the same rights experienced by the majority. It is the responsibility of the majority to specifically delineate the basis for any restriction on those rights. That’s the basis for our entire legal system. If someone is accused of violating a law, that person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is only when a jury of ones’ peers determines that one is guilty of the allegations against him or her that the person’s civil liberties are suspended.

Uhura offers no basis for suspending the civil rights of an entire class of people based on their sexual orientation other than that she just isn’t in favor of the idea of gay marriage or the adoption of children by gay parents.

“I really have a hard time expressing exactly why…”

I find this exceptionally lazy. If you are going to express your believe that some people are not entitled to the same freedoms that you enjoy, you should at least make the effort to articulate the basis for your bigotry. Because it is bigotry and if you espouse such beliefs then you are a bigot.

Uhura’s type of rhetoric is only designed to make her feel justified in her bigotry, to be able to tell herself that she isn’t a bigot; it’s those gay people who can’t even justify why they should be allowed to get married or adopt children. No one has to justify why he or she is entitled to the same freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution to everyone.

Discriminating against the LGBT community is a civil rights issue, just like racial discrimination is a civil rights issue. No sane person would ever ask me to offer reasons why I am entitled to the same rights as white people. So Uhura, I offer you some choices: (1) you are insane; (2) you are a bigot; or (3) you are an insane bigot. You choose, but please stop running around pretending that you offer the black perspective.

Certainly there is a larger focus in segments of the black community on anti-gay sentiment and as Pam points out, there needs to be some serious strategizing as to how to ameliorate the bias. I also agree that the debate needs to be reframed to focus not on religious believes but on access to equal rights and equal treatment under the law.

Uhura, just so we are clear, I am not gay. I normally don’t identify my sexual orientation except to people with whom I intend to have sex, but given your demonstrated proclivities for labeling any black person who disagrees with you as only doing so because they have a secret gay agenda, I want to make it perfectly clear that the only agenda that I have is one that recognizes that to discriminate against any person is to lessen the integrity of us all.

Comment #389: Sheria  on  11/08  at  10:40 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.