Same Sex Marriage

hi dasha! good to see you here as well. always great to get the perspective of someone new to a discussion. I've never understood why same sex marriage would be considered a problem - from my perspective any stable relationship should be celebrated and encouraged.

This is better...

Much.

I guess it is valuable to be reminded of the truly flabbergasting way some people still think in this day and age, but it is not particularly pleasant.

"but it is not particularly pleasant."
yeah its totally freakin' bizarre

howdy neighbor. yep, only the best for all humankind i say. we, select slovaks, bear the cross. ahh, sweet martyrdom.

eh, must still learn to manipulate this thing. it posts itself whenever it desires. well, people are fascinating. what intrigues me most is the people who identify themselves with a group of people that has suffered greatly in the past and gets all worked up about that (rightfully)... just to turn around and dismiss rights of other entire groups of people. weird.

Hi all,

Jeezo,..guess I opened pandora's box with the whole parade thing.
(I only said that I didn't understand the parades, not that they were a bad thing.)

I've read through the pages since my last visit, and actually think it's kind of funny.

In the end, this battle is fought (and will be finished) on a personal level.

First off, I hate the term "Gay Rights", it is terribly misquoted and really makes it seem like a seperate issue for Gay people. The reality is that we just want the same rights as everyone else,...meaning: That in the eyes of the government, we should have the same opportunities as all citizens have the right to.
Marriage is one of those rights.
We are (I believe) a high earning, tax paying part of the population.
The "rights" being sought really have very little (or nothing) to do with sex,..yet for a lot of people, the thought of the sex becomes the deciding issue. It's a shame,..that's not how it's supposed to work.

News Flash: Lot's of clouded issues here!, But as I mentioned earlier, things are getting better. It's just going to take time.

Here are some other thoughts:

I think that many parents bring their kids to the parades to encourage tolerance, to expose them to other kinds of people so that as they grow up those people will not be part of the "fear of the unknown".

I feel bad for streissd, I don't think he's a bigot. I do think that his posts get misunderstood as his English is very formal. (not being critical, but the "matter of fact", "formal frankness" can read as a bit cold.)

And,..the whole "nature/nurture" issue, well I just don't know. I, personally, never met another gay man, til the first one I dated,..and I actively sought that out,..I knew what I wanted. I've known where my attractions lie, ever since I can remember. It's not something I learned, or something I'd like to change.
I'm sure that's not true of all people, but how many of you were "taught" to be straight. If you were, so was I,.. but I guess I didn't pay enough attention


All for now,..I'll be back.

Hi dagmaraka,..welcome!!

Nice to meet you!

Did you come to the dance late? :wink: Nothing I have said could remotely be construed as suggesting that I care what goes on in other people's bedrooms. You need to go back and read with more care.

Specifically this:


And this:


I'm sure you didn't intend to misrepresent my point of view, but you did. Hope this clears it up, but if not, ask me a more specific question and we'll pin it down and make it clear.

I wish to go beyond the gay issues in "Same Sex Marriage" and cover a more basic belief I have on this issue.

There are many home relationships where sisters live together - one tending the home and one going to work, or

Where two close friends live for life - together, or

any other matchups - whatever. A simple statement that this is the relationship they wish as a permanent relationship should gain them all the benefits of marriage - period. It is choice and there should be no penalties, and no one creating obstacles to their life and life styles - this includes insurance, head of household, and any other bonifides, period - no questions asked.

Thanks, as to the gay issue - get a life people, leave everyone to live as they wish. gees!

Have a good day - one and all!

tres, I owe you my apologies for misrepresenting your post. I changed it from your "learned" to my "is it forced?" Not a fair way to interpret what you wrote. Your other postings should have clued me as to the meaning. As I've admitted to others on A2K that I have "foot in mouth disease," and it was working over time on several forums today. c.i.

I think JerryR said it best; it's not something he learned, and more importantly, he thinks this whole thing is kind of funny. c.i.

ci - No apology needed. As I wrote, I am sure it was not intentional. Oh, and in case I didn't split the hair clearly enough, I was trying to make a delineation between the gay lifestyle and engaging in homosexual partnerships or pairings. The former I take to mean the elements of gay culture; culture is learned. The latter I believe is innate to varying degrees in all human beings.

BillW - Hang on to your hat for this one... I agree with you completely. :wink: In fact, if government is going to recognize committed unions (marriages), I tend to think they should do so for any group of consenting adults; whether 2 men, 2 women, or 3 women and 2 men. Any number of consenting adults who wish to share their domicile and express a long-term commitment to each other, why should anyone stand in their way?

Of course, the libertarian in me says that the government shouldn't be involved in the first place, but if they are (and they are) let's have them err on the side of greatest liberty and least intrusion into the lives of law abiding adults.

Tres

Good man!...to err on the side of greatest liberty is indeed the direction we must move to assure a continuance of that liberty.

We have a pride parade here in Vancouver each summer as well. I never miss it, in part because the route passes immediately below my deck...but I wouldn't miss it anyway. It is the most lively, light-hearted, fun parade by a squillion miles. Our deck is normally packed with a dozen or two friends and relatives cheering on the madness below.

My daughter has as many gay friends as straight. To either of us, or to any of our friends, the sexual preference of others has no more relevance than hair color or astrological sign. It is just completely unimportant.

But to those who are gay, it is not so simple a matter. There is still a substantial and consequential amount of unthinking and dogmatic prejudice - even hatred - against them. The parades, the flags, all the trappings of 'pride' are as justifiable and as understandable as were the women's parades for sufferage.

Hi JerryR, the pleasure is all mine. But I don't know about the question of gay rights as being merely based on individual basis (I assume that's what you suggest: every person should possess the same amount of rights?) Sounds great in theory, but in practice there have always been groups that were discriminated against, due to prevailing culture, stereotypes, ideology, what have you. That is precisely why we Europeans (and e.g. Africans, but not the U.S.) are more inclined to acknowledge and implement (especially since Vienna Congress in 1993) collective, or group rights : women rights, children rights, gay rights, linguistic rights of national minorities... It is not that they are any 'extra' rights, they merely represent a group of rights that need to be enforced to make up for the gap caused by previous discrimination or non-implementation of some rights. Some groups are simply more vulnerable than others and have similar needs. As gays do. Thus I am more inclined to see this group as a social entity rather than just a bunch of people with the same sex orientation. There is more to that then just sex... somebody stop me, am i making some sense? I worked for years in a human rights non-governmental organization in Slovakia, for one year helping the Initiative Otherness (gays and lesbian associations in Slovakia trying to get at least some basic legal recognition - as there is absolutely no legal protection or even acknowledgment of gays in slovak legislature, and many others I'm certain), thus I have this academic human rights bias.

dagmaraka - Here in the US everyone has the same rights. The Constitution guarantees it, and in fact, forbids the doling out of special rights for this or that group. That the rights some individuals already have are not upheld or defended is no reason to pass new laws reasserting those rights. (What an empty gesture that is.) What we must ensure is that every individual's rights are protected and defended. Period.

Think of it this way: We have laws against murder here in the US. Nobody looks at the fact that murder still occurs and argues that we need another law against murder. Instead we prosecute those that break the existing law.

tres: yes and no, we still have abject discrimination against gays in areas like housing and employment and i am sure other instances that are not addressed in current legislation. i do agree that there should be no catagory for "special" but there does need to be prohibitions that protect the rights of all.

dys - Sorry, but our Constitution requires the laws to be applied equally to all, not just to all straight people. What is needed is stern treatment of--up to and including prosecution--anyone who denies someone his or her rights based on sexual preference. Passing another law does nothing if someone is already breaking existing law. Enforce the law and the Constitution fairly for all. No special group needs special rights when all citizens are guaranteed the same rights.

tres: as i understand it (i have been wrong before) its currently legal to deny housing or employment on the basis of sexual orientation. that is not equal treatment.

When the minority is overridden in America by the majority (under the protection of the constitution), it is the responsiblity of the government to protect the minority - thus the liberal government view.