Discussion kickstarted by the "Presidential Poll" thread

[Major Tyler]

Gay Rights. This has been (falliciously) compared to the Civil Rights struggles of the 50's and 60's. Gay people haven't been prevented from marriage at all. A gay man can get married to any woman that will have him. The "right" in question is a change in the previously accepted definition of marriage. This too should be put before the initiative, and it should be handled within the confines of the states.

Wow...how arrogant and offensive is that?! It's true that gay men (and gay women) haven't been prevented from marriage, they've just been prevented from marrying who they want to marry. Self-determination and free will are pretty important things to Americans if you'll recall our history. How is this any different than preventing an interracial marriage? If someone said "a black man can get married to any black woman that would have him" would you support that?

[Darth Buddha]

Gay Rights. This has been (falliciously) compared to the Civil Rights struggles of the 50's and 60's. Gay people haven't been prevented from marriage at all. A gay man can get married to any woman that will have him.

Wow...how arrogant and offensive is that?! It's true that gay men (and gay women) haven't been prevented from marriage, they've just been prevented from marrying who they want to marry. Self-determination and free will are pretty important things to Americans if you'll recall our history. How is this any different than preventing an interracial marriage? If someone said "a black man can get married to any black woman that would have him" would you support that?

In fact, that's exactly what racists said to justify their laws precluding interracial marriages!

Thanks, uknesvuinng, for bringing us the KKK mentality updated with 21st century sensibilities! In the 1800's to early 1900's, if you were black, you were less than human. Now if you are gay you are less than human. Gotta love it.

[uknesvuinng]

I never said any such thing about homosexuals being less than human. During the Civil Rights era, black people were prevented by law from eating at the same part of resturants as whites. They had to go to different schools. They even had to use a seperate water fountain. Stuff that they were allowed to do, there was a massive effort to prevent them from doing it. Gay rights on the other hand boil down mostly to having the definition of marriage include same-sex couples. I do not state that they are less than human, nor do I state that anyone has the right to prevent them from seeking that opportunity. However, they are hardly as oppressed as some people would have the world believe. Ultimately, this issue should be handled on a state-by-state basis (as marriage has always been) and we should stop trying to legislate non-constitutional matters with the Supreme Court. The definition of marriage is determined by the state, and we should keep it that way.

Buddha, you surprise me sticking words in my mouth. After having so many do such a thing to you, I find it odd that you would be so quick to commit the same action. I realize however that, in my brevity, I probably did a poor job of fully explaining what I meant. Hopefully this will clear it up.

Personally, I expected to get slammed for what I said about abortion. I realized as I was going to sleep last night that I did a horrible job explaining what I meant on that.

[spg_1983]

I never said any such thing about homosexuals being less than human. During the Civil Rights era, black people were prevented by law from eating at the same part of resturants as whites. They had to go to different schools. They even had to use a seperate water fountain. Stuff that they were allowed to do, there was a massive effort to prevent them from doing it. Gay rights on the other hand boil down mostly to having the definition of marriage include same-sex couples. I do not state that they are less than human, nor do I state that anyone has the right to prevent them from seeking that opportunity. However, they are hardly as oppressed as some people would have the world believe. Ultimately, this issue should be handled on a state-by-state basis (as marriage has always been) and we should stop trying to legislate non-constitutional matters with the Supreme Court. The definition of marriage is determined by the state, and we should keep it that way.

Buddha, you surprise me sticking words in my mouth. After having so many do such a thing to you, I find it odd that you would be so quick to commit the same action. I realize however that, in my brevity, I probably did a poor job of fully explaining what I meant. Hopefully this will clear it up.

Personally, I expected to get slammed for what I said about abortion. I realized as I was going to sleep last night that I did a horrible job explaining what I meant on that.

hardly oppressed? are you for real? gay men and women are discriminated against every single day. they are denied jobs and benefits that straight people get, they are treated like second class citizens by large swaths of the population, they are attack and persecuted daily. if you truly believe that gays are not discriminated against and persecuted, then go to any town in the south or texas and openly declare you are a homosexual. you would be lucky to live the rest of the day.

[Major Tyler]

they are hardly as oppressed as some people would have the world believe.

Even if what you say is true (and it's not), does it really matter how oppressed they are? Are there degrees of acceptable oppression? Hell no.

Buddha, you surprise me sticking words in my mouth. After having so many do such a thing to you, I find it odd that you would be so quick to commit the same action.

Oh, please! He quoted exactly what you said...and so did I. It was offensive at best, and hateful at worst. Now if I said you had a poster of Hitler on your wall you could object, but (a la Weir/Carter) I would never say that...

[uknesvuinng]

hardly oppressed? are you for real? gay men and women are discriminated against every single day. they are denied jobs and benefits that straight people get, they are treated like second class citizens by large swaths of the population, they are attack and persecuted daily. if you truly believe that gays are not discriminated against and persecuted, then go to any town in the south or texas and openly declare you are a homosexual. you would be lucky to live the rest of the day.

Actually, I live in the south. Small town at that. And I know they do get mistreated, but not to the degree that it occurred in the Civil Rights era. I haven't heard of any gay segregation going on. Haven't seen any of them beaten by police or a gay pride march treated like a riot situation. The discrimination against gays is hardly the organized massive efforts that were seen in the Civil Rights era. I don't deny that it exists, but it certainly hasn't hit that level.

[sueKay]

uknesvuinng - I'd suggest you think before you post...I found your post a tad offensive...I mean I'm neither gay nor needing an abortion, but I have several gay friends and a few friends who have had abortions who would probably find your post very offensive.

Gay marriages - Why should a piece of government legislation stop people from marrying who they want??? Love is all that matters on the question of marriage. If two men love each other, or if two women love each other, why should someone else have a say in the matter? How would you like it if the State wouldn't let you marry the person you loved because it was considered to be outwith the (outdated) norms of society. Society isn't stagnant, yet most of the laws on things such as married haven't been updated or reviewed in decades (bar little things here and there). And I welcome any move towards further social integration...gay marriage being one of them.

And abortion isn't a black and white issue...There's all sorts legitimate reasons for and against abortion. There is no right or wrong answer. It's true that abortion is seen as a convenience for some people, but what about others whose lives would be endangered by going to full term with a baby? There's other examples too, but I've babbled enough.

Sorry about the length

[uknesvuinng]

Even if what you say is true (and it's not), does it really matter how oppressed they are? Are there degrees of acceptable oppression? Hell no.Oh, please! He quoted exactly what you said...and so did I. It was offensive at best, and hateful at worst. Now if I said you had a poster of Hitler on your wall you could object, but (a la Weir/Carter) I would never say that...

I was compared to the KKK, and it was said that I thought of gays as less than human. Neither of these statements are true. My entire point is that gay marriage shouldn't be such a big national issue, and instead should be handled within the states. The statement was a little bold I suppose, but my point was that the definition should be handled through other channels before taking it to the Supreme Court. In fact, it is being handled in other channels and I have no issue with that. I'm fine with gays having marriage or a marriage equivalent.

On the subject of adoption, I would like to see some studies on how the environment affects child development before I make any decisions. A child learns a lot about relating to men and women from his father and mother. A two mother or two father situation is going to have different dynamics.

I'm honestly not trying to be inflammatory in any manner here. Perhaps I should have saved my thoughts for another time and thread.

[dosed150]

so what your basically saying is gays cant adopt cos then the kids would be gay isnt that a bit offensive ok a lot offensive

[spg_1983]

Actually, I live in the south. Small town at that. And I know they do get mistreated, but not to the degree that it occurred in the Civil Rights era. I haven't heard of any gay segregation going on. Haven't seen any of them beaten by police or a gay pride march treated like a riot situation. The discrimination against gays is hardly the organized massive efforts that were seen in the Civil Rights era. I don't deny that it exists, but it certainly hasn't hit that level.

The only reason that it doesnt happen to the obvious public degree as during the black civil rights movement is because so many gays are forced to hide their sexuality to avoid persecution. blacks obviously do not have that choice. but the very fact that so many gays must hide reenforces the fact that the problem is just as widespread. you're right, segregation is not as prevalent as during the black civil rights movement, but thats because gays are just denied opportunites and rights period, no alternative. I have seen first hand gay pride marches being treated like riots. i have been it by stones thrown at gay rights marchers, ive been involved in fights trying to help gays when they get jumped by people, civilian and police and beaten half to death. most of these cases go unreported because the gays dont want to be attack again in revenge. most gays are too afraid to admit they are gay and what is worse, open persecution or persecution so bad that people are forced to hide and deny themselves? the only difference between the black movement and gay movement is that gays can, and are forced to, hide and blacks cannot.

[uknesvuinng]

uknesvuinng - I'd suggest you think before you post...I found your post a tad offensive...I mean I'm neither gay nor needing an abortion, but I have several gay friends and a few friends who have had abortions who would probably find your post very offensive.

Gay marriages - Why should a piece of government legislation stop people from marrying who they want??? Love is all that matters on the question of marriage. If two men love each other, or if two women love each other, why should someone else have a say in the matter? How would you like it if the State wouldn't let you marry the person you loved because it was considered to be outwith the (outdated) norms of society. Society isn't stagnant, yet most of the laws on things such as married haven't been updated or reviewed in decades (bar little things here and there). And I welcome any move towards further social integration...gay marriage being one of them.

And abortion isn't a black and white issue...There's all sorts legitimate reasons for and against abortion. There is no right or wrong answer. It's true that abortion is seen as a convenience for some people, but what about others whose lives would be endangered by going to full term with a baby? There's other examples too, but I've babbled enough.

Sorry about the length

I was a bit sleepy and that apparently destroyed my ability to communicate clearly.

The definition of marriage has to be handled in these matters. Marriage for the sake of love is actually a very recent concept. I once read an article that suggested that the failure of many marriages comes from expectations that are too high. There have to be other limiting factors besides love, or it's not an entirely ridiculous arguement to allow an adult and child to marry, or more than 2 people to marry. Society is fluid, but it's still what binds us together and allows us to co-exist with each other, as well as determines quite a bit of our person.

If we ban abortion, those who desire to have abortions (for whatever reason) will be prevented from having them. If abortion is allowed, those who believe it to be murder would certainly (and rightly for them) feel as if the government is failing to protect the most innocent citizens of all. To be fair, a representative government must either represent the majority of society, or represent all sides equally. If introduced by initiative, or given to the public by referendum, the American public can make its decision and there's not much room for complaint from either side (though I expect there still would be some). The issue of abortion is moral. I think and feel moral issues should be handled by the public concensus, and not by the courts.

[uknesvuinng]

so what your basically saying is gays cant adopt cos then the kids would be gay isnt that a bit offensive ok a lot offensive

I never said anything like that. I said I'd have to see some facts on it before I made any kind of decision. I feel I'm not well enough informed on that particular matter to have any opinion. The family unit is an important thing in the structure of society, and should not be handled in a flippant manner.

[uknesvuinng]

The only reason that it doesnt happen to the obvious public degree as during the black civil rights movement is because so many gays are forced to hide their sexuality to avoid persecution. blacks obviously do not have that choice. but the very fact that so many gays must hide reenforces the fact that the problem is just as widespread. you're right, segregation is not as prevalent as during the black civil rights movement, but thats because gays are just denied opportunites and rights period, no alternative. I have seen first hand gay pride marches being treated like riots. i have been it by stones thrown at gay rights marchers, ive been involved in fights trying to help gays when they get jumped by people, civilian and police and beaten half to death. most of these cases go unreported because the gays dont want to be attack again in revenge. most gays are too afraid to admit they are gay and what is worse, open persecution or persecution so bad that people are forced to hide and deny themselves? the only difference between the black movement and gay movement is that gays can, and are forced to, hide and blacks cannot.

I suppose it comes down to our perspectives. You make some excellent points about the ability to hide their orientation. From my own perspective (mostly a garnering of information from the culture around me and from the various media outlets) homosexuals don't seem highly oppressed, and in fact it seems somewhat "chic" (for lack of a better word). You've been down in the trenches, so I imagine you've had more opportunity to see the personal attacks than I. I would expect mass oppression to make the news, even with such fears of reprisal, but I would think it possible that some could make it under the radar. Ultimately, as Tyler said, the level of oppression doesn't matter. But oppression is something we will always have to deal with in some form, and legislation isn't going to fix it. It takes a change in the society. Laws reflect the society, they don't change it.

[uknesvuinng]

Hopefully I've explained myself. I recall that the thread isn't really supposed to go into a political discussion, so if anyone wants to continue discussing, I can PM you my email. If it's enough people, we can always start a new thread.

[spg_1983]

I suppose it comes down to our perspectives. You make some excellent points about the ability to hide their orientation. From my own perspective (mostly a garnering of information from the culture around me and from the various media outlets) homosexuals don't seem highly oppressed, and in fact it seems somewhat "chic" (for lack of a better word). You've been down in the trenches, so I imagine you've had more opportunity to see the personal attacks than I. I would expect mass oppression to make the news, even with such fears of reprisal, but I would think it possible that some could make it under the radar. Ultimately, as Tyler said, the level of oppression doesn't matter. But oppression is something we will always have to deal with in some form, and legislation isn't going to fix it. It takes a change in the society. Laws reflect the society, they don't change it.

Laws force change to come about. left to its own momentum society would never change, but by making laws it forces society to change itself.